and Get Published Understanding and benefiting from the publishing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presented by: Anthony Newman, Senior Publisher Location/Date: IPCAT Meeting, San Diego Sept. 2015

How to Write Great Papers and Get Published

Understanding and benefiting from the publishing process

2

Workshop Outline

• How to get Published
• Scholarly publishing overview
• What to publish
• Select your journal/readers/audience carefully
• Typical article structure
• The review and editorial process and your response
• Promoting your research
• Behind the scenes in publishing
• Publishing ethics

| 3

Peer-reviewed journal growth 1990-2013

| 4

Scholarly publishing today

Scientific, technical and medical (STM) publishing 2,000 STM publishers 1.4 million peer-reviewed articles 20,000 peer-reviewed journals

5

Trends in publishing

5

• Rapid conversion from “print” to “electronic”
• 1997:

print only

• 2009:

55% e-only (mostly e-collections) 25% print only 20% print-plus-electronic

• 2014:

95+% e-only (in life sciences field over 99%)

• 2016:

???

• Changing role of “journals” due to e-access
• Increased usage of articles (more downloads)
• at lower cost per article
• Electronic submission
• Increased manuscript inflow
• Experimentation with new publishing models
• E.g. “author pays” models, “delayed open access”, etc.

PDF versus HTML era currently

6

A strong manuscript is needed!

• It has a novel, clear, useful, and exciting

message

• Is presented and constructed in a logical

manner

• Reviewers and editors can grasp the scientific

significance easily Editors and reviewers are all busy scientists – make things easy to save their time

7

Find out what’s Hot (downloads)

8

Find out what is being cited and from where

9

Find out who is being cited

10

• There are many tools available such as SCOPUS,

WoS, Google Scholar, PubMed.

• Use what you have available. Become skilled in

using these effectively…..

Strategic Information gathering

11

• Look at your references – these should help you narrow your choices.
• Review recent publications in each “candidate journal”. Find out the

hot topics, the accepted types of articles, etc.

• Ask yourself the following questions:
• Is the journal peer-reviewed to the right level?
• Who is this journal’s audience? Multidisciplinary versus Niche
• Level of exposure – high use platform e.g. ScienceDirect, or not.
• How fast does it make a decision or publish your paper?
• Do you want or need to publish Open Access?
• What is the journal’s Impact Factor? Other Bibliometrics – SNIP

etc?

• Does it really exist or is it dubious? (check for example Beall’s List of

Predatory Open Access Publishers) http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

• DO NOT gamble by submitting your manuscript to more than one

journal at a time.

• International ethics standards prohibit multiple/simultaneous

submissions, and editors DO find out! (Trust us, they DO!)

Select the best journal for submission

12

Choose the right journal

• Investigate all candidate

journals to find out

• Aims and scope
• Accepted types of articles
• Readership
• Current hot topics
• go through the abstracts
• f recent publications)

13

Impact Factor [the average annual number of citations per article published]

• For example, the 2013 impact factor for a journal is calculated as follows:
• A = the number of times articles published in 2011 and 2012 were cited in

indexed journals during 2013

• B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews, proceedings or

notes; not editorials and letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2011 and 2012

• 2013 impact factor = A/B
• e.g. 600 citations = 2.000

150 + 150 articles

What is the Impact Factor (IF)?

14

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Mathematics & Computer Sciences Social Sciences Materials Science & Engineering Biological Sciences Environmental Sciences Earth Sciences Chemistry & Chemical Engineering Physics Pharmacology & Toxicology Clinical Medicine Neuroscience Fundamental Life Sciences

Mean Impact Factor

Influences on Impact Factors: Subject Area

15

16

| 16

Impact Factor

Bibliometric indicators and downloads

Eigenfactor SJR SNIP H-Index

17

| 17

Impact Factor

Bibliometric indicators BioSystems and friends

18

Alternative Metrics and BioSystems

h-index 2006-14 = 33 BioSystems: A visible publishing platform: 170,000 downloads per year 9,500 institutes have access 4,244 institutes accessed the journal in the last 12 months 50 Year anniversary in 2017!

19

Your Journals list for this manuscript

Each submission is different – there is no one master list of suitable journals! So you now have a sequence list of candidate journals for your manuscript? All authors of the submission agree to this list Write your draft as if you are going to submit to the first on your list. Use its Guide to Authors

20

• Stick to the Guide for Authors

in your manuscript, even in the first draft (text layout, nomenclature, figures & tables, references etc.). In the end it will save you time, and also the editor’s.

• Editors (and reviewers) do not

like wasting time on poorly prepared manuscripts. It is a sign of disrespect.

20

Read the ‘Guide to Authors’- Again and again!

21

Why Is Language Important?

Save your editor and reviewers the trouble of guessing what you mean

Complaint from an editor: “[This] paper fell well below my threshold. I refuse to spend time trying to understand what the author is trying to say. Besides, I really want to send a message that they can't submit garbage to us and expect us to fix it. My rule of thumb is that if there are more than 6 grammatical errors in the abstract, then I don't waste my time carefully reading the rest.”

22

Scientific Language – Overview

• Key to successful scientific writing is to be alert for

common errors:

• Sentence construction
• Incorrect tenses
• Inaccurate grammar
• Not using English

Check the Guide for Authors of the target journal for language specifications

Write with clarity, objectivity, accuracy, and brevity.

23

Scientific Language – Sentences

• Write direct and short sentences – more

professional looking.

• One idea or piece of information per

sentence is sufficient.

• Avoid multiple statements in one sentence –

they are confusing to the reader.

24

Typical Structure of a Research Article

• Title
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Main text (IMRAD)
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• And
• Discussions
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgement
• References
• Supplementary Data

Journal space is not unlimited. Your reader’s time is scarce. Make your article as concise as possible

• more difficult than you imagine!

Make them easy for indexing and searching! (informative, attractive, effective)

25

Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Figures/tables (your data) Introduction Title & Abstract The process of writing – building the article

26

Title

• A good title should contain the fewest possible words

that adequately describe the contents of a paper.

• Effective titles
• Identify the main issue of the paper
• Begin with the subject of the paper
• Are accurate, unambiguous, specific, and complete
• Are as short as possible
• Articles with short, catchy titles are often better cited
• Do not contain rarely-used abbreviations
• Attract readers - Remember: readers are the potential

authors who will cite your article

26

27

Abstract

Tell readers what you did and the important findings

• One paragraph (between 50-250 words) often, plus Highlight

bullet points. Some journals have structured abstracts.

• Advertisement for your article, and should encourage reading

the entire paper

• A clear abstract will strongly influence if your work is

considered further

Graphite intercalation compounds (GICs) of composition CxN(SO2CF3)2 · δF are prepared under ambient conditions in 48% hydrofluoric acid, using K2MnF6 as an oxidizing reagent. The stage 2 GIC product structures are determined using powder XRD and modeled by fitting one dimensional electron density profiles. A new digestion method followed by selective fluoride electrode elemental analyses allows the determination of free fluoride within products, and the compositional x and δ parameters are determined for reaction times from 0.25 to 500 h.

What are the main findings What has been done

28

Introduction The place to convince readers that you know why your work is relevant, also for them

Answer a series of questions:

• What is the problem?
• Are there any existing solutions?
• Which one is the best?
• What is its main limitation?
• What do you hope to achieve?

28

General Specific

29

Methods / Experimental

• Include all important details so that the reader can

repeat the work.

• Details that were previously published can be omitted but a

general summary of those experiments should be included

• Give vendor names (and addresses) of equipment etc.

used

• All chemicals must be identified
• Do not use proprietary, unidentifiable compounds without
• description. State purity and/or supplier if it is important.
• Present proper control experiments
• Avoid adding comments and discussion
• Write in the past tense
• Most journals prefer the passive voice, some the active.
• Consider use of Supplementary Materials
• Documents, spreadsheets, audio, video, .....

29

Reviewers will criticize incomplete or incorrect method descriptions, and may even recommend rejection

30

Results – what have you found?

• The following should be included
• the main findings
• Thus not all findings. Decide what to share.
• Findings from experiments described in the

Methods section

• Highlight findings that differ from findings

in previous publications, and unexpected findings

• Results of the statistical analysis

30

31

"One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words" Sue Hanauer (1968)

Results – Figures and tables

• Illustrations are critical, because:
• Figures and tables are the most efficient way

to present results

• Results are the driving force of the publication
• Captions and legends must be detailed enough

to make figures and tables self-explanatory

• Figures and tables should not need further

explanation or description in text. Less writing and less reading. Let your figures do the work instead of words.

32

Discussion – what do your results mean?

• It is the most important section of your article. Here you get the

chance to SELL your data!

• Many manuscripts are rejected because the Discussion is weak
• Check for the following:

 Do your results relate to the original question or objectives

• utlined in the Introduction section?

 Do you provide interpretation for each of your results presented?  Are your results consistent with what other investigators have

reported? Or are there any differences? Why?

 Are there any limitations?  Does the discussion logically lead to your conclusion?

• Do not:
• Make statements that go beyond what the results can support
• Suddenly introduce new terms or ideas

32

33

Reference Management Software helps

• Many journals are helpful in formatting the journal reference

style for you (e.g. Elsevier’s Your Paper Your Way service).

• If the publisher is not offering this service it is your

responsibility to format references correctly!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software

34

Cover Letter

Your chance to speak to the editor directly

• Submitted along with your manuscript
• Mention what would make your manuscript special

to the journal

• Note special requirements (suggest reviewers,

conflicts of interest)

Final approval from all authors Explanation of importance of research Suggested reviewers

35

Suggest potential reviewers

• Your suggestions will help the Editor to move your

manuscript to the review stage more efficiently.

• You can easily find potential reviewers and their

contact details from articles in your specific subject area (e.g., your references).

• The reviewers should represent at least two

regions of the world. And they should not be your supervisor or close friends.

• Be prepared to suggest 3-6 potential reviewers,

based on the Guide to Authors.

36

Submit a paper Basic requirements met? REJECT Assign reviewers Collect reviewers’ recommendations Make a decision Revise the paper [Reject] [Revision required] [Accept] [Yes] [No] Review and give recommendation START ACCEPT Author Editor Reviewer

The Peer Review Process – not a black hole!

Michael Derntl. Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing. http://www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/meth-se.pdf

37

Why?

• The peer-review system is grossly overloaded

and editors wish to use reviewers only for those papers with a good probability of acceptance.

• It is a disservice to ask reviewers to spend

time on work that has clear and evident deficiencies.

Initial Editorial Review or Desk Reject

Many journals use a system of initial editorial review. Editors may reject a manuscript without sending it out for review.

38

First Decision: “Accepted” or “Rejected”

Accepted

• Very rare, but it happens
• Congratulations!
• Cake for the department
• Now wait for page proofs and

then for your article to be online and in print

Rejected

• Probability 40-90% ...
• Do not despair
• It happens to everybody
• Try to understand WHY
• Consider reviewers’ advice
• Be self-critical
• If you submit to another

journal, begin as if it were a new manuscript

• Take advantage of the reviewers’

comments and revise accordingly

• They may review your manuscript

for the next journal too!

• Read the Guide for Authors of the

new journal, again and again.

39

First Decision: “Major” or “Minor” Revision

• Major revision
• The manuscript may finally be published in the journal
• Significant deficiencies must be corrected before

acceptance

• Usually involves (significant) textual modifications and/or

additional experiments

• Minor revision
• Basically, the manuscript is worth being published
• Some elements in the manuscript must be clarified,

restructured, shortened (often) or expanded (rarely)

• Textual adaptations
• “Minor revision” does NOT guarantee acceptance after

revision, but often it is accepted if all points are addressed!

40

Manuscript Revision

• Prepare a detailed Response Letter
• Copy-paste each reviewer comment, and type your response below it
• State specifically which changes you have made to the manuscript
• Include page/line numbers
• No general statements like “Comment accepted, and Discussion changed

accordingly.”

• Provide a scientific response to comments to accept, .....
• ..... or a convincing, solid and polite rebuttal when you feel the reviewer was

wrong.

• Write in such a manner, that your response can be forwarded to the reviewer

without prior editing

• Do not do yourself a disfavour, but cherish your work
• You spent weeks and months in the lab or the library to do the research
• It took you weeks to write the manuscript.........

.....Why then run the risk of avoidable rejection by not taking manuscript revision seriously?

41 41

Increasing the likelihood of acceptance

All these various steps are not difficult.

You have to be consistent. You have to check and recheck before submitting. Make sure you tell a logical, clear, story about your findings. Especially, take note of referees’ comments. They improve your paper. This should increase the likelihood of your paper being accepted, and being in the 30% (accepted) not the 70% (rejected) group!

42

Your Paper is Published – What now?

• Your paper becomes visible online in

the journal website, such as ScienceDirect, Springer Link etc. and in databases as SCOPUS, PubMed, etc.

• There are many things you can do to

draw attention to your great research just online…

• Think Social Media!

42

43

Publishing as a springboard in science How can scientists be more visible? How can publishers help? What do publishers do?

44

Publishing as a springboard in science

Journals: Editors linked to journals benefit the journal, and benefit themselves by extra exposure and status. The same applies to editorial board members, and many list their position as board member on their CV, or web page listing their achievements. People added to board are either active referees, or high- profile researchers. So the sooner you start being a reviewer the better for your career. But how?

45 45

Publishing as a springboard in science

Scientists who are not editors or editorial board members? Publishing high quality original research papers is always the best way to become known and respected, but there are other ways too. Publishing quality reviews usually attracts high downloads and citations – chance to highlight specific themes or specific papers, thus influencing direction of research field.

46

Review articles vs Original Articles

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Review Article Review Article Review Article

Average cites per paper

Author 2 Author 3

47

Publishing as a springboard in science

Impact: Become a Guest Editor for a Thematic Special Issue for a journal. Guest Editor selects authors important to the subject area, and writes an editorial for the special

• issue. Chance to ‘steer’ a field.

The Special Issue is often referred to by the Guest Editor’s name - helps exposure and recognition. Special Issues are often highly downloaded and cited - good for authors, and good for the guest editor too.

48

Downloads of Special Issue editorials

Journal Volume Issue Article Name Author(s) Downloads Methods 50 4 The ongoing evolution of qPCR Pfaffl, M.W. 3,618 FEBS Letters 584 7 Autophagy Mizushima, N. 2,594 FEBS Letters 585 13 Epigenetics Issa, J.P.; Just, W. 1,948 FEBS Letters 584 17 Telomere biology and DNA repair: Enemies with benefits Lange, T.d. 1,809 FEBS Letters 586 14 TGF-@b signaling in development and disease Massague, J. 1,687 FEBS Letters 585 10 Circadian rhythms Merrow, M.; Brunner, M. 1,292 Methods 58 3 3C-based technologies to study the shape of the genome de Laat, W.; Dekker, J. 1,081 Methods 61 2 Distinguishing between apoptosis, necrosis, necroptosis and other cell death modalities Martin, S.J.; Henry, C.M. 1,031 FEBS Letters 585 18 The ubiquitin clan: A protein family essential for life Wolf, D.H. 1,023 Comparative Biochemistry and 158 3 The challenge of measuring energy expenditure: Current field and laboratory methods Halsey, L.G. 971 Methods 52 3 A-Z of methylome analysis Beck, S. 956 Methods 54 2 RNA Nanotechnology: Methods for synthesis, conjugation, assembly and application of RNA nanoparticles Guo, P. 828 Methods 55 4 A roadmap to membrane protein structures Stevens, R.C. 806 Methods 52 1 Protein folding Gruebele, M. 729 ABB 500 1 Heme peroxidase biochemistry - Facts and perspectives Obinger, C. 589 ABB 525 2 Catalases and hydrogen peroxide metabolism Obinger, C. 584 ABB 503 1 The central role of the skeleton in chronic diseases Teti, A.; Eastell, R. 570

October 2013 data

49

Citations of Special Issues vs Regular Issues

Fitzpatrick/Trends in Enzymology (S.Sec.)

Guengerich/P450 Catalysis and Mechanisms Mukhtar/Biochem and Biophys

• f the Skin

Walsh/Protein Kinases Grant/Allosteric Regulation

DeLuca/Vitamin D

Klotz/Cell-Cell Communication Obinger/Catalysis and H2O2 Rüker/Antibody Engineering Santes-Buelga/ Polyphenols and Health

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1- 2 1 2 1 2 1- 2 1- 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1- 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 2011 2012 Total

Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics October 2013 data

50

Publishing as a springboard in science

Refereeing/reviewing: Active referees often added to editorial board. Not that visible until then, except for annual list of referees published in many journals. Referee acknowledgment programme just starting.

51

Publishing as a springboard in science

Author clinic: As an experienced author, younger researchers and post docs need your experience to help them write better papers. With more published papers, the university authorities are grateful, and your help is often recognized. It feels good too!

52

What a Publisher does (1):

Solicit and manage submissions to journals. Manage Peer review process. Edit and prepare papers. Publish and disseminate online and in print. Develop innovations to help author/reader e.g. Apps. Archive journal articles ‘forever’. Promote and market content. Support young scholars with grants/awards.

53

What a Publisher does (2):

Bibliometric analysis to help journals change to reflect their field better. Plagiarism control and other publishing ethics issues. Recruitment and training of journal editors. Support societies and associations by attending meetings and conferences. Produce training materials/courses/workshops to help authors and referees.

54

Launching and Developing journals



3% more scientists every year



More than 3% more papers every year



Traditional fields splinter and niche fields develop



Many Funding bodies insist on Open Access publishing

• So new journals are needed regularly!
• And existing journals need to evolve to match needs of researchers
• Examples:
• OA Launch

Evolution

55

Editor/Publisher relationship

The Scientific Editor is essential for managing peer-review and scientific quality. Publisher and colleagues do all the back-office tasks for the Editor around the journal. The Publishing House takes care of marketing, subscriptions, typesetting,

• nline content, analysis, permanent archiving of papers, etc.

Editor and Publisher together are a symbiotic team managing the quality, focus, and strategy of the journal so that its scientific content best reflects the community who publish in, and read it.

56

Author Responsibilities

As authors we have lots of rights and privileges, but also we have the responsibility to be ethical.

57

Plagiarism Detection Tools

Elsevier is participating in 2 plagiarism detection schemes:

• TurnItIn (aimed at universities)
• iThenticate (aimed at publishers and

corporations) Manuscripts are automatically checked against a database

• f 30+ million peer reviewed articles which have been

donated by 200+ publishers, including Elsevier. More traditional approach also happens:

• Editors and reviewers
• Your colleagues
• Readers
• "Other“ whistleblowers
• “The walls have ears", it seems ...

58 58

Publication ethics – Self-plagiarism

Same colour left and right = Same text

2003 2004

59 59

An article in which the authors committed plagiarism: it will not be removed from ScienceDirect ever. Everybody who downloads it will see the reason for the retraction…

60

Figure Manipulation – some things are allowed

61

Figure Manipulation

Example - Different authors and reported experiments

Am J Pathol, 2001 Life Sci, 2004

Images worked on, added to, rotated 180°, to become:

Rotated 180o Zoomed out ?!

| 62

| 63

Author Services:

• CiteAlert. New. Free. Unique. Automated service to notify

authors when their articles are cited in Elsevier-published

• journals. For more info and an example please visit:

www.elsevier.com/locate/citealert

• Audioslides. A new tool for authors to put their article in the
• spotlight. See www.elsevier.com/about/content-

innovation/audioslides-author-presentations-for-journal- articles Article Usage Reports. Know and advance your paper’s

• impact. See http://www.elsevier.com/connect/article-usage-

reports-enable-authors-to-track-downloads-and-views

64

Questions?

Or for questions later, please contact a.newman@elsevier.com This set of slides as a PDF will be available through the conference. There is full permission granted to distribute them as long as they are not edited.