5/13/11

Publishing in journals. What reviewers and editors want.

Dr. Alexander Chong Associate Professor School of Biological Sciences Universi@ Sains Malaysia Director, Assay Development Division Malaysian Ins@tute of Pharmaceu@cals and Nutraceu@cals

What is publishing? Editors/Reviewers? Some :ps/guidelines

THIS IS NOT A TALK ON `HOW TO WRITE A PAPER. The focus is to try and understand the editor/ reviewer/edi:ng+reviewing process!)

5/13/11

What is scien:c publica:on?

Getting a manuscript published in a peer-reviewed journal, hopefully with the following attributes
Reputable journal (top 15 in field) Respectable accumulation of citation

But
`.Getting a manuscript published in a peer-reviewed journal. To get it published, you have to deal with EDITORS and REVIEWERS!

5/13/11

GeQng across your ndings/wri@ng to EDITORs + REVIEWERS + EDITORS

Good science will go a long way..

But good communica@on skills ensure that you reach your des@na@on!

5/13/11

Big mistake!...
Publishing is NOT dumping your data/ knowledge/writeup/thesis/findings and hope the reviewer/editor will accept it!

Its about communica@ng your science to the reviewers/editors

5/13/11

Editors
Responsibilities
Improve `popularity of journal (quality of papers, measured by number of citations Ensure rapid/timely publication of papers, issues/volumes Maintain the relationship with the pool of reviewers

Upon receiving any manuscript the editor will ask Does the manuscript
fulfill the scope of the journal? Is it communicating novel findings? Meet language requirements? Meet format of journal

Only when the above conditions are fulfilled, your manuscript will travel further down the road.(sent for review)

5/13/11

The old saying that you only have one chance to make a rst impression is one that applies to submiPng papers to the editor of the journal. Make a GOOD IMPRESSION the FIRST TIME!

Tip 1..get to know the target journal Look at last 5 issues familiarize yourself with the sorts of topics covered. Every journal has its own `standard YOU MUST DECIDE on the most appropriate fit for your paper Preliminary rejection always happen! Save your time and Editors time!

5/13/11

Aquaculture Cell Journal of Nutrition Gene

Journal :tles can be misleading..

We cannot rely on the title of the journal as scope for our manuscript. Remember Read the Scope of the Journal properly Browse through last 5 years issues
.to check if your manuscript fits.

Example of `Scope of Journal taken from Gene Expression Pattern journal (Elsevier)

5/13/11

Fullling scope
Focus of a journal Standard of a journal *sometimes, researchers may plan a particular series of experiment to target an acceptance in a particular journal as compared to doing the experiments first and then ask `now, where can I publish this?

5/13/11

Always have a good knowledge on journals of your eld

In aquaculture for example, Aquaculture: highest ranked, most stringent, interested especially in original research Aquaculture Research: less stringent, with special preference for young researchers Aquaculture Interna:onal: mostly European based Journal Applied Aquaculture: prac:cal, `lowest ranked

Related journals are also possible

Fish Physiology and Biochemistry Journal of Fish Biology Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology

5/13/11

Common experimental design

Design experiment 100% according to journal requirement: do just enough Do both Design experiment to answer specific questions, Then only decide which journal to submit

Own personal experience

S.H. Tan, et al. 2010 Took 3 weeks from submission to acceptance! Wow!! But did you know it was `rejected by 2 editors because the findings didn t fit their scope

10

5/13/11

Tip 2..Instruc@on for Authors

Read the Instruction for Authors and follow them. A great deal of time and thought have gone into developing the guidelines Recommended length and proper reference form are two common errors. To ignore them is to give the impression that you do not take your submission seriously.

Step 3.Proper English

If you are not a native English speaker, have your paper edited by someone who is. `Paper-less handling of submissions (Elsevier, ScholarOne, etc) do not allow for manuscript to be corrected for English Reviewers will read, provide 1-2 pages of comments in terms of science, presentation, ideas, etc BUT NOT ENGLISH!

11

5/13/11

Reviewers
Before we proceed, are you aware of the following trend? .in many journals, it is compulsory for authors to nominate reviewers (2-6) `Ethically right to nominate the authority/top researchers of the subject of your manuscript ..in other words.YOU have the task of requesting for the top guys review YOUR findings

In addi:on.
Reviewers now know the authors of the paper they are reviewing. There is good and there is bad. but for upcoming, unknown, fresh researchers.this sets an often impossible (and sometimes unfair) standard! Take up the challenge!

12

5/13/11

Reviewers dislike.
A manuscript filled with spelling mistakes, typo, incomplete sentences, basic grammar error.If you think you don t have the time to correct these, think if they have the time to figure out what you re trying to write! Manuscripts that don t follow the `Instruction for Authors guidelines

An `instruc:on from Editor to Reviewer

the subject is within the scope of ABC journal (see recent issue for any recent updates), the manuscripts overall scien:c merit jus:es publica:on, the absolute amount of data presented jus:es publica:on, the gramma:cal quality of the English is suciently high to allow you to fully interpret the text, there are fatal aws in the experimental design or sta:s:cal analysis (if in doubt, consult the AFST editorial on acceptable sta:s:cal designs and models at AFST 129:111; 2006), there is enough new informa:on in the manuscript to warrant publica:on.

YOU CAN TAKE THIS AS YOUR GENERAL GUIDE!

13

5/13/11

Your Introduc@on and reviewers

Normally 3-5 paragraphs Your manuscript is Not a thesis! Dont try to lecture/teach the reviewers on basic/ common stus 3 main component
State the important facts (cau:on, see point above!): What do you know? State the current limita@on/unknown/problem of the subject/theme: What we need to know? State your objec@ve: What is purpose of your paper?

Your Introduc@on and reviewers

A paper should address ONE and at most, TWO main ques:ons, and the failure to do this is one of the most common reasons for reviewers to reject a manuscript (Lambert et al, 2003). Yuksel (2003)..one of 10 reasons for rejec:ons by reviewers.failure to iden@fy the issue, problem or purpose of the research Why? Because
Your research objec:ve doesnt have one You did not communicate this clearly

14

5/13/11

In a survey where reviewers were asked of criterias for accepting a paper Reviewers almost always stated the need for the paper to make a contribution.. (remember, its not just telling people you carried out this and experimentand here is the data.and this is what you think..) First step of making a contribution is reviewer must spot your knowledge of the theme and the current knowledge surrounding the field.

Wri@ng a concise and meaningful summary of the literature in your introduc@on .is not an easy task You may have mastery over a par@cular domain in the literature, but even then, crea@ng a balanced and concise introduc@on takes eort. ..A meaningful introduc@on the framework in which you want your reader to consider your work. You should make the case for why you are doing this research or presen@ng a theory by lling a gap in knowledge or extending previous work.
Wri:ng Manuscripts for Peer Review: Your Guide to Not Annoying Reviewers and Increasing Your Chances of Success Kalpakjian & Meade (2008)

15

5/13/11

Your Material Methods and the reviewer

Straight forward Not too long, but. certain work/research emphasize a lot on methodssample size, replicate issues(you should know your own field)..In this situation, details are important. Again, be familiar with the target journal

The reviewer must be convinced

Your experimental design
fits your objectives /hypothesis/questions is unshakeable Can be repeated by another competent colleague
One of the more common reasons for rejection of a manuscript is that the reviewers cannot fully understand how the study was conducted (Provenzale, 2007)

16

5/13/11

Results and Reviewer

Often separated from Discussion You have DATAs in form of diagrams, charts, tables, photos In scientific publishing, Results is
Presentation of DATA neatly Interpretation to the core pattern of your Data. Tell if its increasing, decreasing, growing, stagnantetc

Important
Organize your Results in a proper sequence, Qng your Materials Methods! It is important to decide which results to present in gure or table form, to avoid duplica:on.

17

5/13/11

Discussion
Where you state if your hypotheses were veried proven untrue /whether their research ques:ons were answered.
Intro (what you want to nd) Materials Methods (How do you nd) Results (what you found) Discussion (Did you nd what you want to nd?)

18

5/13/11

Discussion and the Reviewer

Did you Summarizes your findings? explains their importance? indicates the direction of future studies?

What reviewers do not want..

One of the most frequent mistakes made by authors is writing an unnecessarily lengthy Discussion section Perceived as
Attempt to provide an encyclopedic history of the research question unnecessarily repeating information presented in the Introduction Repeating findings that were previously listed in the Results section.

19

5/13/11

Stop for a while

At this point, remember the golden rule Good science first.Then comes good communication If your science is good, it s a matter of learning/developing the way to communicate (write it)

Reviewers look for

Your ability to show why the study results are important and why the manuscript should be published. (Intro: you stated your work will make a contribution. So, will it?) Did you state to what extent your original question was answered? The degree to which the findings advance the state of knowledge.

20

5/13/11

I was once like this too

A common mistake of novice authors is providing sweeping conclusions from a study that, in truth, has only modest implications (Provenzale 2007) Differentiate between SPECULATE and CONCLUDE NEVER interpret BEYOND what the data support Remember, Reviewers are more superiorly experienced that you.

Conclusion vs specula:on
You can use `we speculate/there is a strong possibility/Its is reasonable .provided Not too oqen! It is based on solid conclusions. Eg: Your study:
sh can swim 10 km/day (your experiment/data/ analysis): CONCLUSION sh swim to another river nearby to breed (reading, thought/idea/sugges:ons): SPECULATE You cannot SPECULATE if there is NO CONCLUSION

21

5/13/11

An Approach to the Writing of a Scientific Manuscript Cetin and Hackman 2004 , J. Surgical Research

Abstract
Abstracts (ab=out, trahere=pull; to pull out) Overview of the main story Gives highlights from each sec:on of the paper Limited length (100-300 words, typically) Stands on its own Used, with :tle, for electronic search engines Most oqen, the only part people read WRITE THIS PART AT THE END

22

5/13/11

Abstract
Covers n Background n Ques:on asked n Experiment(s) done n Results found (Key results found /prefer summaries) n The answer to the ques:on asked n Implica:on, specula:on, or recommenda:on

Some useful :ps in wri:ng

Cutting is always useful Some believe in very concise, direct, frank statements. I believe in using limited number of long sentences. Read and reread your draft and askcan I be more economical without diluting the meaning?

23

5/13/11

Some:mes, simplifying makes things clearer!

Usually
Words such as `Very, really, quite, basically, generally maybe omitted as they seldom add anything useful. Try the sentence without them and see if it improves.

24

5/13/11

Reality check
It takes good thinking to start It takes consistent reading and more reading to continue

Ac:vate your ac:ve sentence!

The Ac@ve style is direct, vigorous, natural, and informa@ve
Passive: to understand regula:on of oocyte by BMP, this study on zebrash BMP was carried out. (passive, indirect, play safe) Ac:ve: to understand regula:on of oocyte by BMP, we carried out this study on zebrash BMP

25

5/13/11

When submiQng
Make sure everybody is happy! Make sure you submit properly
don t miss out anything Good print out Right address Online submission?

Responding to reviewer/editors

26

5/13/11

Not direct good news-bad news

It is common that irrita:on and frustra:on is your INITIAL response If the reviewer/editor comments are extensive, this irrita:on may be magnied and is oqen followed by the sinking feeling that hours of tedious work are ahead. However, and generally aqer further evalua:on and considera:on, the realiza:on sets in that it was not the reviewers and CEIC that were at fault, but that it was author failure to clearly jus:fy or describe or present or discuss the study which caused the comments.

COOL DOWN
It is seldom a good plan to proceed to manuscript revision while s:ll in the irrita:on phase, and much bewer to wait a day or three un:l the acceptance of fault phase fully sets in. Then, defend/revise/repair
Carefully. Never make same mistake TWICE Condently. Clearly: make sure its seen.

27

5/13/11

Remember
The TRUE purpose of a scientific paper is to communicate results and analysis to the wider scientific community. The better a paper is written, the more readers it will attract and the more citations it is likely to receive. So, put that extra effort to make your article readable!

Unfortunately, the scien@c and medical literature is s@ll abundant with lengthy, unclear prose that is likely to confuse readers, even those who are familiar with the subject (Brendan and Roy, 2006)

28

5/13/11

A test of endurance?
Most of us have to learn science Most of us do not use English as our main language Most of our labs are often not the best in world in terms of equipment, facilities, knowledge But with determination, its not impossible!

ALL THE BEST!

29