1. Publishing Trends in Materials Science(and how to maximize your success!) Dave Flanagan Wiley-VCH

2. Outline Biography and materials science at Wiley Why publish? Why peer review? What editors look for Preparing your submission Accept, reject, or revise: how decisions are made and how to respond Publishing ethics Summary and discussion

3. Outline Biography and materials science at Wiley Why publish? Why peer review? What editors look for Accept, reject, or revise: how decisions are made and how to respond Publishing ethics Summary and discussion

4. Biography 1995: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY) BS, Medicinal Chemistry, Gary Wnek 2004: UMass Amherst (Amherst, MA) PhD, Polymer Science & Engineering with Dave Tirrell At Caltech 1998—2004 “Solid phase synthesis of graft copolymers of poly(thiophene)s and peptides containing 3-thienylalanine” 2004—present: Wiley-VCH (Weinheim, Germany) Editor-in-Chief, Advanced Functional Materials Deputy Editor, Advanced Materials

5. Our Flagship Materials Science Journals材料科学头牌期刊

6. Materials & Polymer Journals材料科学和聚合物方面的期刊

7. Long Cooperation长久的合作

8. Functional materials statistics In 2009, on track for: 9000 submissions 10,000 pages 1500 articles 2,700,000 article downloads

9. Increasing Submissions投稿量的增长

10. Full-text downloads 全文下载

11. Rejection Rates 拒绝采用率

12. Published Articles from China年发表的来自中国的论文

13. Published Articles from China年发表的来自中国的论文

14. Impact Factors 影响因子

15. Impact Factors:Communication Journals

16. Impact Factors:Full paper journals

19. Why publish at all? “Fame” Recognition by your peers “Fortune” Promotions Grant applications Responsibility To society Taxpayer-funded research Making your research public Whitesides: “If your research does not generate papers, it might just as well not have been done.” Papers provide the shoulders that others can stand on

20. Why peer review? To select items for publication True/credible? Important? Relevant? Communicated effectively? Quality? To improve the item for publication Interpretation of results Presentation Critical feedback New ideas Competitive and cooperative

21. Why peer review? “[Peer review] is the worst form of [research evaluation] except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Winston Churchill, 1947 (paraphrased)

22. What editors look for What all editors look for: Scope Does the topic fit the journal? Format Communication, full paper, review… What some journals require (to varying degrees): Novelty How different is it from previous work? Importance In those in specific field To those in related fields Interest

23. What AM editors look for Synthesis/fabrication Is it a new material or material system? Characterization Is it fully characterized? Properties Does it have new properties that are superior to previously reported materials? Application Does it have a technological application or solve a scientific problem?

24. How reviewers are chosen Reviewer database >10,000 in Wiley-VCH database Keywords, interests, history Suggestions from authors Very helpful! Not just the big names please From related papers Cited in manuscript Literature searches Editor’s knowledge and experience

25. What reviewers look for Is the motivation clear? Is the motivation important? Is the work novel and original? Are the conclusions supported by the data? Are the results important? Are the results interesting? Are there ethical questions? Is the presentation clear?

26. What reviewers look for Reviewers can recommend: Accept without change Accept, but with revisions Reject, but could be reconsidered after major revisions Reject

28. Planning your manuscript “A paper is not just an archival device for storing a completed research program; it is also a structure for planning your research in progress.” Whitesides, “Writing a Paper”, 2004.

29. Planning your manuscript Use an outline to plan a paper, including the data. Ideas Figures Schemes Data Questions Hypotheses Objectives References …

30. Planning your manuscript Organize into three piles: Introduction: Why did I do it? Results and Discussion: What did I do? Conclusions: What does it mean? Organize each pile: Organize the data Sketch figures Put things in order Important: Figure out what data / figures / results are still needed to complete the outline—and complete the paper This becomes an iterative process between you and your advisor, collaborators, etc. of refining the outline.

31. Preparing your submission Selecting the journal Preparing your manuscript Figures Text Writing the cover letter Submitting the package

32. Selecting the journal Journal Impact Factor is not everything! What are the implications of your research? How important will others find your research? In your field? In related fields? Where do you read papers related to your research? Which do you like the most? What is the scope of your candidate journal? What is the format of your candidate journal?

33. Selecting the journal What is the journal’s policy on prior publication? In peer-reviewed printed journals In peer-reviewed online-only journals In printed conference proceedings In online-only conference proceedings In online preprint servers On your website

34. Preparing the figures Figures (and schemes, tables, equations) are critical: Figures summarize the results Figures are “read” first By editors, by referees, by readers The text in the paper is secondary! The text explains the data in the figures

35. Preparing the figures Figures should be designed for Clarity Simplicity Impact

36. Preparing the figures

37. Preparing the figures Bitmaps Also called raster, continuous tone Used for photos, micrographs, SEM, TEM, AFM, … Tiff usually preferred Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, GIMP Vector graphics Also called line art Used for plots, graphs, chemical structures, schemes, … EPS or WMF common Illustrator, Excel, PowerPoint, ChemDraw, gnuplot, Origin

38. Preparing the text Consult the guide for authors Look at a recent copy of the journal Obtain a style guide ACS Style Guide Chicago Manual of Style Use the text to explain the data, figures, schemes organized in the outline Not arranged chronologically, but by importance Consider a native English speaker or copyediting service

39. Abstract and keywords Abstract and keywords are more important than ever At time of submission Summarizing the results Identifying relevance and scope Identifying potential referees After publication Indexing and searching Papers need to be found to have an impact!

40. Preparing the text RTF or Word .doc Microsoft Word OpenOffice.org AbiWord… Reference manager software EndNote BibTeX LaTeX Check journal guidelines first Manuscript formatting Journal template Double-spaced, 12 pt, reasonable margins Figures at end Please put captions with figures!

41. What about Supporting Information? Supporting Information should support the manuscript: NMR spectra, diffraction data, movies, calculations… The manuscript should still be convincing if the SI is unavailable If you need to refer to SI in the main text, it may not be SI! SI should not be used to squeeze full papers into communications

42. Writing the cover letter Why is this topic important? Why are the results significant? What is the key result? Why is it an advance on previous work? Why are you submitting to this journal? Why will this journal’s readers read it?

43. Writing the cover letter Disclose conflicts of interest Provide reviewer suggestions List related papers in press or under consideration Other tips: Get the editor’s name right! Moved, dead, etc. Get the journal’s name right! Especially if not your first-choice journal…

44. Conflicts of interest Potential conflicts of interest: Competitor that could “scoop” you Current or former collaborators, grant co-applicants Members of your institution Current or former thesis or postdoc advisor Anyone you believe could not give an impartial report within reason…

45. Submitting the package

46. Accept, reject, or revise… Acceptance Without changes (rare) With changes Rejection Without external referee reports (editor) Based on reports Revision Reconsideration and resubmission possible after major revisions

47. Rejection Direct (“in-house”, “on topic”) Outside scope Wrong format Novelty unclear Impact/importance unclear Interest unclear … On reports Technical/scientific issues Motivation unclear/unimportant Less novel, less original Conclusions do not support the data Results less important Results less interesting Ethical questions Unclear presentation

48. Should I appeal? Usually, no Risk of long time to publication Good papers are cited Editors and referees know journal Criticisms may be valid! Occasionally, yes Importance / impact / novelty missed by editor/referees Need for a good cover letter! Factual errors in referee reports that led to rejection

49. Revision Carefully consider reviewer comments Not all changes have to be made… …but need convincing arguments for changes not made Prepare revision Revise manuscript Highlight changes in manuscript Point-by-point response to all reviewer issues Changes made Why changes not made Response may go back to reviewers! Need to convince editor and reviewers

50. Acceptance Congratulations! Revise manuscript Highlight changes in manuscript Point-by-point response to all referee criticisms Changes made Why changes not made Production data checklist Text format Figure preparation Print vs. reviewer quality Proofs Return quickly! Electronic (PDF) Fax (reduce by 20%) Check copyediting changes/queries Ask colleague to check

51. Author responsibilities Present data honestly and accurately, not fabricate or falsify data Reference and cite properly, not plagiarize or ignore related work Avoid fragmentation and redundant publication Inform the editor of related manuscripts under consideration or in press Submit to only one journal at a time Disclose conflicts of interest More information under “For Authors” at www.advmat.de.

52. Reviewer responsibilities Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts Inform editor quickly if not qualified or unable to review Judge manuscript objectively and in timely fashion Return to editor without review if conflict of interest Explain and support recommendations with arguments and references where appropriate Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for one’s own research Inform editor of similarities between submitted manuscript and published or unpublished manuscripts elsewhere Inform editor if plagiarized or falsified data is suspected More information under “For Reviewers” at www.advmat.de

53. Editor responsibilities Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript processing Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts Make the final decision for accepting or rejecting Base decision to accept or reject only on the merits of the manuscript Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for their own research Ensure fair selection of referees, including those suggested or requested for exclusion by author Respond to suggestions of scientific misconduct Deal fairly with author appeals

54. By Nick Kim (www.nearingzero.net); used with permission

55. Conclusions Unpublished work is lost Science output is growing fast and is the driver of reviewer loads, production costs, and journal pricing Asia, particularly China, is growing in volume and quality, but Europe is still strong Access is huge and has never been greater Peer review isn‘t perfect but it is the best we have Competition is hard, so make your work stand out

56. Thank you — 谢谢! More information at www.advmat.de under “Guide for Authors” Daily materials science news at MaterialsViews.com Follow me at twitter.com/materialsdave Questions?