This document discusses key considerations for publishing scholarly articles in journals. It provides guidance on communicating new knowledge, building reputation, choosing the right journal based on scope and impact factor, and navigating the review process. The review process involves initial screening, assignment to editors, peer review, potential revisions, and final acceptance decisions. Criteria for acceptance include relevance to journal scope, scientific novelty, rigorous methods, clear presentation and interpretation of results. Authors are advised to follow submission instructions carefully and tell a clear, focused story with their research.

1. Publication in scholarly journals
Graham H Fleet
Food Science Group
School of Chemical Engineering,
University of New South Wales
Sydney
Australia
Email g.fleet@unsw.edu.au

2. Why publish??
Communicate new knowledge
Communicate new understanding, new ideas
Build your
national, international
reputation and and
profile

3. Which journal ???
• Journal scope—very important ;
read journal instructions!!
• Impact factor ??
• International
• Local/ national
• Cost $$$

4. The review process
• Author manuscript
• Receipt by journal publisher
• Administrative technical assessment ( English, correct format, style)
• Chief editor assessment ( pass on to editor/reject)
• Editor assessment ( worthy of review/ reject)
• Reviewer selection, sent out for review, 2-3 reviewers
• Reviewer reports to editor ( accept/revise/reject)
• Editor decision ( accept/revise/reject)
• Chief editor advises author
• Author revision, return revised ms to journal
• Chief editor editor
• Editor decision , accept/ revision 2/ revision 3 !!
• Chief editor advises author

5. Criteria for acceptance
• Within journal scope and conform to journal
formatting requirements
• Scientific novelty—new information and
understanding that advances the field
• Confirmation of relatively recent knowledge and
understanding
• Good experimental plan, methods, sampling
• Adequate repetition of experiments and analyses
• Accurate interpretation and discussion of
experimental results

6. Criteria for acceptance
Presentation is very important
• Precise and meaningful title
• Introduction: no more than 2.5x A4 double
spaced pages , about 750 words. Background
knowledge, gap in knowledge, why your
proposed research is needed, clear statement
of objectives. Sharply focused to points of
relevance. Not a literature survey

7. Presentation
Materials and methods
• Clear, concise description of experimental procedures and
methods ,referenced
• Sub-sections, sub-headings (eg sampling of fruit; juice
extraction and preparation; wine fermentation; isolation
, enumeration and identification of microorganisms from
wine; effect of pesticide application to fruits on wine
fermentation)
• Include important, relevant information ( eg source and
number of samples; how many times experiment was
repeated; how many times each analyses repeated; how
many people in taste panel)
Must convince reviewer / reader that your data and
conclusions are valid and reproducible

8. Presentation
Results
• Sub-sections, sub-headings
• Explain what you have done and found; state
conclusion in context of experimental purpose.
• Package data into clearly structured tables and
figures, with precise meaningful titles; less than
8 figures and tables total; explain data to reader.
• Justification for figures is important ( frequent
reviewer comment—figure not essential, delete
and state data and conclusion as text)

9. Presentation
Discussion
• Link your conclusions to objective given in Introduction
• Relate findings to previous literature, emphasizing novelty of
your findings and how they advance knowledge
• Discuss any limitations of your experimental plan and
findings ; propose future research
• Avoid repeating results; avoid excessive reference to
literature ( not a survey); ( frequent comment by
reviewers!!)
• Concluding/ summarizing paragraph
• Keep a sharp focus to the main purpose of your research

10. Some general observations
• Many papers do not make it through the first
gate—publisher administrator-- and are
returned to author for fixing as they do not
conform to journal instructions.
• Many papers ( more than 50%??) do not make it
past the first screening by the Chief Editor for
assignment to editors and peer review. Why??
They do not contain new information; they do
not tell a clear, concise interesting story ( ie poor
presentation); scientific plan/ methods are
weak; interpretation of experimental data is
faulty.

11. General observations
• Editors decide to reject the paper directly
without sending it out for peer review. Why??
Same reasons as given for Chief Editor. It is a
demanding task to get good reviewers that take
the time to provide good constructive criticism.
Reviewers do not like to get sub-standard papers
that waste their time, so the editor functions as
an extra filter, at this stage.
• Editors may directly reject as much as 50% of
papers- ie. they are not sent out for review.

12. The key to success
• Follow instructions
• Clear, focused background and justification for research, followed by
precise objectives that provide new scientific information and advance
the field
• Simple clear language/writing that is logically organized and is concise
and focused to the main points; precise sub-headings, table/figure titles
• Good scientific methods and experimental plan, accurate, clear
explanation and interpretation of data; adequate reproducibility.
TELL A NICE CLEAR INTERESTING
STORY!!!