How to get published by Ms. Chen Lin from Elsevier STM journals (October 2018)
1 like783 views
The document provides guidance on how to get published in scholarly journals. It discusses the peer review and publication cycle, how to plan and structure a research article, use proper scientific language, and deal with reviewer comments. The key steps outlined are choosing the right journal, following the journal's author guidelines, writing an effective title, abstract, and keywords, structuring the manuscript using the IMRAD format, using clear language and grammar, and responding politely and thoroughly to reviewer feedback.
How to get published by Ms. Chen Lin from Elsevier STM journals (October 2018)
- 1. How to get published Chen Lin Publisher of Global Environmental Science c.lin@elsevier.com
- 2. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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
- 8. | 8
- 9. | 9 • Scholarly Publishing and Elsevier • How to get published – Peer Review and Journal Publication Cycle – Preparing your manuscript – Structuring your article – Using proper scientific language – Promoting your research Introduction
- 10. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 16 • Scholarly Publishing and Elsevier • How to get published – Peer Review and Journal Publication Cycle – Planning your article – Structuring your article – Using proper scientific language – Promoting your research Introduction
- 17. | 17 Planning your article Are you ready to publish? Not ready Work has no scientific interest Ready Work advances the field
- 18. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 23 Choosing the right journal Journal Finder Tool https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/ JANE: neural-publisher tool
- 24. | 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 Choosing the right journal 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. | 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. | 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. | 27 The journal publishing cycle Solicit and manage submissions Manage peer review Edit and prepare Archive and promote use Publish and disseminate Production January 2015
- 28. | 28 • Scholarly Publishing and Elsevier • How to get published – Peer Review and Journal Publication Cycle – Planning your article – Structuring your article – Using proper scientific language – Promoting your research Introduction
- 29. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 33 The process of writing – building the article Title, Abstract, and Keywords Figures/Tables (your data) Conclusion Introduction Methods Results Discussion
- 34. | 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. | 35 • Describe how the problem was studied • Include detailed information • Do not describe previously published procedures • Identify the equipment and materials used Methods
- 36. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 39 ▪ Be clear ▪ Provide justification for the work ▪ Explain how your work advances the present state of knowledge ▪ Suggest future experiments Conclusion
- 40. | 40 ▪ Advisors ▪ Financial supporters and funders ▪ Proof readers and typists ▪ Suppliers who may have donated materials Acknowledgments
- 41. | 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. | 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. | 43 Recap - building up your article properly (I) Title Abstract Keywords Main text (IMRAD)
- 44. | 44 Recap - building up your article properly (II) Conclusion Acknowledgements References Supporting materials
- 45. | 45 • 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 Introduction
- 46. | 46 ▪ Poor language quality can delay or block publication of work ▪ Proper English should be used throughout the manuscript Why is language important?
- 47. | 47 Do publishers correct language? No! It is the author’s responsibility... ...but resources are available
- 48. | 48 • Clear • Objective • Accurate • Concise Manuscript language: Overview Always read the journal’s Guide for Authors to check for any additional language specifications.
- 49. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 53 • Scholarly Publishing and Elsevier • How to get published – Peer Review and Journal Publication Cycle – Planning your article – Structuring your article – Using proper scientific language and writing lay summary – Dealing with Reviewers’ comments – Publication and Promotion for your work Introduction
- 54. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 59 • Address every comment • Do not ignore any comments • Makes a good impression • Clarity and structure • Take your time Be thorough
- 60. | 60 • Especially when disagreeing • Provide extra data • Add information to your article Answer with evidence
- 61. | 61 • Addressed to Editors and reviewers • Include manuscript title and ID • Summarize • Address disagreements • Be polite Response letters
- 62. | 62 • Two reviewers disagree • The reviewer is wrong • Comments you don’t understand • Rude reviewers • Resubmit or go elsewhere? Specific Scenarios
- 63. | 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. | 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. | 65 Ask Comments you don’t understand
- 66. | 66 • Sadly quite common • Rudeness or sensitivity? • Take criticism on board • Contact the Editor Rude reviewers
- 67. | 67 • Never submit the same version of the article elsewhere • Always use the reviewers comments Resubmit or go elsewhere?
- 68. | 68 • Scholarly Publishing and Elsevier • How to get published – Peer Review and Journal Publication Cycle – Planning your article – Structuring your article – Using proper scientific language and writing lay summary – Dealing with Reviewers’ comments – Publication and Promotion for your work Introduction
- 69. | 69 • The journal publishing cycle Solicit and manage submissions Manage peer review Edit and prepare Archive and promote use Publish and disseminate Production January 2015
- 70. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 73 Traditional print journals Methods of dissemination and Electronic journal platforms like Elsevier’s ScienceDirect improve online dissemination and access January 2015
- 74. | 74 ▪ Journal articles ▪ Expert commentary ▪ Conference coverage Other methods of dissemination Advertising-supported portals ▪ Articles feeds ▪ Podcasts ▪ Blogs Mobile apps January 2015
- 75. | 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. | 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. | 77 The journal publishing cycle • Solicit and manage submissions Manage peer review Edit and prepare Archive and promote use Publish and disseminate Production January 2015
- 78. | 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. | 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. | 80 2. Promoting your published article 3. Monitoring your article 1. Preparing your article
- 81. | 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. | 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
- 83. Q & A