It Discuss:
- What Makes a Good Research Publication?
- Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
- What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
- Quick Tips for Effective Research Writing
There are some common criteria you should consider when choosing a journal to publish in. Once you have a publication strategy in place, choose journals that meet all of your criteria.
Through the course of your research, right until you get your your paper published, there will be several individuals who have contributed to your research project in different ways. However, not all of these individuals can be considered as authors of your paper. So who qualifies as an author on your manuscript?
This slide deck will clarify who is an author, who does not qualify as an author of your paper and also three unethical authorship-related practices that you must avoid.
Predatory journals actively solicit manuscripts from researchers but lack proper peer review and editorial boards. They often publish low-quality papers solely to charge publication fees without providing legitimate scholarly services. Researchers should be wary of these journals as publishing in them can corrupt the academic literature and mislead others about the quality of their work. Various studies have exposed predatory journals by getting computer-generated nonsense papers and unqualified scientists accepted. Scholars can check for warning signs like missing or fake editorial boards, poor website quality, and surprise article fees to identify potentially predatory journals.
This document discusses scientific misconduct and responsible research practices. It defines scientific misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in research. This includes making up data, manipulating research materials to misrepresent results, and using other's ideas without credit. Responsible research involves following approved protocols, protecting participants, accurately recording and sharing results, and publishing ethically. Maintaining integrity is important to ensure reliable research and public trust.
The essential mission of SRGE toward the research and education in Egypt is to foster learning and promoting research integrity in the current and next generation of researchers in Egypt. SRGE is rededicating itself to this fundamental purpose.
This document provides an overview of various bibliometric products and metrics that can be used to measure research impact, including journal impact factor, h-index, citation counts, and journal/article ranking tools from Journal Citation Reports, Scopus, and Google Scholar. It discusses the purpose and calculations of metrics like impact factor, eigenfactor, and source normalized impact per paper (SNIP). It also covers limitations of bibliometrics and recommends using multiple metrics and tools to evaluate research. Exercises are provided to help understand how to analyze journals, articles, and individual researchers using different bibliometric resources.
There are some common criteria you should consider when choosing a journal to publish in. Once you have a publication strategy in place, choose journals that meet all of your criteria.
Through the course of your research, right until you get your your paper published, there will be several individuals who have contributed to your research project in different ways. However, not all of these individuals can be considered as authors of your paper. So who qualifies as an author on your manuscript?
This slide deck will clarify who is an author, who does not qualify as an author of your paper and also three unethical authorship-related practices that you must avoid.
Predatory journals actively solicit manuscripts from researchers but lack proper peer review and editorial boards. They often publish low-quality papers solely to charge publication fees without providing legitimate scholarly services. Researchers should be wary of these journals as publishing in them can corrupt the academic literature and mislead others about the quality of their work. Various studies have exposed predatory journals by getting computer-generated nonsense papers and unqualified scientists accepted. Scholars can check for warning signs like missing or fake editorial boards, poor website quality, and surprise article fees to identify potentially predatory journals.
This document discusses scientific misconduct and responsible research practices. It defines scientific misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in research. This includes making up data, manipulating research materials to misrepresent results, and using other's ideas without credit. Responsible research involves following approved protocols, protecting participants, accurately recording and sharing results, and publishing ethically. Maintaining integrity is important to ensure reliable research and public trust.
The essential mission of SRGE toward the research and education in Egypt is to foster learning and promoting research integrity in the current and next generation of researchers in Egypt. SRGE is rededicating itself to this fundamental purpose.
This document provides an overview of various bibliometric products and metrics that can be used to measure research impact, including journal impact factor, h-index, citation counts, and journal/article ranking tools from Journal Citation Reports, Scopus, and Google Scholar. It discusses the purpose and calculations of metrics like impact factor, eigenfactor, and source normalized impact per paper (SNIP). It also covers limitations of bibliometrics and recommends using multiple metrics and tools to evaluate research. Exercises are provided to help understand how to analyze journals, articles, and individual researchers using different bibliometric resources.
Violation of publication ethics can take several forms, including data manipulation, duplicate publication, simultaneous submission, plagiarism, and salami slicing. Upholding publication ethics is important to establish the integrity and credibility of scholarly research. It is the responsibility of authors to avoid fabricating or manipulating data, plagiarizing, submitting manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously, or including guest authors who did not meaningfully contribute. Organizations like COPE and ICMJE provide guidelines to help authors, editors, and reviewers maintain high standards of ethical publication practices.
This document discusses journal performance metrics available through Journal Citation Reports on the ISI Web of Knowledge. It defines common metrics like the Journal Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Journal Cited Half-Life, Eigenfactor Score, and Article Influence Score which provide objective means for evaluating leading academic journals. Additional information and questions about Journal Citation Reports can be directed to Linda Galloway.
COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018 will feature an interactive cases workshop on publication ethics. The agenda includes an introduction to COPE, case presentations, table discussions of the cases, and a review of the cases. COPE promotes integrity in research and publication by assisting editors through policies and practices reflecting transparency and integrity principles. COPE describes its core practices for preserving scholarly integrity. The workshop will use real cases submitted to COPE's forum to demonstrate how editors can handle ethics issues like authorship disputes, plagiarism allegations, and data manipulation claims. Attendees will discuss potential responses to each case in small groups.
The document discusses publication misconduct, complaints, and appeals. It defines publication misconduct and explains why it is a problem. The various forms of misconduct are identified such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and authorship issues. Methods for identifying and preventing misconduct like utilizing plagiarism detection software and transparent reporting are presented. The process for publication complaints is outlined including how complaints can arise and the steps in the complaint process. Publication appeals are defined and the steps in the appeal process like submitting the appeal and editorial review are described. Finally, the importance of uniform publication ethics standards for all peer-reviewed journals is emphasized.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
Dividing a research study into multiple small publications, known as "salami slicing", is considered an unethical practice. It dilutes the visibility of the overall research and makes it harder for other researchers to grasp the full significance of the work. However, in some cases where a research project involves different groups across disciplines studying a wide range of topics, publishing multiple related studies can be justified to disseminate findings to various audiences. The goal should be conveying the overall impact of the extensive work, not fabricating extra conclusions or citations.
The document discusses bibliometrics and two common metrics used to evaluate research impact - the H-index and Journal Impact Factor. It defines the H-index as a measure of an individual researcher's productivity and citation impact, calculated based on the number of papers and citations. It also explains that the Journal Impact Factor measures the frequency with which an average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. The document provides examples and limitations of both metrics and resources to calculate them.
CONTENTS :
INTRODUCTION
TRANSPARENCY
PROMOTING RESEARCH INTEGRITY
EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
RESPONSIBLE PUBLICATION PRACTICES
OWNERSHIP OF IDEAS AND EXPRESSION
This document discusses predatory publishing, which involves dishonest publishers exploiting the open-access model by publishing counterfeit journals to dupe researchers into paying publication fees without providing expected services like peer review or visibility. It provides tips to help researchers identify predatory publishers, such as checking tools like Beall's list or asking colleagues about journal quality and impact. Various types of deceptive publishing practices are described, and criteria for evaluating publishers' legitimacy are outlined.
This document provides an overview of bibliometrics and research metrics. It discusses what bibliometrics are and how they can be used to analyze the strengths of research, determine investment opportunities, and identify rising researchers. Common metrics like citation counts, h-index, CiteScore, SNIP, and SJR are explained. The importance of using multiple metrics and qualitative input is stressed. Sources of citation data like Scopus and Web of Science are also summarized.
When publishing research, one needs to be aware of all such actions that are unethical and hence, must be avoided. This presentation gives an overview of the topic.
Predatory journals prioritize self-interest over scholarship. They do not conduct proper peer review and instead offer quick publication for a fee without editing. In contrast, legitimate open access journals maintain high standards. It is important to check if a journal is indexed in reputable databases like DOAJ or has an impact factor from JCR. Potential predatory journals can be identified using lists from Beall's or Cabell's. Librarians can help determine if a journal is predatory by investigating the publisher, editorial board, and review process.
This document provides information about publishing research in journals. It discusses the reasons for writing research articles, such as sharing data and knowledge. It describes the different types of articles, including full articles, letters, and reviews. The document outlines the structure of research articles, including sections like the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. It provides recommendations for writing style and formatting academic texts in English. Finally, it covers topics like choosing a journal to submit to, the evaluation and review process, impact factors, and ethical guidelines.
This document provides guidance on how to choose the right journal for publication. It discusses factors to consider such as journal visibility, costs, prestige, and speed of publication. It distinguishes between open access journals, which charge article processing fees, and traditional closed access journals, which are only accessible through subscriptions. The document also warns about predatory journals and provides tips for identifying them, such as checking for standard identifiers and transparency about fees. Overall, the key factors discussed are journal visibility, costs, prestige, speed of publication, and avoiding predatory journals.
This document provides an overview of citation indexing and describes some key tools and concepts. Citation indexing traces the use of ideas across research by identifying papers that cite older publications. The Institute for Scientific Information pioneered citation indexing databases like the Web of Science. While comprehensive, the WoS has limitations in coverage of non-English language and developing world journals. The Indian Citation Index was created to index more Indian publications and support research evaluation in India. Impact factors are calculated based on citations in the Journal Citation Reports to measure journal influence.
The document discusses the process of publishing scientific papers, including tips for writing and submitting research. It notes that scientific papers are intended to share original research with other scientists and involve peer review. The five steps of publication are outlined as preparing the paper, identifying the appropriate journal, rechecking the paper, submitting it, and addressing feedback. Key tips include focusing on innovative aspects, clearly structuring the paper, using appropriate methodologies, and being patient during the writing and review process.
The document discusses citation indexing. It defines citation indexing as a process that detects relationships between documents through citations. When one document cites another document, there is a conceptual relationship between the ideas in the two documents. The document outlines the history and development of citation indexing, including the first citation index created by Frank Shephard and important contributions by Eugene Garfield. It describes the major citation indexes produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), now Thomson Reuters, including the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index.
This document provides an introduction to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and discusses publication ethics. It describes COPE's mission to educate and advance knowledge around safeguarding scholarly integrity. COPE membership includes over 12,500 members in over 100 countries representing various subject areas. The document outlines some of the key challenges in publication ethics according to COPE's membership surveys, including a lack of training in research and publication ethics. It also summarizes different types of ethics issues that may arise, such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, and fraud. Resources provided by COPE to support publication ethics are mentioned.
This document provides tips for publishing research in academic journals. It discusses choosing the right journal by reviewing its scope and previous articles. Authors should follow submission guidelines closely and seek guidance from mentors when necessary. The title, abstract, methodology, and references should be chosen carefully to accurately represent the paper and meet journal standards. Statistical analysis must be valid and figures should clarify the results. Authors should view revision requests as opportunities to improve the paper and work to address reviewer feedback to achieve publication. Maintaining motivation throughout the process is important.
This document discusses the process of writing and publishing manuscripts. It covers types of articles, manuscript preparation, finding the right journal, submission process, and peer review. The key steps are preparing the manuscript according to journal guidelines, selecting a suitable journal based on scope and quality, submitting to the journal, and undergoing peer review where reviewers assess scientific quality before the editor makes a decision. Common reasons for rejection include being out of scope, flawed methodology, uninteresting question, or poor presentation.
Violation of publication ethics can take several forms, including data manipulation, duplicate publication, simultaneous submission, plagiarism, and salami slicing. Upholding publication ethics is important to establish the integrity and credibility of scholarly research. It is the responsibility of authors to avoid fabricating or manipulating data, plagiarizing, submitting manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously, or including guest authors who did not meaningfully contribute. Organizations like COPE and ICMJE provide guidelines to help authors, editors, and reviewers maintain high standards of ethical publication practices.
This document discusses journal performance metrics available through Journal Citation Reports on the ISI Web of Knowledge. It defines common metrics like the Journal Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Journal Cited Half-Life, Eigenfactor Score, and Article Influence Score which provide objective means for evaluating leading academic journals. Additional information and questions about Journal Citation Reports can be directed to Linda Galloway.
COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018 will feature an interactive cases workshop on publication ethics. The agenda includes an introduction to COPE, case presentations, table discussions of the cases, and a review of the cases. COPE promotes integrity in research and publication by assisting editors through policies and practices reflecting transparency and integrity principles. COPE describes its core practices for preserving scholarly integrity. The workshop will use real cases submitted to COPE's forum to demonstrate how editors can handle ethics issues like authorship disputes, plagiarism allegations, and data manipulation claims. Attendees will discuss potential responses to each case in small groups.
The document discusses publication misconduct, complaints, and appeals. It defines publication misconduct and explains why it is a problem. The various forms of misconduct are identified such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and authorship issues. Methods for identifying and preventing misconduct like utilizing plagiarism detection software and transparent reporting are presented. The process for publication complaints is outlined including how complaints can arise and the steps in the complaint process. Publication appeals are defined and the steps in the appeal process like submitting the appeal and editorial review are described. Finally, the importance of uniform publication ethics standards for all peer-reviewed journals is emphasized.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
Dividing a research study into multiple small publications, known as "salami slicing", is considered an unethical practice. It dilutes the visibility of the overall research and makes it harder for other researchers to grasp the full significance of the work. However, in some cases where a research project involves different groups across disciplines studying a wide range of topics, publishing multiple related studies can be justified to disseminate findings to various audiences. The goal should be conveying the overall impact of the extensive work, not fabricating extra conclusions or citations.
The document discusses bibliometrics and two common metrics used to evaluate research impact - the H-index and Journal Impact Factor. It defines the H-index as a measure of an individual researcher's productivity and citation impact, calculated based on the number of papers and citations. It also explains that the Journal Impact Factor measures the frequency with which an average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. The document provides examples and limitations of both metrics and resources to calculate them.
CONTENTS :
INTRODUCTION
TRANSPARENCY
PROMOTING RESEARCH INTEGRITY
EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
RESPONSIBLE PUBLICATION PRACTICES
OWNERSHIP OF IDEAS AND EXPRESSION
This document discusses predatory publishing, which involves dishonest publishers exploiting the open-access model by publishing counterfeit journals to dupe researchers into paying publication fees without providing expected services like peer review or visibility. It provides tips to help researchers identify predatory publishers, such as checking tools like Beall's list or asking colleagues about journal quality and impact. Various types of deceptive publishing practices are described, and criteria for evaluating publishers' legitimacy are outlined.
This document provides an overview of bibliometrics and research metrics. It discusses what bibliometrics are and how they can be used to analyze the strengths of research, determine investment opportunities, and identify rising researchers. Common metrics like citation counts, h-index, CiteScore, SNIP, and SJR are explained. The importance of using multiple metrics and qualitative input is stressed. Sources of citation data like Scopus and Web of Science are also summarized.
When publishing research, one needs to be aware of all such actions that are unethical and hence, must be avoided. This presentation gives an overview of the topic.
Predatory journals prioritize self-interest over scholarship. They do not conduct proper peer review and instead offer quick publication for a fee without editing. In contrast, legitimate open access journals maintain high standards. It is important to check if a journal is indexed in reputable databases like DOAJ or has an impact factor from JCR. Potential predatory journals can be identified using lists from Beall's or Cabell's. Librarians can help determine if a journal is predatory by investigating the publisher, editorial board, and review process.
This document provides information about publishing research in journals. It discusses the reasons for writing research articles, such as sharing data and knowledge. It describes the different types of articles, including full articles, letters, and reviews. The document outlines the structure of research articles, including sections like the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. It provides recommendations for writing style and formatting academic texts in English. Finally, it covers topics like choosing a journal to submit to, the evaluation and review process, impact factors, and ethical guidelines.
This document provides guidance on how to choose the right journal for publication. It discusses factors to consider such as journal visibility, costs, prestige, and speed of publication. It distinguishes between open access journals, which charge article processing fees, and traditional closed access journals, which are only accessible through subscriptions. The document also warns about predatory journals and provides tips for identifying them, such as checking for standard identifiers and transparency about fees. Overall, the key factors discussed are journal visibility, costs, prestige, speed of publication, and avoiding predatory journals.
This document provides an overview of citation indexing and describes some key tools and concepts. Citation indexing traces the use of ideas across research by identifying papers that cite older publications. The Institute for Scientific Information pioneered citation indexing databases like the Web of Science. While comprehensive, the WoS has limitations in coverage of non-English language and developing world journals. The Indian Citation Index was created to index more Indian publications and support research evaluation in India. Impact factors are calculated based on citations in the Journal Citation Reports to measure journal influence.
The document discusses the process of publishing scientific papers, including tips for writing and submitting research. It notes that scientific papers are intended to share original research with other scientists and involve peer review. The five steps of publication are outlined as preparing the paper, identifying the appropriate journal, rechecking the paper, submitting it, and addressing feedback. Key tips include focusing on innovative aspects, clearly structuring the paper, using appropriate methodologies, and being patient during the writing and review process.
The document discusses citation indexing. It defines citation indexing as a process that detects relationships between documents through citations. When one document cites another document, there is a conceptual relationship between the ideas in the two documents. The document outlines the history and development of citation indexing, including the first citation index created by Frank Shephard and important contributions by Eugene Garfield. It describes the major citation indexes produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), now Thomson Reuters, including the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index.
This document provides an introduction to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and discusses publication ethics. It describes COPE's mission to educate and advance knowledge around safeguarding scholarly integrity. COPE membership includes over 12,500 members in over 100 countries representing various subject areas. The document outlines some of the key challenges in publication ethics according to COPE's membership surveys, including a lack of training in research and publication ethics. It also summarizes different types of ethics issues that may arise, such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, and fraud. Resources provided by COPE to support publication ethics are mentioned.
This document provides tips for publishing research in academic journals. It discusses choosing the right journal by reviewing its scope and previous articles. Authors should follow submission guidelines closely and seek guidance from mentors when necessary. The title, abstract, methodology, and references should be chosen carefully to accurately represent the paper and meet journal standards. Statistical analysis must be valid and figures should clarify the results. Authors should view revision requests as opportunities to improve the paper and work to address reviewer feedback to achieve publication. Maintaining motivation throughout the process is important.
This document discusses the process of writing and publishing manuscripts. It covers types of articles, manuscript preparation, finding the right journal, submission process, and peer review. The key steps are preparing the manuscript according to journal guidelines, selecting a suitable journal based on scope and quality, submitting to the journal, and undergoing peer review where reviewers assess scientific quality before the editor makes a decision. Common reasons for rejection include being out of scope, flawed methodology, uninteresting question, or poor presentation.
This document provides guidance on writing a report for an MBA summer internship project. It discusses the purpose and characteristics of an effective report, and outlines the standard structure which includes sections like the title page, table of contents, methodology, findings, and references. Key recommendations include using a formal style, citing sources, carefully following the specified structure, and meeting deadlines to submit drafts and the final report. The overall goal is to help students complete their project reports to a high professional standard that represents themselves and their university well.
The document provides guidance on writing a research report, outlining the typical components and structure. It discusses the purpose of a research report to present findings and provide a persuasive argument. A research report generally includes a title page, contents page, list of illustrations, acknowledgements, abstract/summary, introduction, background, methodology/methods, findings/analysis, conclusions, recommendations, further research, references, bibliography, and appendices. The document emphasizes thinking about the audience and being restricted by any guidelines on structure, style and content for the final report.
This document provides guidance on how to write a scientific paper for publication in an international journal. It discusses selecting an appropriate journal, structuring the paper using the IMRAD format, and key elements of each section including the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. Helpful tips are provided for writing each section clearly and effectively to share new scientific findings with the international community. The presenter is an expert in scientific publishing with experience reviewing papers for several international journals.
The document provides guidance on writing a research report. It discusses starting the report early and keeping notes. The report should be tailored to its intended audience and follow appropriate formatting. Multiple drafts are typically needed. Backups and printing drafts are advised. Sections like the introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion are described. Presenting tables, quotes and interpreting results are also covered.
Common Errors in Writing a Research Papermeenu pandey
This document provides guidance on common errors to avoid when writing a research paper. It discusses issues like procrastinating on deadlines, being afraid to ask for help, choosing topics that are too broad or lacking sufficient preliminary research. Other errors include plagiarism, not following required formats, poor organization of content, inclusion of irrelevant information or figures, poor grammar/language usage, and not having others review and edit the paper. The document emphasizes clearly outlining the paper structure, narrowing the topic, properly citing sources, and ensuring logical flow between sections.
The document provides guidelines for writing thesis proposals and final reports at the Department of Marketing and Entrepreneurship at the University of Ghana. It outlines the roles and responsibilities of students in completing their theses on time. It also details the required components of research proposals and final reports, including preliminaries, chapters, formatting, and submission checklists. Students must generate topics, compile bibliographies, and submit work according to schedules. Thesis drafts must be fully referenced with no more than 30% referenced material. Supervisors provide guidance and students must address any recommendations.
Scientific paper writing ppt shalini phdSHALINI BISHT
This document provides an overview of the key sections and considerations for writing a scientific research paper. It discusses selecting an appropriate title, writing an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. It also addresses statistical analysis, citing references, authorship, and avoiding plagiarism. The goal is to guide researchers in organizing their ideas and findings into a coherent scientific paper format.
How to Write Scientific Research Article? A General GuideNabeel Salih Ali
This document provides an overview of how to write a scientific paper. It discusses key elements such as the introduction, methodology, results, discussion/conclusions, and references. It also covers choosing a journal, the paper structure, components like the title, abstract and keywords. The document provides tips for each section, such as keeping the abstract concise and structured. Overall, it aims to guide authors on writing papers that are well-structured and follow standard scientific paper conventions.
This document provides tips and guidelines for writing a good research paper for publication. It discusses the importance of sharing knowledge through publications. The structure of a research paper is explained, with the IMRAD model (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) being the most common. Key sections of a research paper like the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, tables and figures, conclusion and references are discussed in detail. Effective organization, relevance, clarity and following journal guidelines are some important factors to consider while writing each section. The last part emphasizes avoiding plagiarism and copyright violations which can damage one's academic reputation.
This document provides guidance on how to write a scientific paper, including key steps such as checking for original ideas, using sources properly, and writing the manuscript. It discusses the publishing process and peer review. Main sections to include in a paper are outlined such as the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Tips are provided on writing the abstract, title, introduction, and conclusion. Common complaints from editors are also summarized.
Research proposals how to prepare and where to submitDave Marcial
This document provides guidance on preparing and submitting research proposals. It discusses the key goals and elements of an effective proposal, including clearly defining the research problem, conducting a literature review, and proposing a methodology. Common mistakes to avoid are being unclear, failing to cite foundational works, and not developing a coherent argument. Tips are provided such as understanding submission guidelines, having a relevant topic, collaborating with others, following templates, proper budgeting and timelines. Various funding agencies and organizations that accept proposals are listed. The document emphasizes starting the proposal process early and revising after rejection.
Research, Writing, and Publishing in High Impact JournalsDr. Abdul Mujeebu M
This is compilation of my presentations in a recent workshop at AMU Aligarh, India. Interested institutions can contact me for conducting similar workshop.
This document provides guidance on creating a good research report to avoid rejection. It outlines several qualities of a good research article, including having a professional abstract, strong introductory and conclusion sections, original contributions, and quality writing. The introductory part should establish the problem, research gap, and motivation. The literature review should focus on scholarly sources, paraphrase properly, and show different perspectives. The research methods section should justify the model used based on the variables. The conclusion should summarize key findings and implications. Reviewers will assess whether the introduction establishes the issue, there are typos, the research is well-formatted, recent sources are cited, and the conclusion is based on observations. Avoiding these issues can help prevent
This document provides guidance on creating a good research report to avoid rejection. It outlines several qualities of a good research article, including having a professional abstract, strong introductory and conclusion sections, original contributions, and quality writing. The introductory part should establish the problem, research gap, and motivation. The literature review should focus on scholarly sources, paraphrase properly, and show different perspectives. The research methods section should justify the model used based on the variables. The conclusion should summarize key findings and implications. Reviewers will assess whether the introduction establishes the issue, there are typos, the research is well-formatted, recent sources are cited, and the conclusion is based on observations. Avoiding these issues can help prevent
This document provides guidance on writing scientific journal papers. It discusses choosing an appropriate journal, following the journal's format and submission guidelines, and the peer review process. The format section describes the typical components of a research paper, including title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, conclusions, figures/tables, and references. It emphasizes adhering to the journal's instructions for authors and style guidelines. The peer review section outlines that submitted papers are initially screened and may be edited for language before anonymous experts evaluate the scientific content. Authors may be asked to revise papers based on reviewer feedback.
This document discusses key aspects of the scientific research process and publishing findings, including:
1) The typical phases of the scientific method such as developing a research question, conducting background research, forming a hypothesis, designing and conducting experiments, analyzing results, and publishing findings.
2) Guidelines for publishing research including selecting appropriate publication venues based on their prestige, impact factor, and indexing in databases. Conferences, journals, books, and dissertation are discussed as common publication types.
3) Metrics for measuring research impact including the number of citations, journal impact factor, and h-index which provides an indicator of productivity and citation impact. Resources for identifying publications and metrics like Web of Science, DBLP, and Google
This document provides guidance on preparing a research article for publication in SCOPUS-indexed journals. It discusses selecting the right journal, following submission guidelines, common reasons for rejection, and tips for structuring the manuscript. The document emphasizes properly structuring the introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections according to IMRAD format. It also addresses ethics, referencing, and ensuring the manuscript addresses a significant problem and contributes new knowledge to the field.
This document provides guidance on writing and publishing research papers. It discusses why research papers are written, such as to share findings, get funding, and gain recognition. It offers tips for getting papers published, including knowing the journal's standards, carefully editing the paper, and conforming to the journal's author instructions. The document also outlines what makes a good research paper, including being novel, testing hypotheses mechanically, and properly describing methods and results.
Searching, Exploring and Accessing Knowledge by Google Scholar which includes several topics such as:
- Keywords
- Query
- Search Settings
- Knowledge (Publications types)
The document outlines the objectives and content covered in the second day of a training course on exploring and accessing knowledge. The session focused on searching academic search engines, reliable resources like High Impact Research and Web of Science, Scopus, and using the Google Scholar search engine. The trainer, Nabeel Salih Ali from the University of Kufa in Iraq, led a practical session and concluded the day's training.
This document provides guidelines for selecting the appropriate journal to submit research for publication. It discusses exploring a journal's aims and scope, checking if similar articles have been published, considering restrictions and impact factor. Online tools are presented to help identify journals. Common reasons for manuscript rejection are outlined. The importance of thoroughly responding to reviewer comments is emphasized.
This document provides information about digital identity profiles for researchers, including Google Scholar, Publons, ResearchGate, and ORCID. It discusses how to create accounts with each service and customize profiles to track publications and citations. Google Scholar allows researchers to monitor who is citing their work. Publons and ResearchGate profiles showcase publications and collaboration networks. ORCID provides persistent unique identifiers for researchers to ensure proper attribution of their work across systems.
This presentation describes and lists Google apps as an academic domain, besides presenting how to create a google scholar author profile, and how to improve it.
The document provides step-by-step instructions for creating an account and profile on the Research Gate website. It outlines the process for selecting an institution and department, creating a user profile, adding research items and publications, viewing followers and co-authors, and tracking profile statistics. The instructions are accompanied by screenshots of the Research Gate user interface.
It explains how to select a current topic via:
- Journal Vs. Conference
- DB Vs. Indexing Vs. Publisher
- Reliable Vs. Non-Reliable
- Research Types
- High Impact Research
- Select Current Topics
- Gartner Reports
The presentation discusses the following topics:
- What Is ORCID?
- Why ORCID Important?
- ORCID Features
- Create an ORCID Account
- ORCID Researcher Profile
This presentation will discuss the following items:
-WHAT DO YOU DO BEFORE WRITING?
- PAPER CONTENTS
- THE FOUR-PART ABSTRACT MODEL
- INTRODUCTION STRUCTURE
-
Discuss journal metrics, and how can choose a suitable high impact journal. Present Types of journals, What is Right Journal?, Indicators of journal performance, in addition, explain the Article Submission process.
How to revise the submission article based on referees decision (reviewers co...Nabeel Salih Ali
presentation objectives:
It aims to get how to analyze the reviewer comments, to prepare the revision requirements, to conduct the revision author version, to reply to the Editors.
How to Setup Warehouse & Location in Odoo 17 InventoryCeline George
In this slide, we'll explore how to set up warehouses and locations in Odoo 17 Inventory. This will help us manage our stock effectively, track inventory levels, and streamline warehouse operations.
The simplified electron and muon model, Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation...RitikBhardwaj56
Discover the Simplified Electron and Muon Model: A New Wave-Based Approach to Understanding Particles delves into a groundbreaking theory that presents electrons and muons as rotating soliton waves within oscillating spacetime. Geared towards students, researchers, and science buffs, this book breaks down complex ideas into simple explanations. It covers topics such as electron waves, temporal dynamics, and the implications of this model on particle physics. With clear illustrations and easy-to-follow explanations, readers will gain a new outlook on the universe's fundamental nature.
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
How to Make a Field Mandatory in Odoo 17Celine George
In Odoo, making a field required can be done through both Python code and XML views. When you set the required attribute to True in Python code, it makes the field required across all views where it's used. Conversely, when you set the required attribute in XML views, it makes the field required only in the context of that particular view.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
3. LOGO Introduction
Manuscript rejection is a hurting and a disappointing
experience especially when it is repeated several times.
Colleges and universities always evaluate and promote
the academic staff based on their number of publications.
Manuscript rejection represents a major barrier for junior
staff to get promoted and develop their carrier especially
that the rates of manuscripts’ rejection in the high impact
journals reach as much as 90%.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
4. LOGO Introduction
An author who target publication in high prestigious
journals may spend many years to publish just small
parts of his research findings..
This had lead many of the researchers and academic
staff particularly in developing countries to publish their
studies in local and low ranked journals.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
5. LOGO Article acceptance Criteria
Article
RelevanceReference to prior work
and publications
Significance
Technical Correctness
Clarity of presentation
Experimental or
Evidence Support
Novelty
www.uokufa.edu.iq
6. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
1. Research question: why the authors do this research
and what is its importance and application.
2. Novelty: a paper gives new ideas, derivations,
applications that has been not studied before or little- or
not in depth-studied.
3. Literature review: to identify the research gap with
recent references from 2010 onwards.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
7. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
4. Research methodology: analytical, numerical or
experimental or mixed. What is the contribution of the
authors, assumptions and/or approximations used,
description of apparatus and its limitations, steps of
experiments, etc.
5. Quality of results: and the depth and logic of the
discussion.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
8. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
6. Insight conveyed and recommendations that might be
used by others for future work.
7. English: used effectively to communicate the ideas and
easy to understand with least or no grammatical error or
typos.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
9. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
1. Interdisciplinary topics or applications-oriented articles
that do not fit within the scope of traditional journals.
2. Practical discussions of new experimental or
measurement techniques, including negative results.
3. Practical articles describing interesting solutions to
engineering, or information system design challenges.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
10. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
4. Development of new or improved fabrication or
manufacturing techniques.
5. Reviews of new or evolving fields aimed at increasing
others' understanding of these emerging topics.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
11. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
1. Poor experimental design and/or inadequate
investigation.
An inadequate sample size, a biased sample, a non-
unique concept, and scientific flaws in the study are
common faults
www.uokufa.edu.iq
12. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
2. Failure to conform to the targeted journal..
This is a common mistake. The focus of the manuscript is
not within the scope of the journal and/or the guidelines of
the targeted journal are not followed. This can easily be
avoided by reading the targeted journal and reviewing the
author guidelines.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
13. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
3. Poor English grammar, style, and syntax.
Though poor writing may not result in outright rejection of
a manuscript, it may well influence the reviewer’s and
editor’s overall impression of the manuscript. It has been
shown that a well written manuscript has a better chance
of being accepted.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
14. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
4. Insufficient problem statement.
It is important to clearly define and appropriately frame the
study’s question.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
15. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
5. Methods not described in detail.
Details are insufficient to repeat the results. The study
design, apparatus used, and procedures followed must be
made clear. In some cases it might be better to put too
much information into the methods section rather than to
put too little; information deemed unnecessary can always
be removed prior to publication.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
16. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
6. Over interpretation of results.
Some reviewers have indicated that a clear and ‘‘honest’’
approach to the interpretation of the results is likely to
increase the chances of a manuscript being accepted.
Identify possible biases and confounding variables, both
during the design phase of the study and the interpretation
of the results. Describe experimental results concisely.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
17. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
7. Inappropriate or incomplete statistics.
Using inappropriate statistical methods and overstating
the implications of the results is a common error. Use an
appropriate test and do not make the statistics too
complicated. Quantify and present findings with
appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty
(such as confidence intervals).
www.uokufa.edu.iq
18. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
8. Unsatisfactory or confusing presentation of data in
tables or figures.
The tables or figures do not conform in style and quantity
to the journal’s guidelines and are cluttered with numbers.
Make tables and graphs easy to read. Some editors may
start by looking quickly at the tables, graphs, and figures
to determine if the manuscript is worth considering.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
19. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
9. Conclusions not supported by data.
Make sure your conclusions are not overstated, are
supported, and answer the study’s questions. Be sure to
provide alternative explanations, and do not simply restate
the results.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
20. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
10.Incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the
literature.
Be sure to conduct a complete literature search and only
list references relevant to the study. The reviewers of your
manuscript will be experts in the field and will be aware of
all the pertinent research conducted.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
21. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
11.Author unwilling to revise the manuscript to address
reviewer’s suggestions.
This can easily be resolved. Taking the reviewers’
suggestions into account when revising your manuscript
will nearly always result in a better manuscript. If the
editor indicates willingness to evaluate a revision, it means
the manuscript may be publishable if the reviewers’
concerns could be addressed satisfactorily.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
22. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Mismatch with the
journal's scope
Flaws in study design,
poorly formulated
research question
Lack of originality,
novelty, or
significance
Find a suitable target
journal for your manuscript!
Ensure your results are
generalizable and/or have
practical, clinical, or
theoretical implications
Do a thorough literature
review to choose the best
research methodology
23. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Poor writing and
organization
Language and
spelling issues
Poorly presented
visual elements
Follow the IMRAD format
to prepare a well-
structured manuscript
Avoid jargon, write simply
and clearly, run a spell
check
Ensure the figures, tables,
images, and graphs are
accurate and clearly labelled
24. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Unintentional ethical
issues, e.g., plagiarism
Lack of adherence to
journal submission
guidelines
Avoid plagiarism - follow all
ethical publishing
guidelines
Read, understand, and
follow ALL manuscript
submission guidelines
25. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
• Ensure you use the
correct statistical analysis
method.
• Describe the analytical
method in detail.
• Report p values and R
values at appropriate
places.
Inappropriate
or incomplete
statistics
26. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
• Avoid drawing conclusions
that are disproportionate
to the actual findings.
• Do not include irrelevant
or redundant information
to support your data.
• Acknowledge the
limitations of your study.
Over-
interpretation
of results
27. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Inappropriate
or suboptimal
instrumentation
• Describe the methods in sufficient
detail, such that a reader could
repeat the study if desired.
• In case of standard methodology
or instrumentation, cite relevant
previous studies in which these
methods were used.
• If the description is very lengthy
(e.g., survey sheets,
questionnaires), include it as
supplementary information.
28. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Sample
too small
or biased
• Check published literature to find
acceptable sample sizes for
studies similar to yours.
• Mention inclusion and exclusion
criteria clearly.
29. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Insufficient
problem
statement
• State the objective of the study
clearly in the abstract and early in
the manuscript.
• Check whether the conclusions of
your study tie up with your
hypothesis/problem/objective
30. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Inaccurate or
inconsistent
data reported
• Ensure consistency between
similar data reported in different
parts of the manuscript
• (e.g., abstract and text, results
and figures).
• Instead of including inconclusive
data, sort through your data and
include only data that
• are relevant to your
hypothesis/objective.
31. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Incomplete,
inaccurate, or
outdated
review of the
literature
• Cite relevant recently published
literature. Citing outdated
references reflected poorly on
your knowledge of the subject.
• Do not deliberately exclude
studies that do not support your
conclusions. Instead,
• discuss them and try to give
possible explanations about why
your findings different from what
is already known.
32. LOGO Quick Tips for Effective research Writing
Read each section individually to check if it contains all
the necessary information and conveys it in concise
manner.
Ensure that the results and discussion section are clear,
concise and conclusive.
Ask peers to read the manuscript and provide
constructive feedback on the presentation of study
design and logical flow of ideas.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
33. LOGO Quick Tips for Effective research Writing
Once the content and flow have been perfected, focus
on the language and .
When using the services of a copy editor, it is helpful to
communicate specific areas of attention if necessary.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
34. LOGO Bibliography
1. Coronel R (1999). The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making. Cardiovascular
Research, 43(2): 261-264. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(99)00177-7.
2. Ehara S & Takahashi K (2007). Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to
3. AJR by international authors. American Journal of Roentgenology, 188(2): W113-6. doi:
10.2214/AJR.06.0448.
4. Byrne DW (2000). Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: A survey
of editors and peer reviewers. Science Editor, 23(2): 39-44.
5. Bordage G (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manucripts: The strengths and
weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9): 889-96.
6. Wyness T, McGhee CN, Patel DV (2009). Manuscript rejection in ophthalmology and visual
science journals: Identifying and avoiding the common pitfalls. Clinical & Experimental
Ophthalmology, 37(9): 864-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02190.x.
7. McKercher B, Law R, Weber K, Song H, Hsu C (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4): 455-470. doi:
10.1177/1096348007302355.
8. Pierson DJ (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication.
Respiratory Care, 49(10): 1246-52.
9. Mcafee RP (2010). Edifying Editing. The American Economist, 55(1): 1-8.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
35. LOGO Bibliography
10. Smith MU, Wandersee JH, Cummins CL (1993). What's wrong with this manuscript?: An
analysis of the reasons for rejection given by Journal of Research in Science Teaching
reviewers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2): 209-211. doi:
10.1002/tea.3660300207.
11. Ajao OG (2005). Some reasons for manuscript rejection by peer-reviewed journals.
Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 3(2): 9-12.
12. Ali J (2010). Manuscript rejection: Causes and remedies. Journal of Young Pharmacists,
2(1): 3-6. doi: 10.4103/0975-1483.62205.
13. Turcotte C, Drolet P, Girard M (2004). Study design, originality and overall consistency
influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Canadian
Journal of Anesthesia, 51(6): 549-56. doi: 10.1007/BF03018396.
14. Carpenter WT, Thaker GK, Shepard : 10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1. PD (2010). Manuscript
rejection for the Schizophrenia Bulletin: Some reasons. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 36(4): 649-
650. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbq056.
15. Zimmer C. It’s science, but not necessarily right. The New York Times. June 25, 2011.
16. Kumar M (2009). A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical
research. Biology and Medicine, 1(4): 1-16.
17. Schultz DM (2010). Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(2), 231-243. doi
www.uokufa.edu.iq
36. LOGO Bibliography
18. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011). Peer review in scientific
publications Vol 1. House of Commons: London, UK.
19. Buriak JM (2010). Rejecting without Review: The Whys, the Hows. ACS Nano 4 (9):
4963–4964. DOI: 10.1021/nn1022318
20. Johnston SC et al (2007). Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer
review: A randomized trial. Annals of Neurology 61: A10–A12. DOI: 10.1002/ana.21150
21. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D. Angew. Chem. Int. Edn Engl 47, 7173–7178 (2008).
22. Calcagno, V. et al. Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1227833 (2012).
23. Woolley KL, Barron JP (2009) Handling manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and
experience. Chest 135: 573-577.
24. Turcotte C, Drolet P, Girard M (2004) Study design, originality and overall consistency
influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Can J Anaesth
51: 549-556.
25. Ajao OG (2005) Some Reasons for Manuscript Rejection by PeerReviewed Journals.
Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine 3 : 9-12.
doi:10.4172/2155-9627.1000204J Clinic Res Bioeth ISSN:2155-9627 JCRB, an open access
journal
26. Ehara S, Takahashi K (2007) Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by
international authors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188: W113-116.
www.uokufa.edu.iq
37. LOGO Bibliography
27. Calcagno V, Demoinet E, Gollner K, Guidi L, Ruths D, et al. (2012) Flows of research
manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science.
28. Murray DM, Pals SL, Blitstein JL, Alfano CM, Lehman J (2008) Design and analysis of
group-randomized trials in cancer: a review of current practices. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:
483-491.
29. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH (2001) Evaluating the quality of
systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 38: 518-526.
30. Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Adv
Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 15: 625-632. 9.
31. Dutta MJ (2006) The ten commandments of reviewing: the promise of a kinder, gentler
discipline! Health Commun 20: 197-200.
32. Smith R (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R
Soc Med 99: 178-182.
33. Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA (2006) Predictors of
publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major
biomedical journals. The Medical Journal of Australia 184: 621–626.
www.uokufa.edu.iq