Workshop -- How to successfully write a scientific paper?

How to successfully
write a scientific paper?
Katarzyna Gaca-Zając, PhD Eng.
Customer Consultant for Central-Eastern Europe

Agenda
• Scholarly publishing and its importance
• Preparation of the manuscript
• Journal choice
• Submission and peer-review
• Publishing data
• Ethical concerns
• Questions and discussion
How to successfully write a scientific paper?

Origins of scholarly publishing
1439: Gutenberg and
moveable type
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 truly scholarly
journal

Role of scholarly publishing
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

Motivation and preparation are key
• The aim: share important findings with peers to advance science
• Make a reality check: do you really have a story to tell and who would you tell it to?
• Ensure: can you carefully frame your work in context? Does it fit the big picture and
contribute to your field?
• Reflect on your data and research: is it complete? Do you trust it? Is it reliable? Did
you check it more than twice?
• When planning the manuscript, always think of your readers

Motivation and preparation are key
• Careful planning is essential
• Consider potential deadlines, make a reality check whether you can meet these
without a negative impact on the quality of your work
• Consider and reflect upon the structure of your paper: what is typically expected,
what you would like to include and where.
• Ask your colleagues or friends for input!
• Revise, revise, revise!

Read before you write
• Reading is the best way to improve your own writing skills.
• Literature study should allow you and readers to put your findings into context.
• Only careful literature review allows to evaluate and showcase the scope and impact of
your research.
• Being selective in referencing previous research is acceptable only if you are selecting
relevant papers, painting the background for your research.
• Rejecting and avoiding citing previous studies with contradictory findings is unethical and
hampers scientific progress and may lead to financial losses.
• If you need to refer to someone else’s work, always acknowledge their authorship - cite it

Simplicy and consistency
• A scientific article is not a novel (but should be easy to read)
• Avoid sentences which leave room for interpretation: the reader should understand, not
interpret your findings.
• When using abbreviations or uncommon terms, ensure these are clearly explained.
• Ask for feedback - a colleague from a related field can check your paper for clarity
• Average lenght of a sentence in a good article in STM is 12-15 words.
• Avoid using complex sentences and make proper use of punctuation.
• Pay special attention to the title, abstract and keywords
• Avoid using definite words like never, all, everyone, always etc.

Never underestimate the power of co-
operation
• No man is an island: we all need input from colleagues and fellow researchers to
gain a wider perspective and reflect upon our work.
• Senior colleagues can help in interpreting the results and in writing conclusions.
• Junior colleagues can help in making the paper coherent and logical.
• Welcome feedback and constructive criticism.
• Authorship is reserved for those who worked on the manuscript. Others can be
thanked in Acknowledgements.

How do I choose the right journal?
Aim to reach the intended audience for your work
Shortlist a handful of candidate journals
▪ Check your reference list
▪ Supervisor and colleagues can provide good suggestions
▪ Search in databases, check quality indicators
And investigate them:
? Aims & Scope
? Accepted types of articles
? Peer review process (single blind, double blind, open)
? Readership, publisher
? Ethics statement
? Speed of publication
? Subscription versus Open Access

Golden Rules for using bibliometrics
When used correctly, research metrics together with qualitative input
give a balanced, multi-dimensional view for decision-making
Always use both qualitative
and quantitative input into
your decisions
Always use more than one
research metric as the
quantitative input

Bibliometric indicators: a basket of metrics
Use these over time: Scopus Compare Source tool
Number
of
papers
CiteScore SJR SNIP
% of
reviews
% not
cited
Citation
count
PlumX
Impact
factor *
* - not in Scopus; property of Clarivate Analytics

Are there any tools available?
http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/
Scientific databases: Scopus

Submission
• Choose only one journal – multiple submissions are forbidden and may result in
plagiarism alert.
• Submit only when all authors approve the manuscript and agree to publish in a given
journal – it is a joint decision.
• Carefully read and adhere to the author guidelines – many desk rejections are caused by
not observing these.
• Submit the paper according to the journal instructions.
• Editorial times vary, as does the speed of the peer review.
• If in any doubt, reach out to the handling editor assigned to your manuscript.

The importance of…the cover letter
• Cover letter accompanies a manuscript submitted to the journal.
• The letter should explain what the paper is about and what is its value, as well as
what is your motivation behind journal choice.
• Mandatory statements:
• Manuscript not under review elsewhere and not yet published as a whole or in part
• All authors approve submission and you’re submitting the final draft
• No conflict of interest to report OR clearly report the conflict of interest
• Pay attention to grammar and spelling – messy cover letters lead to desk rejections.

Purpose of peer review
▪ 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 online
review systems and providing tools to help
Editors and Reviewers

Types of peer-review
• Single blind: reviewer sees the author’s name
• Double blind: nobody sees any names
• Open:
• with reviewer name disclosed to author alone
• with reviewer name published
• with reviewer report published anonymously
• with reviewer report and name published
• reviewed both pre- and post publication
• reviewed only post-publication

Source: Nearing-Zero by Nick D. Kim

What actually happens?
Submit a
paper
Basic requirements met?
REJECT
Assign
reviewers
Collect reviewers’
recommendations
Make a
decision
Revise the
paper
[Reject]
[Revision required]
[Accept]
[Yes]
[No]
Review and give
recommendation
START
ACCEPT
Author Editor Reviewer

Example of a reviewer checklist
Reviewer’s recommendation Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject
Overall manuscript rating 1 100 (poor  perfect)
1. Is the subject matter suitable for publication in JCR? Y/N
2. Is the paper acceptable in its present form? Y/N
3. Is the paper better suited for another journal? Y/N
If “Yes”, which other journal?
4. Does it contain material that might well be omitted? Y/N
5. Does it give adequate references to related work? Y/N
6 Is the English satisfactory? Y/N
7. Is the presentation of the work well organized? Y/N
8. Rate the paper using the following scale
(4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Marginal, 1 = Poor)
a. Originality 1 2 3 4
b. Scientific quality 1 2 3 4
c. Significance of findings 1 2 3 4

How to respond to the review?
• Understand that the questions the reviewers have are also questions of your readers
• Don’t think of it as an obstacle – it is the last chance to improve your paper before
publishing
• Be respectful but don’t be afraid to disagree with the reviewers
• Always provide evidence or justification if you disagree
• Respond to the review in a clear, organized manner – avoid chaos and emotional tone
• Should you include suggested references…?
• If the review is downright inobjective and/or written in a disrespectful tone, reach out to
the handling editor

Source: http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1887

Why publishing data is a good practice?
• Much of the collected data does not make it into the final version of the paper or book. Much data
is stored „for sometime later” and never sees the daylight.
• Publishing experimental data limits the risk of accepting and publishing fraudulent papers which
in turn cause severe losses to the academic and scientific communities.
• Benefits of publishing data:
• Savings!
• Acceleration of scientific progress
• Validation and verification of submitted or published work
• Opening data to further analyses and meta-analyses
• Protection and preservation of accumulated data
• Authors get recognition by means of citations

Publishing data: how?
• Use appropriate repositories, like Mendeley Data:
• Free of charge
• Each dataset gets a DOI = is citable!
• Perpetual copy held at Amazon servers and at DANS
• Possibility to choose licence and/or embargo period
• Every new version of the data gets a new DOI – keep track of changes
• Use „Supporting material” option in some journals – not the most convinient option
but can be considered sufficient.
• Publish a data paper about the dataset in a dedicated journal – e.g. Scientific Data
(by Nature Publishing Group).
• Publish on a personal or institutional website – the downside is very limited reach.

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.1442

What is unethical behaviour?
▪ Fabrication of data or cases
▪ Wilful falsification of data
▪ Plagiarism
▪ No ethics approval
▪ Not admitting missing data
▪ Ignoring outliers
▪ No data on side effects
▪ Gift authorship
▪ Redundant publication
▪ Inadequate literature search
Serious
ethical
violations
Questionable
research
practices

What is plagiarism?
“Plagiarism is the appropriation
of another person’s ideas, processes,
results, or words without giving
appropriate credit, including those
obtained through confidential review of
others’ research proposals and
manuscripts.”
Federal Office of Science and
Technology Policy, 1999

How do publishers detect plagiarism?
• Database of 30+ million articles, from 50,000+
journals, from 400+ publishers
• Software alerts Editors about any similarities
between the submitted article and already
published articles

How to check if the journal acts ethically?
• The journal must have a clear Ethics and Malpractice
Statement in place.
• The statement must comprehensively describe rights and
responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors, as well
as consequences if misconduct is detected or reported.
• Scopus, as well as some other databases, are open to
reporting misconduct of the indexed journals.
• The statement protects you as an author against predatory
journals…

Nobody is immune to predatory publishing

Predatory publishers and journals
• Predatory publishers and journals exploit the necessity to communicate science, the idea
of Open Access, as well as the speed of publication process.
• Typical warning signs:
• Fast publication (one or two weeks)
• „Predicted” or „local” bibliometric parameters
• Poor language, „suspicious” website
• Relatively low charges without any justification
• Scarce information about the publisher, the editorial board and publication process

How to spot a predator?
• Have you or your colleagues ever heard of the journal? Where, when?
• How easily can you find publisher information and contact details?
• Is there a transparent description of the peer-review process?
• Is this journal indexed in professional databases, which you use and trust?
• Are there any charges involved? If yes, then for what, how much and when do you have to
pay?
• Who is on the editorial and advisory board? Do you recognise these researchers?
• Is the publisher a member of trade societies or associations?
• How does the journal website look like? How did you find it?
https://thinkchecksubmit.org/

Researcher Academy
Nobody is born a great writer, reviewer or editor: improve your skills
https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/

Revise and (re)submit

Thank you
Katarzyna Gaca-Zając, PhD Eng.
k.gaca-zajac@elsevier.com

Workshop -- How to successfully write a scientific paper?

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Workshop -- How to successfully write a scientific paper? (20)

More from KnihovnaUTB (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Workshop -- How to successfully write a scientific paper?