Katherine EVE Publisher, Elsevier Earth & Environmental Sciences

1. How to Get Published
in a Research Journal
Katherine Eve
Publisher, Geochemistry & Geophysics Journals, Elsevier Limited
IDRC 2012 26th August 2012

2. Outline
• Publishing History
• Publishing Landscape and Cycle
• Publishing Cycle
• Your Expertise
• Initial Considerations
• Are you ready to publish?
• What is a strong manuscript?
• Paper types
• Choosing the right journal

3. • How to write a good manuscript
• Preparations before starting
• Constructing your article
• Language
• Submission
• The review process
• Demystifying the „black hole‟
• Types of review
• What do reviewers look for?
• Ethical issues
• What is unethical behaviour?
• Scientific misconduct
• Publishing misconduct
• Consequences

4. Publishing History

5. The Publisher’s Role Today
Registration Certification Dissemination Preservation Use
Innovation & Technology
Publishers coordinate the exchange of ideas between
authors, editors, reviewers, and the wider STM audience of
researchers, scientists, health professionals, students, and
patients.
5

6. Change in Scholarly Communication,...
From “print science” to “electronic science”
• Research output nowadays is more than text and images.
Also data sets, computer code, multimedia files etc.

7. ...Dramatic Growth in Output...
25000
~3% per annum
“This is truly the decade of the journal
and one should seek to limit their
20000
number rather than to increase
Active, Peer-Reviewed Journals
them, since there can be too many
periodicals.”
15000 Neues medicinisches Wochenblatt fur
Aerzte (1789)
10000
5000
0
<1900 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s >2000
Decade
• Extent of output means readers need assistance with analysing and
interpreting research

8. ...and increasing importance of data...
Publishing Research Consortium, 2010
Researchers, N = 3824
Important,
but hard to access

9. ...means changes in the way we publish
• Content: Need to enhance the online article so that it allows researchers
to optimally communicate scientific research in all its (digital) breadth
• Context: Need to connect the online article to trustworthy scientific
resources to present valuable additional information
• Presentation: Need to optimise browsing and reading experience
pres.
content context
• Introducing Elsevier‟s Article of the Future

10. The Article of the Future?
Feedback
“New presentation format
and extra features make it
faster / easier to obtain
understanding”
“Article outline in the left
pane helps to easily navigate
within an article”
“Additional content/features
in the right pane help when
reading the article”
(Survey with 600+
participants)
Left pane:
efficient Center pane: Full-text
navigation Right pane: collects domain-
view, designed for optimal
& browsing specific tools and content.
online reading experience
Shown here: Fossil Taxa from
PaleoDB

11. Interactive Maps
e.g. GoogleMaps
How does it work?
1. Authors store geospatial data
as a .KML file (using regular
GIS tools)
2. Authors upload .KML files as
supplementary material
through EES (may also be at
revision stage)
3. Elsevier turns this into an
Interactive Map and includes
this in the online article
4. Readers can explore map
from the article, or download
KML file

12. Data-Linking Applications
e.g. PANGAEA
How does it work?
1. Authors (or data managers for
large projects) deposit data at
PANGAEA and provide
publication info
2. Online article reader sees an
interactive application that
visualizes data on the map
3. Application contains link to full
data record at PANGAEA

13. Publishing Landscape and Cycle

14. • 2,000 publishers
• 20,000 journals
• 3M articles submitted from 5.5 M researchers
• 1.5M articles published
• 30M readers
• 2 billion digital article downloads
• 30M article citations
Source: Knowledge Networks and Nations:
Royal Society 2011
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/In
fluencing_Policy/Reports/2011-03-28-Knowledge-networks-
nations.pdf

15. The Journal Publishing Cycle
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
15

16. Submission and Assessment
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
16

17. Online Peer Review Systems

18. Editing, Preparation and Production
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
18

19. Editing, Preparation and Production
Copy editing, Logo, paginatio
Author Submits Manuscript Author Proofing, n, branding
Manuscript Accepted Preparation for publishing
2. Accepted
4. Published
1. Preprint Author 3. Document Journal Article
Manuscript
Electronic Warehouse
Published as Published as
Print Copy HTML or PDF
• Publishers can create an Electronic Warehouse and other electronic
production tools to speed up production times
• These tools require heavy investments, but they can process hundreds
of thousands of articles and maintain digitized backfiles
19

20. Publication and Dissemination
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
20

21. From Print to Electronic
Traditional Print
Journals
Electronic Journal
Platforms improve online
dissemination and
access, for example
21

22. Universal Access
Open Access Journals Open Access Articles
Author pays Option to pay for OA at point of
acceptance
Open Archives
Delayed access to recent archives
after embargo of 6-48 months
Retained Author Rights Supporting and Facilitating
Permitted posting of preprint and accepted Posting in Repositories
author manuscript (AAM) for personal use, Example: Elsevier deposits NIH
institutional use, and permitted scholarly funded research in PMC on author
posting behalf

23. Global Reach –
Information Philanthropy
Free or very low cost access
to 1000s of peer-reviewed journals
from current day back to 1995
to public institutions in over 100 developing countries 23

24. Archiving and Promoting Article Use
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
24

25. 3rd Party Archiving
In addition to traditional print archives, publishers
are partnering to create multiple distributed
electronic archives with 3rd parties for posterity
Elsevier has partnered with the …and is developing similar
National Library of the arrangements with other
Netherlands… organizations
1st official archive
2nd official archive 2-year Pilot Study
25

26. Promoting Use by New Audiences
• Abstract & Index Databases
• Workflow & Research Tools
• Scientific Search Engines
• Patient Use (Patient Research)
• Point of Care Decision Making
26

27. Your Expertise

28. Switzerland

29. Initial Considerations

30. Are you ready to publish?
You should consider publishing if you have information
that advances understanding in a specific research field
This could be in the form of:
• Presenting new, original results or methods
• Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results
• Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field
If you are ready to publish, a strong
manuscript is what is needed next

31. What is a strong manuscript?
• Has a clear, useful, and exciting message
• Presented and constructed in a logical manner
• Reviewers and editors can grasp the significance
easily
Editors and reviewers are all busy people –
make things easy to save their time

32. Paper types
1. Conference papers
2. Full articles / Original articles
3. Letters / Rapid Communications/ Short
communications
4. Review papers / perspectives

33. 1. Conference Papers
• Excellent for disseminating early or in-progress
research findings
• Typically 5-10 pages, 3 figures, 15 references
• Typically edited by conference/session
organiser(s)
• Good way to start a scientific research career

34. 2. Full articles
• Standard for disseminating completed research
findings
• Typically 8-10 pages, 5 figures, 25 references
• Good way to build a scientific research career

35. 3. Letters
• Quick and early communications of
significant, original advances
• Much shorter than full articles
• Usually follow up with a full length paper later

36. 4. Review papers/perspectives
• Critical synthesis of a specific research topic
• Typically 10+ pages, 5+ figures, 80 references
• Typically solicited by journal editors
• Good way to consolidate a scientific research
career

37. Citations impact varies by publication type

38. Which paper type?
Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full
article? Would a short communication/letter be
better?
Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for
advice on manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders can
see things more clearly than you.

39. Choosing the right journal
• Discuss with your co-author, supervisor and
collaborators.
• Look at your references to narrow down your choices.
• Review recent publications in each candidate journal.
Find out the hot topics, the accepted types of articles, etc.
• Find out journal specifics:
 Is the journal peer-reviewed?
 Who is this journal‟s audience?
 What is the average time to print?
 What is the journal‟s Impact Factor?
• Decide on one journal. DO NOT submit to multiple journals
• Consider journals‟ Guides/Instructions for Authors

40. How to write a good manuscript

41. Preparations before you start
– Read the Guide for Authors
• You can find the Guide for Authors on the journal homepage on
Elsevier.com
• Stick to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript, even in the first
draft (text layout, nomenclature, figures & tables, references etc.). In
the end it will save you time, and also the editor‟s.
• Editors (and reviewers) do not like wasting time on poorly prepared
manuscripts.

42. Constructing your article
- General structure of a research article
Make them easy for
• Title The progression andthe thematic
indexing of searching!
• Abstract scope of a paper:
(informative, attractive,
• Keywords effective)
general  specific general
• Main text (IMRAD) Journal space is not
– Introduction However, we often write in the
unlimited.
– Methods following order: as
Make your article
– Results – Figuresconcise as possible.
and tables
– And
– Discussions– Methods, Results and
Discussion
• Conclusions – Conclusions and Introduction
• Acknowledgements
– Abstract and title
• References
• Supplementary Data

43. - Title
• Attract the reader‟s attention
• Be specific
• Keep it informative and concise
• Avoid jargon and abbreviations

44. - Title – some examples
Original Title Revised Remarks
Preliminary Effect of Zn on Long title distracts readers.
observations on the anticorrosion of zinc Remove all redundancies such as
effect of Zn element plating layer “observations on”, “the nature of”, etc.
on anticorrosion of
zinc plating layer
Action of antibiotics Inhibition of growth Titles should be specific.
on bacteria of mycobacterium Think to yourself: “How will I search for this
tuberculosis by piece of information?” when you design the
streptomycin title.

45. - Abstract
A clear abstract will strongly influence whether
or not your work is further considered...
– Brief - one paragraph
We tackle the general linear instantaneous model (possibly
underdetermined and noisy) where we model the source prior with a
Student t distribution. The conjugate-exponential characterisation of the t
– Advertisement of your article (freely What has
distribution as an infinite mixture of scaled Gaussians enables us to do
efficient inference. We study two well-known inference methods, Gibbs
available through A&I)
sampler and variational Bayes for Bayesian source separation. We derive
been done
both techniques as local message passing algorithms to highlight their
– Easy to understand (without reading the whole
algorithmic similarities and to contrast their different convergence
characteristics and computational requirements.
Our simulation results suggest that typical posterior distributions in source
article)
separation have multiple local maxima. Therefore we propose a hybrid
What are the
approach where we explore the state space with a Gibbs sampler and
– Must be accurate and specific! main findings
then switch to a deterministic algorithm. This approach seems to be able
to combine the speed of the variational approach with the robustness of
the Gibbs sampler.

46. - Keywords
Used by indexing and abstracting services
• Labels/tags
• Use only established abbreviations (e.g. DNA)
• Check the „Guide for Authors‟
Article Title Keywords
“Silo music and silo quake: granular Silo music, Silo quake, stick-slip
flow-induced vibration” flow, resonance, creep, granular
discharge
“An experimental study on evacuated Solar collector; Supercritical CO2;
tube solar collector using supercritical Solar energy; Solar thermal
CO2” utilization

47. The same things?
• Title
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Main text (IMRAD)
– Introduction
– Methods
– Results
– And
– Discussions
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgement
• References
• Supporting Materials

48. - Introduction
Provide context to convince readers that you
clearly know why your work is useful
Sample 1st paragraph of an Introduction
• Be brief
• Clearly address the following:
– What is the problem?
– Are there any existing solutions?
– Which solution is the best?
– What is its main limitation?
– What do you hope to achieve?
• Try to be consistent with the nature of the journal
Zhang, XR; Yamaguchi, H. “An experimental study on evacuated tube solar
collector using supercritical CO2” Applied Thermal Engineering © Elsevier

49. - Methods
st paragraph of an Experimental
Sample 1Describe how the problem Set-Up section
was studied
• Include detailed information
• Do not describe previously published procedures
• Identify the equipment and describe materials used
Zhang, XR; Yamaguchi, H. “An experimental study on evacuated tube solar
collector using supercritical CO2” Applied Thermal Engineering © Elsevier
49

50. - Results – what have you found?
• Tell a clear and easy-to-understand story.
• Include:
– Main findings
– Unexpected findings
– Results of the statistical analysis

51. - Results – graphs, figures and tables
• Captions and legends must be detailed enough
to make figures and tables self-explanatory
• No duplication of results described in text or
other illustrations
• Use colour ONLY when necessary e.g. if
different line styles can clarify the
meaning, use this instead of colour. Figure
should be visible and distinguishable when
printed out in black & white.
• Do NOT ‘selectively adjust’ any image to
enhance visualization of results.

52. - Discussion
Sample 1st paragraph of an Discussion section
What the results mean
• Most important section
• Make the Discussion correspond to the Results
• You need to compare published results with yours
Muite, B.K., Quinn, S.F., Sundaresan, S., Rao, K.K.. “Silo music and silo quake:
granular flow-induced vibration” Powder Technology. © Elsevier

53. Not the same things
• Title
• Abstract
• Keywords – Introduction (background, literature survey)
• – Methods
Main text (IMRAD)
– Introduction (definition/notation, theory/hypothesis, specifi
– Methods cation, experimental set up, proofs)
– Results – Results (your proof, Algorithms, data)
– And
– And
– Discussions
– Discussions
• Conclusion
(evaluation, comparisons, further
• Acknowledgement
work, related work)
• References
• Supporting Materials

54. - Conclusion
How the work advances the field from the
Sample Conclusion
present state of knowledge
• Should be clear
• Justify your work in the research field
• Suggest future experiments
Muite, B.K., Quinn, S.F., Sundaresan, S., Rao, K.K.. “Silo music and silo quake:
granular flow-induced vibration” Powder Technology. © Elsevier

55. - References
Cite the main scientific publications on which
your work is based
• Do not use too many references
• Always ensure you have fully absorbed material you are
referencing and do not just rely on checking excerpts or
isolated sentences
• Avoid excessive self-citations
• Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same
region
• Conform strictly to the style given in the Guide for Authors
Muite, B.K., Quinn, S.F., Sundaresan, S., Rao, K.K.. “Silo music and silo quake:
granular flow-induced vibration” Powder Technology. © Elsevier

56. - Acknowledgements
Ensures those who helped in the research are
recognised
Include individuals who have assisted with your study, including:
• Advisors
• Financial supporters
• Proofreaders
• Typists
• Suppliers who may have given materials

57. Language
- Why is language important?
Save your editor and reviewers the
trouble of guessing what you mean
Complaint from an editor:
“[This] paper fell well below my threshold. I refuse to spend time
trying to understand what the author is trying to say. Besides, I
really want to send a message that they can't submit garbage to us
and expect us to fix it. My rule of thumb is that if there are more
than 6 grammatical errors in the abstract, then I don't waste my
time carefully reading the rest.”

58. - Do publishers correct language?
• No. It is the author‟s responsibility to make sure his
paper is in its best possible form when submitted for
publication
• However:
– Publishers often provide resources for authors who are
less familiar with the conventions of international journals.
Please check your publishers‟ author website for more
information.
– Some publishers may perform technical screening prior to
peer review.
– Visit http://webshop.elsevier.com for translation and
language editing services.

59. Submission
- Final checks
• Revise before submission
• Vet the manuscript as thoroughly as possible
before submission
• Ask colleagues and supervisors to review your
manuscript

60. - Covering letter
Your chance to speak to the editor directly from all
Final approval
authors
• Submitted along with your manuscript
• Mention what would make your manuscript
special to the journal
Explanation of importance
• Note special requirements of research
(reviewers, conflicts
of interest)
Suggested reviewers

61. The review process

63. Demystifying the ‘black hole’
Author Editor Reviewer
START
Basic requirements met?
Submit a [Yes]
paper
Assign
reviewers Review and give
[No] recommendation
Collect reviewers’
recommendations
[Reject] Make a
REJECT
decision
Revise the [Revision required]
paper
[Accept]
Michael Derntl. Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing.ACCEPT
63
http://www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/meth-se.pdf

64. Desk Rejection
(rejection without external review)
The Editor-in-chief evaluates all submissions, and determines whether they go into the
review process or are rejected by the editor
Some journal specific policy e.g. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta “Rule of Two”
Criteria
– Out of scope
– Too preliminary
– Lack of Novelty
– Inadequate English language
– Prior publication of (part of) the data
– Ethical issues e.g. submitted elsewhere
– And more...

65. Review Process
Regular articles are initially reviewed by at least two reviewers
A third reviewer may be used in case of disagreements between reviewers
When invited, the reviewer receives the Abstract of the manuscript
The editor generally requests that the article be reviewed within reasonable
time (varies per field), limited extensions sometimes acceptable
If a report has not been received in good time, the Editorial office contacts
the reviewer
Articles are generally revised until the reviewers agree on either acceptance
or rejection, or until the editor decides that the reviewer comments have been
addressed satisfactorily
The reviewers‟ reports help the Editors to reach a decision
The reviewer recommends…the editor decides

66. Review Policy
Reviewers do not communicate directly As author
with authors As editor
As reviewer
All manuscripts and supplementary material must be As reader
treated confidentially by editors and reviewers
The aim is to have a “first decision” to the authors as
fast as possible after submission of the manuscript
Meeting these schedule objectives requires a
significant effort on the part of the Editorial staff,
As a researcher,
Editor and Reviewers
you wear many hats!
If reviewers treat authors as they themselves
would like to be treated as authors, then
these objectives can be met

67. What is the reviewer looking for?
Yes No
Is the article within the scope of the journal?
Would the article be more appropriately published in a specialist
journal?
Can the article be condensed?
• If so, where: Figures Figure legends Tables Text
Is the language acceptable?
Are there portions of the manuscripts which require further
clarification?
• If so, where? ________________
On a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (outstanding), how do you rate Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Outstanding
• Novelty, New knowledge in xyz
• Experimental design
• Evaluation of data
• Discussion of results
• Clarity of presentation
The article should be
Accepted without change Accepted after minor revision Accepted after condensation
Reconsidered after major revision Rejected
Confidential comments to the editor: [free text]

68. What is the reviewer looking for?
Yes No
Is the article within the scope of the journal?
Would the article be more appropriately published in a specialist
journal?
Can the article be condensed? “ Novelty”
• If so, where: Figures Figure legends Tables Text
Is the language acceptable?
Are there portions of the manuscripts which require further
clarification?
• If so, where? ________________
On a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (outstanding), how do you rate Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Outstanding
• Novelty, New knowledge in xyz
• Experimental design “ Technical” Quality
• Evaluation of data
• Discussion of results
• Clarity of presentation
The article should be
Accepted without change Accepted after minor revision Accepted after condensation
Reconsidered after major revision Rejected
Confidential comments to the editor: [free text]

69. Decision possibilities
• Accept without change (very rare!)
• Minor revision (means you will have to change a few
things)
• Moderate revision (means you will have to rewrite a few
things, possibly sections, figures, provide more data, etc)
• Major revision (means you will have to address some
fundamental shortcomings – possibly doing additional
research and certainly rewriting big sections)
• Rejection (means the manuscript is not deemed suitable
for publication in that journal)

70. Revision:
a great opportunity
• Value the opportunity to discuss your work directly with other
scientists in your community to improve your manuscript
• Prepare a detailed letter of response
– Cut and paste each comment by the reviewer
– State specifically the changes (if any) you have made to the
manuscript (identify the page and line number)
– Provide a scientific response to any comment you accept
– Offer a convincing, solid and polite rebuttal to any point on
which you think the reviewer is wrong
• Write in a such way that your responses can be forwarded by
the editor to the reviewer

71. Rejection:
not the end of the world
•You are not alone – everyone has papers rejected
so do not take it personally
•Try to understand why the paper was rejected
•You have received the editors and reviewers‟ time – benefit from
the advice and pointers they have given you
•Re-evaluate your work and decide whether it is appropriate to
submit the paper elsewhere. If so:
begin as if you are going to write a new article
read the Guide for Authors of the new journal
address previous reviewer comments

72. Types of review
SUBMIT TO A JOURNAL REVIEW ON A JOURNAL
Less likely More likely Less likely More likely
Single Blind
Double Blind
Open Peer Review
(Reviewer known to author only)
Open Peer Review
(Reviewer name next to article)
Open Peer Review
(Reviewer report posted but NO name)
Open Peer Review
(Reviewer‟s name and report posted)
Post-publication assessment
(Peer reviewed before publication)
Post-publication assessment
(No peer review before publication)

73. Ethical Issues

74. What is unethical behaviour?
Unethical behaviour can earn rejection and even a ban from
publishing in some journals. Unethical behaviour includes:
• Scientific misconduct
• Falsification/fabrication of results
• Publishing misconduct
– Plagiarism
– Different forms / severities
– The paper must be original to the authors
– Duplicate/multiple submission
– Redundant publication
– Failure to acknowledge prior research and researchers
– Inappropriate identification of all co-authors
– Conflict of interest

75. Scientific misconduct
- an example Rotated 180o
Rotated Zoomed out
180o ?!

76. - Fabrication and falsification
• Fabrication is making up data or results, and recording
or reporting them
• Falsification is manipulating research
materials, equipment, processes, or changing/omitting
data or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record

77. Publishing misconduct
- 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
“Presenting the data or interpretations of others without
crediting them, and thereby gaining for yourself the
rewards earned by others, is theft, and it eliminates the
motivation of working scientists to generate new data
and interpretations”
Bruce Railsback, Professor, Department of Geology, University of Georgia
77

78. - Multiple/Duplicate submission
• Two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same
hypotheses, data, discussion points, or conclusions
• An author should not submit for consideration in another journal a
previously published paper. Published studies do not need to be
repeated unless further confirmation is required.
• Nuances:
– Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of
conferences does not preclude subsequent submission for
publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of
submission.
– Re-publication of a paper in another language is
acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of
its original source at the time of submission.

79. - Authorship
General principles for who is listed first
• First Author
 Conducts and/or supervises the data generation and analysis and the
proper presentation and interpretation of the results
 Puts paper together and submits the paper to journal
• Corresponding author
 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
Avoid
• Ghost Authorship
– leaving out authors who should be included
• Gift Authorship
– including authors who did not contribute significantly

80. - Conflicts of interest
• Conflicts of interest can take many forms:
– Direct financial
e.g. employment, stock ownership, grants, patents
– Indirect financial
e.g. onoraria, consultancies, mutual fund ownership, expert testimony
– Career & intellectual
e.g. promotion, direct rival
– Institutional
– Personal belief
• The proper way to handle potential conflicts of interest is through transparency and
disclosure
• At the journal level, this means disclosure of the potential conflict in your cover letter to
the journal editor

81. Consequences
The article of which the authors committed plagiarism: it won’t be removed from ScienceDirect.
Everybody who downloads it will see the reason of retraction…
81

82. Thank you for listening...
...and Good Luck!

83. Elsevier Listens…
Every journal, platform and product at Elsevier is co-developed with ongoing community input.
In 2011 we surveyed or consulted with thousands of individuals:
Purchaser/Customer Innovation Explorers:
Service Satisfaction Researchers
& Librarians
Product Feedback Librarian
Surveys Advisory Board
… so please give your feedback on this session!