The document discusses scientific publishing and the peer review process. It covers: - The history of scientific publishing and the growth of journals since 1665. - Why researchers publish - for registration, validation, dissemination and archiving of their work. - The peer review process that editors use to validate research quality before publication. - Metrics that publishers and editors use to measure journal quality, including citations, impact factors, and other bibliometric data.

1. Publishing Scientific Research
Why? How? And How Can Elsevier Help?
Presented by: Bart Wacek, JD
Executive Publisher
Elsevier
Boston, USA

2. 2
What will we cover?
 Why ?
 History of scientific publishing
 Importance of peer-review to science
 How?
 The editorial process
 Quality metrics
 What do publishers do to help?
 Quality
 Innovation
 Ethics

3. 3
Henry Oldenburg (1618-1677)
 Born in Germany
 Resident in London from
1652
 Indefatigable correspondent
with major scientists of his
day
 Appointed (joint) Secretary
to the Royal Society in 1663
 Created (as editor and
commercial publisher) the
first scientific journal in 1665
 Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society
3

4. 4
1
100
10000
1665 1765 1865 1965
Year
Nooftitleslaunchedandstillextant2001Peer-Reviewed Journal Growth 1665-2001
Source:
M A Mabe The number and growth of journals
Serials 16(2).191-7, 2003
Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society (London)

5. 5
“natural philosophy”
mathematics, astronomy, physics,
chemistry, botany, zoology, medicine
many hundreds of
specialized fields
First journals
hundred journals
thousand journals
23 thousand journals
1665
1800
1900
2000s
Differentiation/Fragmentation
5

6. 6
Summary
 Growth has been exponential
 Growth is not only in number of
journals, but especially in number of
articles
 Growth is not necessarily good

7. 7
Why publish?
Publishing is one of the necessary steps embedded in the scientific
research process. It is also necessary for graduation and career
progression.
What to publish:
 New and original results or methods
 Reviews or summaries of particular subject
 Manuscripts that advance the knowledge and understanding in a
certain scientific field
What NOT to publish:
 Reports of no scientific interest
 Out of date work
 Duplications of previously published work
 Incorrect/unacceptable conclusions
You need a GOOD manuscript to present your contributions to the
scientific community

8. 8
What do modern researchers want as authors?
• Register a discovery as theirs and made by them on a certain date
• Assert ownership and achieve priority
Registration
• Get their research (and by implication, themselves) quality stamped by publication in a
journal of known quality
• Establish a reputation, and get reward
Validation
• Let their peers know what they have done
• Attract recognition and collaboration
Dissemination
• Leave a permanent record of their research
• Renown, immortality
Archive
8

9. 9
Summary
 Registration, validation, dissemination,
archive
 “Advance the Field” versus
“Scientifically Sound Only”

10. 10
Trends in publishing
 Rapid conversion from “print” to “electronic”
 1997: print only
 2005: 40% e-only (many e-collections)
30% print only
30% print-plus-electronic
 Changing role of “journals” due to e-access
 Increased usage of articles, at lower cost per article
 Electronic submission
 Increased manuscript inflow
 Experimentation with new publishing models
 E.g. “author pays” models, “delayed open access”,
DeepDyve, etc.
 Experimentation with new peer review models
 PLoS ONE, open peer review, PeerChoice, etc.
10

11. 11
Online submission and publication is the norm
11

12. 12
Summary
 It is not longer just putting up an
electronic version of the article
 User interaction is more integral
 End user is driving the process

13. 13
13
ACCEPTANCE AS FACTACCEPTANCE AS FACT
CRITICAL EVALUATION
COMMUNICATION
OBSERVATIONOBSERVATION
Private Co-workers Invisible college Speciality Discipline Publi
research
Peer reviewed paper
in a journal
Pre-print
monograph historytextbook
reference
work
Review
paper
prizes
Science
journalism
1st draft
Seminar/workshop/conferenceDraft
for
comment
Draft
mss
Create
Discuss
& revisit
Criticism
Formal
public
evaluation
Formal
confirmation
Acceptance
& integration
The Process

14. 14
 Full articles / Original articles: the most important papers. Often
substantial and significant completed pieces of research.
 Letters / Rapid Communications/ Short communications: quick and early
communication of significant and original advances. Much shorter than
full articles (check limitations).
 Review papers / perspectives: summarize recent developments on a
specific topic. Highlight important previously reported points. Not the
place to introduce new information. Often invited.
What type of manuscript?

15. 15
Summary
 Publishing combines both the informal
and formal aspects of communicating
research.
 Still basic formula of original articles,
reviews, and correspondence; but that
might change.

16. 16
An international editor says…
“The following problems appear much too frequently”
 Submission of papers which are clearly out of scope
 Failure to format the paper according to the Guide for
Authors
 Inappropriate (or no) suggested reviewers
 Inadequate response to reviewers
 Inadequate standard of English
 Resubmission of rejected manuscripts without revision
– Paul Haddad, Editor, Journal of Chromatography A

17. 17
What makes a good manuscript?
 Contains a clear, useful, and exciting
scientific message.
 Flows in a logical manner that the
reader can follow.
 Is formatted to best showcase the
material.
 Is written in a style that transmits
the message clearly.

18. 18
Submission is not a “black hole”
Michael Derntl. Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing.
http://www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/meth-se.pdf

19. 19
Why?
 The peer-review system is grossly overloaded
and editors wish to use reviewers only for
those papers with a good probability of
acceptance.
 It is a disservice to ask reviewers to spend
time on work that has clear and evident
deficiencies.
Initial Editorial Review
Many journals use a system of initial editorial review. Editors
may reject a manuscript without sending it for review

20. 20
Summary
 Use your role as editors to “triage”
manuscripts before the review process.
 This is important to maintain quality
control but also to preserve the
reviewers, who are already
overworked.

21. 21
The Process

22. 22
The Refereeing Process
 Independent refereeing of submitted manuscripts is critical to
the scientific publishing process in validating the quality of a
piece of work.
 Referees provide
 an objective assessment of a submission, and recommend
whether a piece of work advances the field sufficiently to warrant
publication.
 Relevance, novelty
 Relevant work is cited, and discussed as appropriate
 Methodology is appropriate, and properly described
 Conclusions are supported by the results reported
 Evaluate the statistical analyses
 Ensure that the paper is unambiguous and comprehensible,
even if the English is not perfect
The Referee recommends, the Editor decides
22

23. 23
Finding and Keeping reviewers
 Make use of Editorial Board Members for reviewing, and consider
rotating off Board Members who are not regularly refereeing
 Think twice before using referees who have not been active in research
in the last 5 years
 The best referees are often young professors, researchers, post-
doctorates, emeritus professors and authors who have recently
published in the journal
 Reject very poor papers outright without sending them to a reviewer.
 Ask referees whether they are able to review a manuscript before
sending it.
 Give your request a personal touch by customising template letters
where possible
 Develop a set of clear referee guidelines.
 Notify the referees of your final decision on the paper.
 Do not 'penalise' timely referees by sending them new articles for
review immediately after they have returned a set of comments.
 Thank referees who are doing a good job
 Develop a reviewer loyalty programme
23

24. 24
Summary
 Ultimate decision making rests with the
editors.
 While all editors respect the review
process, the best editors leave room for
creativity or imagination.

25. 25
How can you influence the impact metrics of
your journal as an Editor?
 Have a Vision for your journal
 Attract the best authors
 Find the best referees
 Have an efficient review process with short
turnaround times
 Commission invited/review articles
 Claim “hot” areas in your discipline that are not
currently “owned” by other journals by publishing a
thematic issue on it
25

26. 26
Summary
 Editors are asked to do two basic
things: handle the peer review process
and have a vision of the journal.
 A vision of where the journal should go
is vital for long-term sustainability.

27. 27
What is Quality?
 The assessment of quality and value is at the heart of
the scholarly communication system
 Peer review for acceptance of papers
 Judgements about the quality of a journal
 Assessment of the work of a researcher from where s/he
publishes
 Judgments about the quality of institutions based on their
publication record
27

28. 28
Influencing the impact metrics
 Better papers (easier said than done)
 Fewer papers
 More reviews
 More special issues (invited authors)
 Publish invited works in January (longer citation window)
 BUT DO NOT
 Require citations to your journal
 Write editorials about your journal’s articles
just to cite them
28

29. 29
Summary
 Quality is more than just selecting the
best paper; it also involved quality
control to maintain consistency among
reviewers.
 There are a variety of ways to measure
quality, but mostly it is done by
measuring citations.

30. 30
Top Journals – Agriculture Engineering

31. 31
Top Journals – Agriculture, Dairy, and Animal Sc.

32. 32
Top Journals – Agriculture, Multi-discipline

33. 33
Top Journals – Agronomy

34. 34
eBooks
 Online books are at the same stage online
journals were 10 years ago.
 Not much capacity beyond just putting
content online
 As such, writing for eBooks is almost the
same as writing a regular book.
 Changing in health/life science: up-to-date
publishing
 A real need for it to be in agriculture, too!

35. 35
Quality control. What types of tools are available?
 Scopus Citation Analysis
 Non-cited Paper Analysis
 Author Feedback Programme
 Reviewer Feedback Programme
 Editor Feedback Programme
35

36. 36
Scopus Citation Analysis
36

37. 37
Scopus Issue Analysis
Citation analysis at the issue level can answer the following
questions:
 What is the level of citation for the issues published?
 How are my special issues doing in comparison to the regular
issues?
 Are our review/invited articles contributing as expected?
37

38. 38
Scopus Issue Analysis
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
2002 2003 2004 2005
Averagecitationsperpaper
Off scale
(26.5)
AVERAGE CITATIONS PER
PAPER / PER ISSUE
- Regular Issue
- Structural Elucidation
- Thematic Issue
- Festschrift issue
- Shading indicates issue
contains review article(s)
38

39. 39
Scopus Impact Analysis on a Specific Set of
Articles
 How do citations develop in time?
 Are there specific areas that attract a higher number of
citations?
 How does the number of citations relate to the number of
publications?
 Perform your own bibliometric calculations
39

40. 40
Summary
 A good thematic issue can lead to high
citations.
 Reviews always tend to be cited more,
especially as more publishers put
restrictions on the number of citations.

41. 41
Non-Cited Article Analysis
41

42. 42
% Non-Cited Articles per Journal
Uncited % - 5yr
Subject Category -
ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCES
Year - 2005
Rank Journal Uncited % - 5yr
1 FIELD ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY AND TECHNOLOGY 2.78%
2 REGULATED RIVERS-RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT 4.26%
3 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 14.29%
4 JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-PART B-CRITICAL REVIEWS 19.30%
5 APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL 22.99%
6 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 23.03%
7 GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES 23.49%
8 JOURNAL OF PALEOLIMNOLOGY 25.22%
9 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 25.34%
10 JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE 25.56%
11 GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 25.89%
12 CLIMATIC CHANGE 26.03%
13 ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY 26.13%
14 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 26.48%
15 WATER RESEARCH 26.58%
16 ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES 26.67%
17 SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 26.76%
18 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 26.80%
19 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 26.88%
20 REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT 26.98%
42

43. 43
Non-cited Article Analysis
Aim
Bring down the number of uncited articles as much as possible.
Important to determine
 What type of articles are most cited?
 What type of articles remain uncited?
43

44. 44
What are the top-cited papers?
Are there certain topics
that seem to get cited a lot?
44

45. 45
What are the non-cited papers?
Can you distinguish any trends
in the articles that do not get cited?
45

46. 46
Summary
 A journal will never, nor, should strive
for 100% articles cited; however, 90% is
a good goal.
 Too many uncited articles reveals that
the material has little to no relevance
with the readers.

47. 47
Impact FactorImpact Factor
[the average annual number of citations per article published][the average annual number of citations per article published]
 For example, the 2008 impact factor for a journal is calculated as follows:
 A = the number of times articles published in 2006 and 2007 were cited in
indexed journals during 2008
 B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews, proceedings or
notes; not editorials and letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2006 and 2007
 2008 impact factor = A/B
 e.g.e.g. 600 citations600 citations = 2= 2
150 + 150 articles150 + 150 articles
What is the Impact Factor (IF)?

48. 48
Impact Factor and other bibliometric parameters

49. 49
Impact Factor Pros and Cons
49

50. 50
Impact Factor Pros and Cons
50

51. 51
Subject Area Influence on Impact Factors
51

52. 52
Impact Factor Pros and Cons
52

53. 53
Summary
 Impact factor is most used, and most
misunderstood factor.
 Impact factor is not perfect. It can be
manipulated and has no cross-over
among different scientific fields.
 But it is here to stay, especially since it
can be tied to funding and promotions.

54. 54
Beyond the impact factor: new metrics
 Eigen Factor
 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)
 Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
54

55. 55
Eigen Factor
 Developed by Carl Bergstrom in 2007 to address some of the
weaknesses of the impact factor
 “We can view the Eigenfactor score of a journal as a rough estimate of
how often a journal will be used by scholars”
 Uses algorithms to assess importance of each journal (like Google page
rank)
 5 year window (IF is 2)
 Allows citation behavior to set fields, not pre-set fields
 Counts all citations, regardless of source
55

56. 56
Pros and Cons
Pros
 Free
 Ranks more than journal articles
 Like SJR, scores based on ranking
Cons
 Very large journals will have extremely high Eigenfactor scores
simply based upon their size
 “Citations” not necessarily articles (peer review article?
Editorial? Tabloid?)
 Does not promote cross discipline comparison
 Does not differentiate “negative” citations
56

57. 57
Summary
 Increases window of citations; a major
criticism of impact factor.
 But rewards size of journal; and similar
to impact factor cannot correlate
between scientific fields.

58. 58
New metrics are now available
How are these calculated
58

59. 59
SJR
 SCImago Journal Rank, is a measure of the scientific prestige of
scholarly sources.
 High-prestige citations count more than low-prestige sources
 SJR assigns relative scores to all of the sources in a citation network.
Its methodology is inspired by the Google PageRank algorithm, in that
not all citations are equal. A source transfers its own 'prestige', or
status, to another source through the act of citing it.
 A citation from a source with a relatively high SJR is worth more than a
citation from a source with a lower SJR.
59

60. 60
SJR
60

61. 61
SJR pros and cons
Pros
 Differentiates between prestige of citations
 Free (via Scopus) to subscribers and non-subscribers
 Only peer reviewed articles count as cited or citing (transparent
sources)
Cons
 More difficult to explain/understand than IF
 Does not allow comparisons between disciplines
 Does not differentiate “negative” citations
61

62. 62
Summary
 Each citation is not equal; rankings give
a truer sense of importance.
 Extremely difficult to understand.

63. 63
SNIP
 Source Normalized Impact per Paper measures a source's contextual
citation impact.
 Addresses differences in citation behavior between fields.
 It takes into account characteristics of the source's subject field,
especially the frequency at which authors cite other papers in their
reference lists, the speed at which citation impact matures, and the
extent to which the database used in the assessment covers the field’s
literature.
 SNIP is the ratio of a source's average citation count per paper, and
the 'citation potential' of its subject field.
63

64. 64
SNIP
64

65. 65
SNIP pros and cons
Pros
 Does not disadvantage smaller or slower-moving fields
 Free (via Scopus) to subscribers and non-subscribers
 Only peer reviewed articles count as cited or citing (transparent
sources)
Cons
 More difficult to explain/understand than IF
 Does not differentiate between prestige of citations
 Does not differentiate “negative” citations
65

66. 66
Summary
 Allows for cross-comparison between
different scientific fields. The algorithm
equalizes speed to citations.
 Again, difficult to understand.

67. 67
Key features of SJR and SNIP
67

68. 68
Comparing the ranking of top journals
68

69. 69
Comparing the ranking of top journals
69

70. 70
Comparing the ranking of top journals
70

71. 71
Summary
 As an editor, use what you are
comfortable with.
 As an editor, use multiple metrics to
measure the health of a journal.

72. 72
Bibliometrics at the individual level – the H-index
 Measure proposed in 2005 by the physicist Jorge E. Hirsch.
 Rates a scientist’s performance based on their career
publications, as measured by the lifetime number of citations
each article receives.
 Depends on both quantity (number of publications) and quality
(number of citations) of a scientist’s publications.
 Official definition: “A scientist has index h if h of their N papers
have at least h citations each, and the other (N – h) papers have
no more than h citations each.”
 Translation of definition: If you list all a scientist’s publications
in descending order of the number of citations received to date,
their h-index is the highest number of their papers, h, that have
each received at least h citations. So, their h-index is 10 if 10
papers have each received at least 10 citations; their h-index is
81 if 81 papers have each received at least 81 citations. Their h-
index is 1 if all of their papers have each received 1 citation, but
also if only 1 of all their papers has received any citations – and
so on..
72

73. 73
H-index
73
Copyright ©2005 by the National Academy of Sciences
Fig. 1. Schematic curve of number of citations versus paper number, with papers numbered in order of decreasing
citations. The intersection of the 45° line with the curve gives h. The total number of citations is the area under the
curve.
73

74. 74
Pros and Cons
Pros
 Based on citations to author’s corpus, not journal
 Credits quantity as well as quality of corpus
 Free
 Easy to understand and calculate
Cons
 Can be biased against young researchers
 Does not differentiate negative citations
 Does not differentiate or weigh citing source
 Does not address differences per field
 Includes self citations
74

75. 75
Summary
 Field might be moving toward article-
based metrics.
 Already there is use of metrics to
measure researchers like the H-index.

76. 76
Solicit and
manage
submissions
Manage
peer review
Production
Publish and
disseminate
Edit and
prepare
Archive and
promote use
Elsevier and Publishing
• 450,000 new articles produced each year
• 185 years of back issues scanned, processed and data-tagged

77. 77
What makes a journal successful, once it has
found a community?
1. Strategic journal management (brand management)
2. Wide visibility
3. Quality control, peer review and use of journal metrics
4. Customer feedback
77

78. 78
Different journals - Different choices – Different
roles
Regional
Regional
International
International
Authors
Readers
Visibility of Regional Science
Will not publish cutting edge
research
Not necessarily unimportant
Platform for Students (PhD,
PostDocs)
Career making
publications
International
scene
Not all equally
important
78

79. 79
Strategic Choices
Regional
Regional
International
International
Authors
Readers
Examples: Pramana (India), Current
Applied Physics (S. Korea)
• Increasing number of journals
(related to global scientific
development)
• Limited international recognition
• Regional loyalty
• Generally Indexed by major
indexing services
• Reasonable visibility
• Variable in quality
Examples: Nature, Physical Review, Cell,
and many Elsevier journals
• Many journals already
• International recognition
• Limited regional loyalty
• Indexed by major indexing services
• Wide visibility
• Quality above a certain minimum
threshold
Example journals: Cerâmica (Brazil)
• Very large number of journals
• Very limited international recognition
• Regional loyalty
• Indexed by only a few major
indexing services
• Regional visibility
• Quality unclear
Example: Epidemiology
• Addressing regional issues by
outside experts.
• Limited number of journals,
especially health sciences
• Limited international recognition
• Limited visibility
• Extremely fluctuating quality
79

80. 80
Market
Analysis

Objectives 2011
I) Toxicology
•IF increase to 2.4
• Market share US 28%
•X
•Y
2) Pharmacology
Toxicology Letters (2011)

•25 review articles published by
US authors
•Appoint Harvard editor
•Manage rejection rate,
and article flow to 2550
accepted articles by 31-12
•Host one reviewer workshop
•Reduce editorial time to 16 wks
•etc
Analysis &
Objectives per
segment and journal
Activities per
journal
Customer feedback
& other market intelligence
Elsevier S&T
Strategy
S&T Journal
Strategy
Portfolio strategies
MARKET
From Strategy to Action
80

81. 81
Summary
 Elsevier is your source to all the quality
metrics you need.
 Elsevier has talented staff that know
the profession and can direct publishing
strategy.
 A partnership for getting ‘right’ content
to ‘right’ audience.

82. 82
Per
journal:
Journal
Action Plan
2011
PORTFOLIO PLAN:
 Editorial policies
 Per Editor: retention and
replacement strategy
 Special issue &review article
strategy
 Emerging areas and markets /
New journal launches
 Customer (author, editor,
reviewer) services
 Society opportunities
 Commercial Sales opportunities
 Marketing
Resultsinjournalspecificactions
Portfolio & Journal Action plans for each
portfolio and journal
82

83. 83
83
Example of journal action plan Journal of Scientific Research
Possible Action Current Status Desired Status Action Deadline
Impact Factor 1.650 2.300 Consider reduction in size
Editor in Chief
Quality Strong Continue as is None N/A
Editorial office/ Secretary Yes Continue as is None N/A
Deputy Editor
Quality None Succession planned Appoint deputy Editor December 2011
Editors
Quality Fair (section A) to Good (Asia) Strong Appoint new editor section A; Editor from US December 2011
Quantity 2 3 Appoint one more editor December 2011
Geographical Split Reasonable Ad US As above December 2011
EES live N/A N/A
Physical quality good good N/A
Publication Speed
Early Web Visibility No Yes implement June 2011
Refereeing (editorial) time 30 weeks 20 weeks Scopus to reviewers/ new editor August/Dec. 2011
Online Production time 10 weeks 7 weeks Agree on SLA with production March 2011
Print production time 12 weeks 9 weeks
Rejection rate 50% 50% N/A
Time to first decision 9 6 Reduce time
# of issues/ pages 2006
Special issue policy
# of special issues
Type of SI’s
For each journal an annual journal action plan, outlining the required actions to improve journal in line with
overall strategic direction
83

84. 84
 Author feedback programme => all authors are asked for feedback:
 Editor and Reviewer feedback programmes follow similar approach
Against Benchmarks: Against Competition:
Portfolio and journal management based on market
knowledge, research and continuous feedback
84

85. 85
Publishing speed
Time to publish is important.
Many journals have now introduced a “Fast Rejection“ process by the journal Editor
3
2
1

86. 86
Summary
 Portfolio plan done once a year.
 Gauges the journal and the
marketplace.
 Data showcases speed, citations, etc;
and develops plans for improvement.

87. 87 Source: Outsell’s Buyer Market Database & Dr Carol Tenopir, UTK
Scientists can now spend more time analyzing information than gathering it
Compared to print-only era
• Scientists now read 25%+ more articles per year
• Scientists now read from almost twice as many journals
Time Spent
Gathering
Time Spent
Analyzing
58%
42%
48%
52%
55%
45%
45%
55%
56%
44%
42%
58%
54%
46%
58%
42%
56%
44%
51%
49%
56%
44%
47%
53%
2001 2005
Fin/HR/Legal
2001 2005
Sci/Eng
2001 2005
Mfg/Purch
2001 2005
Total
2001 2005
IT
2001 2005
Sales/Mktg
Global trends - “p to e-migration”
87

88. 88
On literature searching:
“Many studies have reported that researchers are
overwhelmed by the amount of material to review
and feel that they do not find all the information
on the topic for which they are searching … with
one study finding that a third of physicians “felt
they could not cope with the information flow” …
only 10% of the researchers responding that they
are very confident they are finding everything”
Information seeking behavior of academic scientists,
Hemminger, B.M., D.Lu, K.T.L. Vaughan, and S.J. Adams, J.
Am. Soc. Information Sc. and Tech., 58(14):2205-2225, 2007

89. 89
Search Methodology of Researchers
 “The search methodology of the researchers can be
characterized by “trial and error.” They have no planned
search strategy, but start at random, experimenting
both with the actual words and sources to use.
 … they never use manuals, etc., for instructions. The
idea of contacting the library for help does not occur to
them. They have little or no knowledge of the finer
points of many information sources
 … researchers seldom use the library Web page as
starting point … , and instead use bookmarks/shortcuts
added by themselves …
 … researchers have difficulties in identifying correct
search terms. Searches are often unsuccessful.”
(Haglund and Olson, 2008)

90. 90
University College London study confirms strong correlation
between e-journal usage, research output and funding in the UK
“Electronic Journals: Their use value and impact.” Research Information Network Report. April
2009
“Doubling in
downloads, from 1
to 2 million, is
statistically
associated with
dramatic - but not
necessarily causal -
increases in research
productivity”
Papers up 207%
PhD awards up
168%
Research grants and
contract income up
324%
Even stronger as
downloads increase
further
90

91. 91
Summary
 Any analysis must now be focused
primarily on the electronic side.
 Reading patterns are much different in
the electronic environment.
 And it affects funding.

92. 92
Elsevier peer review experiments
Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium
(NPRC)
•Enable the sharing of review reports between
journals (at the author’s request) to run a more
efficient and fast peer review process overall
•37 journals in neuroscience across publishers and
societies participate
•Current uptake low (1-2%), pilot continues
Reviewer Mentorship Programme
•An educational programme for postgraduate students to become certified article reviewers, based on a proven
need for more reviewers, guidance on reviewing papers, and a common reviewing standard
•Programme consists of three phases
• Reviewer workshop (local or virtual)
• Traineeship in which trainee performs a number of reviews for an editor, under the supervision of a
mentor
• Graduation and certification
•Pilot is running in biology and pharmacology areas
Assign
m
ss
Feedback
Host &
monitor
Guidance
Submit
reviews
Copy of assignments
Keep informed
Signal end
92

93. 93
3-D imaging
technologies
Semantic web
technologies
Geographical
image search
Newest tools: imaging, discovery
93

94. 94
Newest tools: Article of the Future
Traditional article structure
94

95. 95
Newest tools: Article of the Future
95

96. 96
Newest tools: Article of the Future
96

97. 97
Newest tools: Article of the Future
97

98. 98
Summary
 Elsevier is not just putting up content
on the web. There is much more added
functionality.
 Article of the future incorporates
supplemental material and video that
enhances article.
 And it is constantly evolving and
moving fast.

99. 99
Ethics
How To Get Your Article Published
Publishing Ethics

100. 100
Copyright Issues in Publishing

101. 101
Publish AND Perish! – if you break ethical rules
 International scientific ethics have evolved
over centuries and are commonly held
throughout the world.
 Scientific ethics are not considered to have
national variants or characteristics – there is a
single ethical standard for science.
 Ethics problems with scientific articles are on
the rise globally.

102. 102
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…

103. 103
Summary
 The CEO of Elsevier is fond of this
quote… “Do the right thing.”
 Your reputation is your most important
asset.

104. 104
Ethics Issues in Publishing
Scientific misconduct
 Falsification of results
Publication misconduct
 Plagiarism
 Different forms / severities
 The paper must be original to the authors
 Duplicate submission
 Duplicate publication
 Lack of acknowledgement of prior research and researchers
 Inappropriate identification of all co-authors
 Conflict of interest

105. 105
Data fabrication and falsification
Fabrication is making up data or results, and recording or
reporting them.
“… the fabrication of research data … hits at the heart of our
responsibility to society, the reputation of our institution, the
trust between the public and the biomedical research
community, and our personal credibility and that of our
mentors, colleagues…”
“It can waste the time of others, trying to replicate false data
or designing experiments based on false premises, and can
lead to therapeutic errors. It can never be tolerated.”
Professor Richard Hawkes
Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, University of Calgary
“The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth.”
G.C.Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
“The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth.”
G.C.Lichtenberg (1742-1799)

106. 106
Plagiarism
 A short-cut to long-term consequences!
 Plagiarism is considered a serious offense by your institute, by
journal editors, and by the scientific community.
 Plagiarism may result in academic charges, but will certainly
cause rejection of your paper.
 Plagiarism will hurt your reputation in the scientific
community.

107. 107
Multiple submissions
 Multiple submissions save you time but waste editor’s
and reviewer’s time
 The editorial process of your manuscripts will be
completely stopped if the duplicated submissions are
discovered.
“It is considered to be unethical…We have thrown out a paper
when an author was caught doing this. I believe that the other
journal did the same thing. ”
James C. Hower
Editor, the International Journal of Coal Geology
 Do not send your manuscript to a second journal UNTIL
you receive the final decision of the first journal

108. 108
Duplicate Publication
 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.
 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.
 At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of
related papers, even if in a different language, and similar
papers in press.
 This includes translations

109. 109
Other Ethical Issues
 Some authors are also engaging in other unethical practices
 Improper authorship
 Crediting individuals who did NOT provide a substantive
contribution to the research and the analysis presented
 Lack of credit to individuals who DID provide a
substantive contribution
 Lack of conflict of interest disclosure
 Not adhering to guidelines involving
treatment, consent, or privacy of research
or testing subjects
109

110. 110
Summary
 Scientific publishing is different than
other kinds of publishing. You can not
‘shop’ your paper around.
 When in doubt, always ask if something
is ethical.

111. 111
Preguntas?
Or for questions later, please contact b.wacek@elsevier.com

112. 112
Conclusions
 Why ?
 History of scientific publishing
 Importance of peer-review to science
 How?
 The editorial process
 Quality metrics
 What do publishers do to help?
 Quality
 Innovation
 Ethics