Wha t s Yo ur Pro b le m; Wha t s Yo ur Po int? An E a rly-Ca re e - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Wha t’ s Yo ur Pro b le m; Wha t’ s Yo ur Po int?

GSA 2019 Annua l Me e ting , Pho e nix, AZ

An E a rly-Ca re e r Wo rksho p o n Writing Sc ho la rly Pa pe rs

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Ag e nda

• De fining yo ur pro b le m a nd pre pa ring the

ma nusc ript (Na nc y Rig g s)

• Sub mitting a ma nusc ript a nd the re vie w

pro c e ss (Ro na dh Co x)

• PL

E ASE sto p us a t a ny time with a q ue stio n

– try to ke e p q ue stio ns g e ne ra l (wo uld

so me o ne e lse like ly ha ve yo ur q ue stio n ? )

– we wo uld like to he a r yo ur pe rso na l q ue stio ns

a t the e nd o f the se ssio n

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Pa rt I : Be fo re yo u b e g in a nd a s yo u a re writing

Na nc y Rig g s, fo rme r GSA Bulle tin c o -e dito r; Asso c ia te E dito r fo r (g ulp) 20+ ye a rs… B

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du - e ma il me !

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

F ro m the b e g inning

• Yo u’ re finishing up yo ur re se a rc h a nd

thrille d a b o ut yo ur re sults

• Yo u ha ve a no ve l ide a tha t a ppa re ntly

ha sn’ t b e e n disc usse d b e fo re

• Yo u ha ve a n e no rmo us pile o f ma ps

/ se ismic / a na lyse s / vide o fo o ta g e / re mo te ima g e ry a nd synthe sis o f the m

IT ’S T IM E T O PUBLISH!

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

F ro m the b e g inning

• Cho o se the mo st a ppro pria te jo urna l

– who is yo ur a udie nc e ?

• T

hink a b o ut the prima ry ide a yo u wa nt to c o nve y

• T

hink a b o ut who yo ur c o -a utho rs sho uld b e (if a ny)

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Whic h jo urna l? (GSA e xa mple )

Quic k de sc riptio ns o f e a c h jo urna l

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Whic h jo urna l? (GSA e xa mple )

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Whic h jo urna l? (GSA e xa mple )

E a c h jo urna l ha s a uniq ue nic he : whic h is b e st fo r yo ur wo rk?

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Whic h jo urna l?

E a c h jo urna l ha s a uniq ue nic he : whic h is b e st fo r yo ur wo rk?

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

F ro m the b e g inning

• Write !

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Use the jo urna l

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Use the jo urna l

• Mo de l ho w yo u c o nstruc t the

ma nusc ript o n a pub lishe d pa pe r (struc ture , fo rma tting , dia g ra ms, ta b le s, e tc .)

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Ge tting the e dito r inte re ste d in yo ur ma nusc ript

 Ro na dh will disc uss this – suffic e to sa y

tha t the e dito r is the g a te ke e pe r

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• Mo st ide a s ha ve va lue
• F

ra me yo ur ide a in a wa y tha t yo ur

• ffic e ma te / pa rtne r / c o lle a g ue c a n

se e its va lue : why wo uld so me o ne re a d a b o ut this?

• One (we ll-de ve lo pe d) ide a pe r pa pe r

ma y b e e no ug h

Wha t is impo rta nt?

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• One (we ll-de ve lo pe d) ide a pe r pa pe r

ma y b e e no ug h

– yo ur wo rk wa s o n de trita l zirc o n in a T

ria ssic unit

– yo ur MS stude nt wo rke d o n the pe tro lo g y o f

vo lc a nic c o b b le s in tha t unit

– is this o ne pa pe r a b o ut pro ve na nc e o r o ne

a b o ut pro ve na nc e a nd o ne a b o ut pe tro lo g y

• f the a rc tha t wa s the so urc e ?
• Ho w c a n a g e o sc ie ntist o n the o the r side
• f the wo rld use yo ur ide a ?

Wha t is impo rta nt?

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• E

ve ryo ne who ha d a sub sta ntia l c o ntrib utio n in fra ming the pro b le m a nd its re so lutio n.

– a ll a utho rs must c o ntrib ute to writing the

pa pe r, whe the r lite ra lly o r thro ug h ide a s

– ma ny jo urna ls re q uire c o nfirma tio n

Who a re yo ur c o -a utho rs?

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• Who is yo ur a udie nc e

– ke e p in mind tha t if yo u a re writing fo r a

“g e ne ra l” jo urna l, yo u must a ssume re la tive ly little infe rre d kno wle dg e (yo ur re a de r kno ws muc h le ss a b o ut yo ur to pic tha n yo u do …)

“g e t re a dy” to write

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• Ho urg la ss struc ture
• I

MRAD (intro duc tio n, me tho ds, re sults, a nd disc ussio n)

Write !

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Ho urg la ss struc ture

BIG concepts & context findings (background, methods, data, results, comparisons... ) discussion, relevance, synthesis, implications, predictions — more broad context introduction the ‘meat’ wrap up

% impact % impact

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• T

hink ve ry se rio usly a b o ut writing a n

• utline first…
• Ma ke a list o f like ly fig ure s a nd inse rt

the m in the o utline

Write !

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• F
• llo w the sc ie ntific me tho d

– wha t is kno wn – wha t is no t kno wn / po o rly unde rsto o d /

c o ntra dic to ry to the pre vio us ide a s: Wha t is the pro b le m? !

– why yo u use d the me tho d / fie ld site /

ima g e s yo u did – ho w it/ the y a re T HE wa y to so lve the pro b

– a b it a b o ut yo ur c o nc lusio ns

Write the I ntro duc tio n

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• T

he I ntro ne e ds to sho w tha t yo u a re a wa re o f the pe rtine nt lite ra ture

• Be BRI

E F

– the I

ntro duc tio n is c ritic a l b ut sho uld no t b e mo re tha n ~2 do ub le -spa c e d pa g e s (fa r le ss fo r Ge o lo g y)

– b e sure a ll the ma in po ints a re c o ve re d

witho ut e xc e ssive de ta il

• T

he I ntro duc tio n se ts the sta g e …

Write the I ntro duc tio n

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• Me tho ds

– suffic ie ntly de sc riptive tha t the y c a n b e

re plic a te d

• F

ig ure s a nd ta b le s tha t sta nd a lo ne a nd suppo rt the pa pe r

• Da ta (re sults):

– a ll yo ur re sults whe the r the y suppo rt yo ur

ide a s o r no t

– no b ia s, no inte rpre ta tio n a t this po int

T he o the r pa rts

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• Disc ussio n

– do NOT

intro duc e ne w da ta in this se c tio n

– disc uss yo ur ide a s a nd inte rpre ta tio ns – ho w do yo ur da ta a nd ide a s me sh with o the r

pre vio us wo rk

• Co nc lusio n
• T

he title (!!) (write this la st)

– why wo uld so me o ne c ho o se to re a d yo ur

pa pe r?

– b e de sc riptive a nd spe c ific

T he o the r pa rts

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• Write to yo ur fig ure s

– “a pic ture pa ints a tho usa nd wo rds…”

(wha t wo rds a re yo u re pla c ing )?

– ho w do e s a fig ure suppo rt the te xt? – a fig ure c a ptio n sho uld hig hlig ht the ta ke -

a wa y po ints a nd no t b e pa g e s lo ng …

• Write , put the ma nusc ript do wn fo r

thre e da ys, a nd re write

Othe r tips fo r pre pa ring the ma nusc ript: the do ’ s

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• Put yo ur c o -a utho rs to wo rk! Ma ke

the m re a d a dra ft.

• Whe n using c o ntrib utio ns fro m c o -

a utho rs, do n’ t he sita te to re write in yo ur o wn vo ic e

Othe r tips fo r pre pa ring the ma nusc ript: the do ’ s

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• a b stra c t o r intro to o lo ng
• no ide a o f the purpo se
• we ird fo rma tting (e .g ., ma rg ins)
• sing le line spa c ing
• no line numb e rs
• o b tuse writing
• “pre a c hy”
• re fe re nc e s no t GSA fo rma t
• no summa ry o r c o nc lusio ns

Othe r tips fo r pre pa ring the ma nusc ript: the do n’ ts

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• lo o k fo r tha t ho o k – will yo ur pa pe r a ppe a l to

mo re tha n the 25 g e o sc ie ntists in yo ur sub disc ipline ?

• lo o k a t the ma tc h with the jo urna l –

inno va tive ? da ta -ric h? SO

• b e sure to lo o k a t a jo urna l’ s missio n

sta te me nt

• e sta b lish c o nne c tio ns b e twe e n yo ur wo rk a nd

b ro a de r pro b le ms

• PL

E ASE re me mb e r tha t the e dito r is g a te - ke e pe r first a nd is no t o b lig e d to se nd yo ur ma nusc ript o ut fo r re vie w…

T he e dito r will…

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

• Ne ve r sta rt yo ur pa pe r (Ab stra c t o r

I ntro duc tio n) with “We ”. T he pa pe r is a b o ut ro c ks o r te c hniq ue s o r ma ny

• the r thing s, b ut no t a b o ut yo u.
• Do n’ t write to b e unde rsto o d, write so

tha t yo u c a nno t b e misunde rsto o d

L a st b ut no t le a st

na nc y.rig g s@ na u.e du

Submission and Review

What’s yo ur pro ble m, What’s yo ur po int?

GS A Natio nal Me e ting, I ndianapo lis 2018

Rónadh Cox

Williams College Former Editor of GEOLOGY

rcox@williams.edu

(1) As a writer (2) As a reviewer

As a member of the research community you interact with the review process in two ways

Racetalkblog Forensic Science Society

rcox@williams.edu

Reviewers review Reviewers review Reviewers review Final decision Editor evaluates revisions Editor chooses reviewers Data, results, ideas Authors frame paper Choose target journal Editor declines paper

Submission and Review Process

Authors write and submit paper Authors revise and submit detailed list of changes Reject Revise Editor analyses and summarises reviews, makes decision

rcox@williams.edu

rcox@williams.edu

Do your job right: be professional Make the presentation PERFECT!!

• the paper is as good as you can make it
• follow journal guidelines for organisation
• pay attention to file formats
• complete and correct reference list
• thoughtful reviewer suggestions

rcox@williams.edu

• 1. Make editor

s’ and r eviewer s’ jobs as easy as you c an:

Make your manuscript the best it can be.

• Editors and reviewers have to work harder to follow and

understand a paper that is poorly written, poorly prepared, or poorly thought through.

• If the reviewer’s job is harder:

(a) they will be trying to figure out where you are coming from and therefore may not be able to efficiently provide the constructive criticism that is so valuable. (b) they may become irritated with you and your paper, which may make them more critical. As a writer:

rcox@williams.edu

rcox@williams.edu

The cover letter matters: What’s your problem? What’s your point?

Context, c ontext, c ontext!

rcox@williams.edu

Suggesting reviewers:

https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Publications/Info_Services/Ethical_ Guidelines/GSA/Pubs/Ethical_Guidelines.aspx

• 4. Reviewers

4.1. A reviewer should disclose real or perceived conflict of interests to the Editor before agreeing to write a review. Examples include, but are not restricted to, past (within the last 5 years) or current collaboration, close friend, employer or employee, family relationship, institutional relationship, past or present graduate advisor or advisee, someone with whom the reviewer has had past

• r ongoing acrimonious relations, or situations where the reviewer

could stand to gain economically by publication or rejection of the

• manuscript. The Editor will decide if the conflict is severe enough to

prevent the reviewer from writing a fair, objective review.

pick people with the appropriate expertise, whom you think can give a fair evaluation of the work. Be mindful of ethics

rcox@williams.edu

Suggesting reviewers: You can also, if appropriate, list “opposed reviewers” Which are ethical reasons to oppose a reviewer?

• antagonistic personality
• scientific disagreements
• “competitors”

✓ ✘ ✘

rcox@williams.edu

Reviewers review Reviewers review Reviewers review Final decision Editor evaluates revisions Editor chooses reviewers Data, results, ideas Authors frame paper Choose target journal

Submission and Review Process

Authors write and submit paper Authors revise and submit detailed list of changes Reject Revise Editor analyses and summarises reviews, makes decision

rcox@williams.edu

Appr ec iate the wor k of the r eviewer.

Don’t be snarky, or dismissive of criticism.

• The reviewers’ comments are a window to how the

community at large will respond to your paper. Take them to heart in good spirit.

• If the reviewer misunderstood a point that you

thought was clear, consider the possibility that you did not explain yourself as well as you thought.

• If you disagree with a reviewer’s point, refute it (in

your response to the editor) in a collegial way, providing solid grounds.

rcox@williams.edu

Reviewers review Reviewers review Reviewers review Final decision Editor evaluates revisions Editor chooses reviewers Data, results, ideas Authors frame paper Choose target journal

Submission and Review Process

Authors write and submit paper Authors revise and submit detailed list of changes Revise Editor analyses and summarises reviews, makes decision

rcox@williams.edu

When working on your revisions

• 1. Doc umenting the c hanges you make is impor

tant

• Don’t go at the revisions like a bull at a gate. Be
• rganised.
• ALWAYS use “track changes” in your file!
• Make a list of the reviewers’ points, and as you

address each one, annotate your list with the changes you made.

• If you do no t make a suggested change, specify

why you believe that change is not necessary.

image from semrush.com

rcox@williams.edu

When working on your revisions

• 2. T

he tone you take is impor tant

• Don’t be snarky. It never goes over well. Even if the

reviewer is demonstrably an ass, be gracious. “Be kind whenever possible. It’s always possible”

rcox@williams.edu

R eviewing paper s is an integr al par t of the c ultur e and pr ac tic e of r esear c h

Lots of resources out there: e.g. “How to review a paper” in Science (2016) By Elisabeth Pain

sciencemag.org/careers/2016/09/how-review-paper

rcox@williams.edu

• 1. Be a good c itizen.
• Every paper you submit for publication will be

reviewed by ≈three people. It’s your duty to the community to step up and take your turn.

• Seek out opportunities to review! It’s great

experience. As a reviewer:

rcox@williams.edu

• 2. Appr

ec iate the wor k of the wr iter.

• Don’t be snarky, or dismissive of their interpretations.
• If you disagree with the writer’s points, refute them in

a collegial way, providing solid grounds.

• If you see or suspect ethical or other serious issues,

address them in confidential comments to the editor.

• Your main task is to evaluate the science, but if you

see a way to help the writer express their thoughts more clearly, provide that feedback. As a reviewer:

rcox@williams.edu

• 3. T

ake the oppor tunity to lear n and impr

• ve

your

• wn wr

iting.

• If the writer makes some point well, or you notice a

good structural or narrative technique, take that on board and add it to your arsenal.

• If the paper is dreadful, try and understand why it

fails, and avoid those pitfalls yourself. As a reviewer:

rcox@williams.edu

Dear Dr. X, (This Journal) is receiving nearly twice as many papers as we can publish which has caused us to tightly interpret our charge of publishing novel contributions on subjects of broad interest within the earth and planetary science community.…Stuff about the paper… I then examined the reviewer records of the first two authors and discovered that, of the 23 requests for reviews sent to you and Dr. Y over many years, not a single completed review has resulted (due to rejection, termination, or failure to provide an agreed review). Although you are not the prime culprit in this record, I find it frankly remarkable that collectively you would submit to a journal in whose well-being you have shown so little interest. Your paper has been rejected without review. Yours sincerely…..

T he Impor tanc e of R eviewing: A (T r ue!!) Cautionar y T ale

cartoon from Pixgood.com

rcox@williams.edu

In sum

Be organised and thorough: professionalism is key! Be grateful for reviews and be grateful to reviewers. Seek out opportunities to review!

McDaniel College Writing Centre

rcox@williams.edu

Thinking as a reviewer, what would you expect to see in a manuscript? T

his e xe rc ise c an he lp yo u me ntally ste p away fro m yo ur writing and think abo ut it fro m an o utside r’s pe rspe c tive .

How can you frame your problem effectively and efficiently? How do you fit your point in limited space? How do you balance a creative-writing approach with presentation of data and results? How can you be both functional and readable? What are good strategies or for writing and rewriting(either before submission or after review)?

Questions for gener al disc ussion

rcox@williams.edu