How to get published: A guide to the scholarly publishing process

How to get published
Chen Lin
Publisher of Global Environmental Science
c.lin@elsevier.com

| 2
• Scholarly Publishing and Elsevier
• How to get published
– Peer Review and Journal Publication Cycle
– Planning your article
– Structuring your article
– Using proper scientific language
– Dealing with Reviewers’ comments
– Publication and Promotion for your work
Introduction

| 3
• 1439
• Gutenberg and
moveable type
Origins of scholarly publishing
•
Henry
Oldenburg
(1618- 1677)
Founding Editor
and Commercial
Publisher of the
first scientific
journal
1580
Founding of the
House of Elzevir
March 6,1665
Philosophical
Transactions
of the Royal
Society
First true
scholarly journal

| 4
• Scientific, technical and medical (STM) publishing
Scholarly publishing today
2,000 STM
publishers
1.4 million
peer-reviewed
articles
20,000
peer-reviewed
journals

| 5
•
Global expansion of scientific research
United States
China
United Kingdom
Germany
Japan
France
India
Republic of Korea
Brazil
TaiwanTurkey
Iran
Malaysia
Romania
Thailand
Egypt
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 100 200 300 400 500
Compoundannualgrowthrateinarticles
2006-2010
Articles 2010 (thousands)

| 6
• Registration
• The timestamp to officially note who submitted scientific results first
• Certification
• Perform peer-review to ensure the validity and integrity of submissions
• Dissemination
• Provide a medium for discoveries and findings to be shared
• Preservation
• Preserving the minutes and record of science for posterity
Role of scientific publications

| 7
•
Academic publishing
The publishing cycle
Solicit &
manage
submissions
30-60%
rejected by
> 13,000
editors
Manage
Peer Review
557,000+
reviewers
Edit &
prepare
420,000
articles
accepted
Production
12.6 million
articles
available
Publish &
Disseminate
>700 million
downloads by
>11 million
researchers in
>120 countries!
January 2015

| 9
– Preparing your manuscript
– Promoting your research
Introduction

| 10
▪ Peer review consists of the evaluation of articles by experts in the
field
▪ It was first used in 1665, by the Royal Society in London
▪ Peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of
scientific publishing
▪ Reviewers make the editorial process work by examining and
commenting on manuscripts
▪ Without peer review there is no control in scientific communication
▪ Reviewers are the backbone of the whole process
Academic publishing
What is peer review?

| 11
• Helps to determine the quality, validity, significance, and originality of
research
• Helps to improve the quality of papers
• Publishers are outside the academic process and are not prone to
prejudice or favour
• Publishers facilitate the review process by investing in online review
systems and providing tools to help Editors and Reviewers
Peer review
January 2015

| 12
▪ Value from mentoring young researchers
▪ Enjoyment in reviewing
▪ General interest in the area
▪ Awareness of new research and developments before their peers
▪ Career development
▪ Help with own research or new ideas
▪ Association with journals and Editors
▪ Keep updated with latest developments
Why do reviewers review?

| 13
• The peer review process is based on trust
• The scientific publishing enterprise depends largely on the quality
and integrity of the reviewers
• Reviewers should write reports in a collegial and constructive
manner
• Reviewers should treat all manuscripts in the same manner
Role and tasks of reviewer

| 14
•
Online peer review systems
Online peer review
systems accept
manuscript submissions
and facilitate online peer
review
Online systems can
handle hundreds of
thousands of
submissions and reviews
per year
January 2015

| 15
The journal publishing cycle
Solicit and
manage
submissions
Manage
peer review
Edit and
prepare
Archive and
promote use
Publish and
disseminate
Production
January 2015

| 16
Introduction

| 17
Planning your article
Are you ready to publish?
Not ready
Work has no scientific interest
Ready
Work advances the field

| 18
• Determine if you are ready to publish your work
• Decide on the best type of manuscript
• Choose the target journal
• Check the Guide for Authors
Before writing your paper

| 19
▪ Clear and useful message
▪ A logical manner
▪ Readers grasp the research
Planning Your Article
What makes a strong manuscript?
Editors, reviewers and readers all want to receive
well presented manuscripts that fit within the aims
and scope of their journal.

| 20
• Full articles
• Substantial, complete and comprehensive pieces of research
Is my message sufficient for a full article?
• Letters or short communications
• Quick and early communications
Are my results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?
• Review papers
• Summaries of recent developments on a specific top
• Often submitted by invitation
Planning your article
Types of manuscripts
Your supervisor or colleagues are also good sources for
advice on manuscript types.

| 21
– Adaptations and customizations to methods
(Example journal: MethodsX )
– Published datasets: available for sharing and reuse (Example
journal: Data in Brief)
– Articles that acknowledge the impact of software on research
(Example journal: SoftwareX)
New types of manuscripts
Ask your supervisor and colleagues for advice on manuscript type.
Sometimes outsiders see things more clearly than you.

| 22
Choosing the right journal
Best practices
▪ Aim to reach the intended audience for your work
▪ Choose only one journal, as simultaneous submissions are prohibited
▪ Supervisor and colleagues can provide good suggestions
▪ Shortlist a handful of candidate journals, and investigate them:
• Aims
• Scope
• Accepted types of articles
• Readership
• Speed of reviewing and publication
• Current hot topics
Articles in your reference list will usually lead you
directly to the right journals.

| 23
Journal Finder Tool
https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/
JANE: neural-publisher tool

| 24
▪ It indicates how many times the more recent papers in a journal are
cited on average in a given year
▪ It is influenced by editorial policies of journals and turnover of
research
The Impact Factor
The impact factor can give you a general
guidance, but it should NOT be the sole reason
to choose a journal.

| 25
• First Author:
▪ Conducts and/or supervises the data
analysis and the proper presentation and
interpretation of the results
▪ Puts paper together and submits the paper
to journal
• Co-Author(s):
▪ Makes intellectual contributions to the data
analysis and contributes to data
interpretation
▪ Reviews each paper draft
▪ Must be able to present the results, defend
the implications and discuss study limitations
Authorship: Do’s and don’ts
General principles for who is listed first:
Ghost Authors:
▪ Leaving out authors who should be
included
Scientific Writers and Gift Authors:
▪ Including authors when they did not
contribute significantly
Abuses to be avoided:

| 26
Preparing your manuscript
Guide for Authors
▪ Find it on the journal homepage of the publisher, e.g. Elsevier.com
▪ Keep to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript
▪ It will save your time

| 27
Solicit and
manage
submissions
Manage
peer review
Edit and
prepare
Archive and
promote use
Publish and
disseminate
Production
January 2015

| 28
Introduction

| 29
• Title
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgements
• References
• Supporting materials
General structure of a research article
January 2015
Available on electronic indexing
Make them easy for indexing and
searching (informative, attractive,
effective).
present your work and convey the main
messages and findings effectively

| 30
▪ Attract reader’s attention
▪ Contain fewest possible words
▪ Adequately describe content
▪ Are informative but concise
▪ Identify main issue
▪ Do not use technical jargon and rarely-used abbreviations
Effective manuscript titles
Editors and reviewers do not like titles that make no sense or fail to
represent the subject matter adequately. Additionally, if the title is not
accurate, the appropriate audience may not read your paper.

| 31
▪ Are the labels of the manuscript
▪ Are used by indexing and abstracting services
▪ Should be specific
▪ Should use only established abbreviations (e.g. DNA)
Keywords
Article title Keywords
“An experimental study on
evacuated tube solar collector using
supercritical CO2”
Solar collector; supercritical CO2;
solar energy; solar thermal
utilization
Check the Guide for Authors for specifics on which keywords should be
used.

| 32
▪ Summarize the problem, methods, results, and conclusions in a
single paragraph
▪ Make it interesting and understandable
▪ Make it accurate and specific
▪ A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your
work is considered
▪ Keep it as brief as possible
Abstract
Take the time to write the abstract very carefully. Many authors write the
abstract last so that it accurately reflects the content of the paper.

| 33
The process of writing – building the article
Title, Abstract, and Keywords
Figures/Tables (your data)
Conclusion Introduction
Methods Results Discussion

| 34
• Provide a brief context to the readers
• Address the problem
• Identify the solutions and limitations
• Identify what the work is trying to achieve
• Provide a perspective consistent with the nature of the journal
Introduction
Write a unique introduction for every article. DO NOT reuse introductions.

| 35
• Describe how the problem was studied
• Include detailed information
• Do not describe previously published procedures
• Identify the equipment and materials used
Methods

| 36
Methods – ethics committee approval
▪ Experiments on humans or animals must follow
applicable ethics standards
▪ Approval of the local ethics committee is required and
should be specified in the manuscript, covering letter,
or the online submission system
▪ Editors can make their own decisions on ethics

| 37
• Include only data of primary importance
• Use sub-headings to keep results of the same type together
• Be clear and easy to understand
•
• Highlight the main findings
• Feature unexpected findings
• Provide statistical analysis
• Include illustrations and figures
Results

| 38
• Interpretation of results
• Most important section
• Make the discussion correspond to the results and complement
them
• Compare published results with your own
Discussion
Be careful not to use the following:
- Statements that go beyond what the results can support
- Non-specific expressions
- New terms not already defined or mentioned in your paper
- Speculations on possible interpretations based on imagination

| 39
▪ Be clear
▪ Provide justification for the work
▪ Explain how your work advances the present state of knowledge
▪ Suggest future experiments
Conclusion

| 40
▪ Advisors
▪ Financial supporters and funders
▪ Proof readers and typists
▪ Suppliers who may have donated materials
Acknowledgments

| 41
▪ Do not use too many references
▪ Always ensure you have fully absorbed the material you are referencing
▪ Avoid excessive self citations
▪ Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region or institute
▪ Conform strictly to the style given in the Guide for Authors
References

| 42
▪ Writing an article is hard work – finding and sorting research,
preparing references, sourcing feedback...
▪ You can get help from Mendeley (www.mendeley.com), a
free reference manager and academic social network.
▪ The Mendeley Reference Manager generates citations and
bibliographies in Word, OpenOffice, and LaTeX.
▪ You can also use Mendeley to connect with colleagues and securely
share papers, notes, and annotations.
▪ You can also use Mendeley’s social network to identify potential
collaborators.
Help with your article

| 43
Recap - building up your article properly (I)
Title Abstract
Keywords Main text
(IMRAD)

| 44
Recap - building up your article properly (II)
Conclusion Acknowledgements
References
Supporting
materials

| 45
Introduction

| 46
▪ Poor language quality can delay or block publication of work
▪ Proper English should be used throughout the manuscript
Why is language important?

| 47
Do publishers correct language?
No!
It is the author’s
responsibility...
...but resources
are available

| 48
• Clear
• Objective
• Accurate
• Concise
Manuscript language: Overview
Always read the journal’s Guide for Authors to check for any additional
language specifications.

| 49
▪ Write direct, short, and factual sentences
▪ Convey one piece of information per sentence
▪ Avoid multiple statements in one sentence
Manuscript language: Sentences
The average length of sentences in scientific writing
is only about 12-17 words.

| 50
•
Manuscript language: Tenses
Present tense:
Use for known facts and hypotheses
Used for discussion
Past tense:
Use for experiments conducted
and results
Future tense:
Use for applications and future
experiments
for example, “The average life of a honey
bee IS 6 weeks.”
for example, “The average life span of
bees in our contained environment WAS 8
weeks.”

| 51
▪ Use active voice to shorten sentences
▪ Avoid contractions and abbreviations
▪ Minimize use of adverbs
▪ Eliminate redundant phrases
▪ Double-check unfamiliar words or phrases
Manuscript language: Grammar
“we found that…” instead of “it has been found that there had been…”
avoid contractions such as “it’s”, “isn’t”, or “weren’t”

| 52
▪ Proper English is important so editors and reviewers can understand
the work
▪ Use short, concise sentences, correct tenses, and correct grammar
▪ Refer to the journal’s Guide for Authors for specifications
▪ Have a native English speaker check your manuscript or use a
language editing service
Recap
Are you using proper manuscript language?

| 53
– Using proper scientific language and writing lay summary
Introduction

| 54
• Rejected without review (desk reject)
• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject
Getting your paper back
Image: Nick Kim - http://www.lab-initio.com/

| 55
• Stay calm
• Read the comments
• Re-read the comments
• Get someone else to read the comments
• Take a break
• Make a table that details every comment
and the changes required
First steps
• Once you get your paper back…..

| 56
• Deal with minor comments first
• Deal with major comments
• Begin drafting response letter
• Golden Rules:
• Be polite
• Be thorough
• Answer with evidence
Responding to comments

| 57
• Reviewers do this for free
• Encourages good feeling
• Makes a good impression
• Especially important if you disagree with
reviewers
• Don’t use harsh
language or sweeping
statements
Be polite

| 58
• We agree with the referee that …, but
• The referee is right to point out …, yet
• Whilst we agree with the referee that........
• It is true that ..., but
• We acknowledge that our paper might have been...., but
• We too were disappointed by the low response rate...
• We agree that this is an important area that requires further
research.....
• We support the referee’s assertion that ...., although
Useful phrases
Taken from H.C. Williams (2004) “How to reply to referee’s comments when submitting manuscripts for
publication”, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 51, 71-83.

| 59
• Address every comment
• Do not ignore any comments
• Makes a good impression
• Clarity and structure
• Take your time
Be thorough

| 60
• Especially when disagreeing
• Provide extra data
• Add information to your article
Answer with evidence

| 61
• Addressed to Editors and reviewers
• Include manuscript title and ID
• Summarize
• Address disagreements
• Be polite
Response letters

| 62
• Two reviewers disagree
• The reviewer is wrong
• Comments you don’t understand
• Rude reviewers
• Resubmit or go elsewhere?
Specific Scenarios

| 63
• Happens often, but why?
• Ask the Editor
• Don’t use as an opportunity to play
reviewers off
• Don’t go for the
• middle ground
Two reviewers disagree

| 64
• Can happen, but why?
• Not all reviewers are equal
• Don’t agree with them
• Use the Editor as the judge
• Be polite
• Don’t presume you
• are right
The reviewer is wrong

| 65
Ask
Comments you don’t understand

| 66
• Sadly quite common
• Rudeness or sensitivity?
• Take criticism on board
• Contact the Editor
Rude reviewers

| 67
• Never submit the same version of the
article elsewhere
• Always use the reviewers comments
Resubmit or go elsewhere?

| 68
– Using proper scientific language and writing lay summary
Introduction

| 69
•
Solicit and
manage
submissions
Manage
peer review
Edit and
prepare
Archive and
promote use
Publish and
disseminate
Production
January 2015

| 70
▪ Preprint
Author submits manuscript
▪ Manuscript accepted
▪ Document proof
Copy editing, Author proofing, preparation for publishing
▪ Published journal article
Logo, pagination, branding
▪ Electronic Warehouse
Published as print, HTML or PDF copy
Journal article production
•
•
January 2015

| 71
•
Why do we need originality and ethical conduct?
Unethical behavior by Researchers degrades the scientific record and
the reputation of science and medicine in the broader community.
It can unfairly affect the reputation and academic record of individual
researchers/authors.
A Massive Case Of Fraud
Chemical & Engineering News
February 18, 2008
Journal editors are left reeling as publishers move
to rid their archives of scientist's falsified research
William G. Schulz
A CHEMIST IN INDIA has been found guilty of
plagiarizing and/or falsifying more than 70
research papers published in a wide variety of
Western scientific journals between 2004 and
2007, according to documents from his university,
copies of which were obtained by C&EN. Some
journal editors left reeling by the incident say it is
one of the most spectacular and outrageous
cases of scientific fraud they have ever seen. …

| 72
1. Fabrication
Making up research data
2. Falsification
Manipulation of existing research data
3. Plagiarism
Previous work taken and passed off as one’s own
The most serious issues to avoid
These are the 3 most common forms of ethical misconduct that the
research community is challenged with:

| 73
Traditional print journals
Methods of dissemination
and
Electronic journal platforms
like Elsevier’s ScienceDirect
improve online dissemination and access
January 2015

| 74
▪ Journal articles
▪ Expert commentary
▪ Conference coverage
Other methods of dissemination
Advertising-supported portals
▪ Articles feeds
▪ Podcasts
▪ Blogs
Mobile apps
January 2015

| 75
• Authors publish free of charge
• Institutions or individuals subscribe
to journals
Other publishing models
Traditional publishing
• Author (or institution/funding agency) pays
an article publication fee
• Article is made freely available to all online
• Some journals publish exclusively open
access
• Other subscription journals offer open
access options
Open access publishing
January 2015

| 76
• Free and permanent access to scholarly research
• combined with clear guidelines (user licenses) for users to re-
use the content.
What is open access?
•
•
Gold open access
▪ After submission and peer review, an
article publishing charge (APC) is payable
▪ Upon publication everyone can
immediately and permanently access the
article online
Green open access
▪ After submission and peer review in a
subscription journal, the article is published
online
▪ Subscribers have immediate access and
the article is made open access either
through author self-archiving, publisher
deposit or linking.

| 77
•
Solicit and
manage
submissions
Manage
peer review
Edit and
prepare
Archive and
promote use
Publish and
disseminate
Production
January 2015

| 78
• Promotion of research
▪ Conferences
▪ Newsletters
▪ Alerts
▪ Abstracting and indexing databases
• Workflows and research tool examples
▪ Geofacets: assisting oil and gas exploration
▪ Patient Research: facilitating access to research for medical patients
▪ Clinical Pharmacology: identifying interactions between prescribed
drugs
Promoting research
January 2015

| 79
• The volume of research articles is growing at an accelerated pace
• For most researchers, it’s a real challenge to keep up with the
literature
• Your job: make sure your research doesn’t fall through the cracks!
You want to make sure your research gets the
attention it deserves
7 hrs/week
average time
spent on literature
1970 2013
0
40M

| 80
2. Promoting your
published article
3. Monitoring your
article
1. Preparing your
article

| 81
• Publishers partner with organizations to keep multiple archives of all
published research.
• Elsevier partners with:
▪ The National Library of Netherlands
▪ Portico
▪ CLOCKSS
Preservation and archiving
January 2015

| 82
•
Further reading at
researcheracademy.com
elsevier.com/authors
elsevier.com/reviewers
elsevier.com/editors
Get Published – top tips on writing, reviewing and grant writing etc.
Publishing Ethics brochure – top reasons to publish ethically
Get Noticed – new ways to promote your article and research
Understanding the Publishing Process with Elsevier – complete guide
Open access – definitions and options
Career Planning Guide – download in 12 languages

How to get published: A guide to the scholarly publishing process

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a How to get published: A guide to the scholarly publishing process

Similar a How to get published: A guide to the scholarly publishing process (20)

Más de HKBU Library

Más de HKBU Library (20)

Último

Último (20)

How to get published: A guide to the scholarly publishing process