Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Nuts and bolts of publishing


Published on

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Nuts and bolts of publishing

  1. 1. Nuts and Bolts of PublishingRWJF | GRC | CAPS
  2. 2. 1. Elevator PitchThis is true foreverything in academia.Can you make a 1-2minute pitch of yourresearch that isaccurate andinteresting?
  3. 3. 2. ArgumentYou don’t publish data - you publish an argument.What problem do you address? Why is it relevant? Willanything change?
  4. 4. 3. AudienceWho is your audience? What do they know? Whatdon’t they know?Different journals are read by different specialists.
  5. 5. First stepsIf you have data, try to create your figures early in theprocess. Make sure your charts are clear and readable -at least as good as they can be.
  6. 6. First stepsHone in on your argument. Why should people listento you? How will your findings impact the field? Isthere anyone in particular who will be affected?
  7. 7. Literature ReviewYou may be citing anywhere from 15 - 60 papers inyour article (and occasionally more). You will need tohave read much more than that to properly place yourarticle.
  8. 8. Literature ReviewThe idea with a literature review is to present a contextfrom which to interpret your findings. Whose workdoes yours resemble? Are you agreeing with anyoneelse’s findings? Are you disagreeing with them?
  9. 9. Literature ReviewMany comments you will receive from peer reviewerswill mention studies that you should have studied. Amore comprehensive search will improve your study’schances of getting into a journal.
  10. 10. Journal SelectionWhat academic journal is most appropriate for yourwork? In what journals have similar studies/works beenpublished?
  11. 11. Journal SelectionEach journal has a different organization and adifferent format for citations. When you write thepaper, it will help if you write it with a specific journal(or journals) in mind.
  12. 12. FocusAre you communicating the same thing people arereading? Have a friend read the paper and list the 4-5main points. Are they the same as the 4-5 points youare trying to make?
  13. 13. EthicsAre there ethical considerations in publishing thework? Are there specific guidelines for the journal? Can individuals be identified? Has part of the research been published before? Is their a disclosure needed regarding funding? How do you state the use of commercial products?
  14. 14. Tables & FiguresWhat tables and figures are absolutely necessary toexpress your argument? Which ones are not necessary?
  15. 15. ReferencesDifferent journals have different guidelines forcitations. Follow your journal of choice’s guidelines tothe letter.
  16. 16. Broad Steps to StartFirst, get your thoughts down.Second, get them down right.
  17. 17. General FormatAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusion
  18. 18. WritingIn trying to express your ideas, there will undoubtedlybe simpler phrases that if shortened will make yourmanuscript easier to understand.Simply put, write simply.
  19. 19. WritingMany commas, are unnecessary
  20. 20. WritingTwo levels of structure Is the broad outline of the paper structured, with a clear argument? Are the mechanics of the paper ok? Is each sentence/ paragraph flowing well?
  21. 21. Surviving Peer ReviewIdentify weaknesses in your argument. Be your ownenemy. But try to find one among your friends.
  22. 22. Use Your Own PeersTry to start a proofreading circle among your friends.Offer to proofread your friend’s papers. Be critical, uselots of red ink. Make them mad. That way, they’ll behappy to return the favor.
  23. 23. Submitting the ManuscriptMake sure all your figures are saved as high-resolution .tiff files.Follow detailed instructions - different journals havedifferent publication pathways.Don’t rush, take your time and make sure everythinggoes right the first time.
  24. 24. Immediate Gratification...isn’t going to happen. Publishing a paper is a longprocess. It could take up to a year or longer for yourwork to make it to the mailboxes of your colleagues.
  25. 25. What happens next“Rejected without Review” Unfortunate. There may be critical errors in your writing or argument. Or, it is a decent article that simply isn’t a good fit for the journal.
  26. 26. What happens next“Revise and Resubmit"” Good news! It will likely see daylight. Take the comments from the peer reviewers and go over them very, very carefully. Address them all - even if you disagree.
  27. 27. What happens next“Accepted in its current form"” Good news! Just wait for those page proofs.
  28. 28. Whatever Happens...You always start on a blank slate with your next paper.Nobel Laureates have had papers rejected withoutreview.
  29. 29. Living through Peer Review• 2) “The author tests for temporal reliability for both willingness to pay and consumer surplus measurement. It is not very clear why the author performs the two measurements. The author should provide some motivation for providing the two measurements, and explain why they might have led to different conclusions. If divergence were observed, I wonder what would have been the overall conclusion?”• The motivation for testing the two measurements (CS and WTP) was mainly for completeness because it seemed entirely possible for the surplus portion of benefits to behave differently from the total. For instance, one-time purchases of equipment (camera, books, or binoculars) or club membership fees might lead to significant structural differences in expenditures between two adjacent periods. This could affect the temporal reliability of WTP, but not for CS. In this case, only surplus benefits are transferrable while total benefits remain period specific. We could of course have the transpose as well; WTP temporally reliable and CS not. The present study showed both welfare measures to be temporally reliable and this is likely to be the norm. In the revised manuscript, I have inserted the above explanations at the end of the final paragraph in section 3 (top of page 3).
  30. 30. Living through Peer Review‣ [With respect to GISP2 temperature reconstructions for the Northern Hemisphere; Figure 4] but strictly speaking not - opposing trend in Greenland since 3000BCE to 1150 BCE generally the climate seems to improve and collapse correspond to a particularly pronounced increase in temperature (which does not correspond to any significant changes)• I am unclear as to where the confusion lies - reconstructed temperatures from GISP2 do indicate an increasing temperature trend from 3000 - 1150 BCE, albeit with some declines along the way. At the beginning of the collapse period (1315 - 1190), temperature peaked and then began to decline for the next two centuries, reaching a nadir near the beginning of the Greek Dark Ages (~1010 BCE). Temperatures remain low relative to the Late Bronze Age until the Roman Warm Period. The temperature drop recorded in the GISP2 ice core (1350 - 1310 BCE) is roughly contemporaneous with the drop in warm-species dinocyst/foraminifera and lower East Mediterranean SST’s near the time of the LBA Collapse (by 1250 - 1197 BCE). The GISP2 temperature record was included to show that the period of collapse and following dark ages occurred during lower temperatures than was the norm for the Late Bronze Age. In fact, that the transition to cooler temperatures is temporally aligned well with the decline in urban occupation. Perhaps the graphs are misleading - the white line demarcates the beginning of collapse - the collapse itself is an event that occurred over two centuries, with final urban occupation ending by 1050 BCE, at which point GISP2 indicates that Northern Hemisphere temperatures were almost 2 ºC cooler than when LBA societies were at their peak. To address this, I will add disclaimers specifying the time period of discussion in both the figure captions and body text. I suspect that the disagreement over the GISP2 record is a consequence of me not being more specific as to its interpretation relative to the other paeloclimate records used in this study. I hope this addresses the concern, though I am still not fully sure what is the object of confusion.