Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Author Workshop Publishing and Evaluating Research Paul Trevorrow Executive Journals Editor Global Research Wiley- Blackwell.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Author Workshop Publishing and Evaluating Research Paul Trevorrow Executive Journals Editor Global Research Wiley- Blackwell."— Presentation transcript:

1 Author Workshop Publishing and Evaluating Research Paul Trevorrow Executive Journals Editor Global Research Wiley- Blackwell

2 The agenda Submission Editorial Production Publication Why publish?

3 ….why?

4 The common argument… Why publish?

5 Role of the publisher Publisher Editorial & author services Marketing, Dissemination and Discoverability Community outreach Archiving Registration/ validation and prestige Why publish? Provisions for: Copy editing Typesetting Author tools Provision of electronic editorial offices Funding of Receiving editors Provides a searchable platform A&I servicing Article linking Promotion/marketing Event sponsorship Grants and awards Author/referee workshops Development of new services/technologies to assist researchers Ensures a version of record is available in perpetuity Digitization of legacy material. Maintaining the completeness of the academic record Publication with a reputable publisher assumes: Peer review Editorial processes adhere to industry agreed ethical standards Among leaders within the field

6 Wiley’s Anywhere Article Why publish?

7 Fame Recognition by your peers Motivation for publication Fortune Promotions, grant applications, research funding Responsibility To society, taxpayer-funded research, contribution to progress Why publish?

8 BECAUSE MY BOSS TOLD ME TO! Probably the most common driver….

9 Submission Editorial decision Production Publication Part II – submitting an article Submission

10 Choosing a journal Submission

11 What am I trying to say and how can I express it effectively? Research article Short communication Letter to the editor Perspective Review/Mini review article Historical Submission Which journals publish the type of article that I want to write?

12 Which audience is right for me? Where do you read papers related to your research? Which journals do you like the most? Where were your references published? What do your peers suggest? Submission Where does your boss want you to publish?

13 Evaluating the target journal Prestige Speed Audience Aesthetics Author service / experience Cost Likelihood of acceptance Submission

14 I don’t know where to submit or I want to survey my options. Publisher website ( Abstract and Indexing (A&I) services (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed etc) Google/Google Scholar Submission

15 Preparing and submitting your manuscript Submission Read the author instructions and format your article appropriately

16 Writing up my research – the important components of a research article Title Abstract Author name and position Submission

17 The abstract – one of the most important elements of your article Referee and editor assessment Abstract and indexing / search-ability Submission

18 What makes a good abstract? State why the research is important to a broader non-scientific audience Introduce the procedure simply Describe the experiment in detail Offer a brief overview of the results Submission

19 Think “structured” abstract format Submission

20 What makes a bad abstract? Why? What is the significance of this study? Why is Gardeniae Fructus important? Straight into a shopping list of the results and characterized acids Submission

21 Introduction Method Results and Discusssion Conclusion Submission Typical structure of a research article

22 Use one standard/common font (preferably Arial) Use one font size Avoid use of shadows/glows/reflections Check the author instructions with regard to reproducing colour For ChemDraw images use the object settings set by the journal Artwork Submission



25 How to write resources Journal articles Whitesides‘ Group: Writing a Paper G. M. Whitesides Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1375 A Brief Guide to Designing Effective Figures for the Scientific Paper M. Rolandi, K. Cheng, S. Pérez-Kriz Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 4343 How to write a paper for Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry Rapid Comm. Mass Spec. 2012, 26, 1725 Submission

26 Why is this topic important? Why are these results significant? What is the key result? (breakthrough!) Why are you submitting to this journal? Why will this journal’s readers read it? your article is written, format is good. Time to submit your article with your covering letter Together with the abstract of your paper, the cover letter is one of the first things the editor will see, so make it count! Keep the letter as direct and short as possible The longer it is, the easier it is to overlook something important Submission

27 Submitting the manuscript Typically via an Electronic Editorial Office (EEO) such as ScholarOne Manuscripts Occasionally direct to Editor Submission

28 Article submitted! Submission Now it’s over to the journal Editors….

29 Editorial Production Publication Part III The editorial process Editorial

30 The editorial workflow Manuscript submitted Manuscript rejected Manuscript sent back to author for alteration before resubmission Editors examine and make Initial editorial decision largely based on: Language Formatting / completeness Scope Is the article type correct Significance Readership Impact Editorial Send to peer review Ensures that the article is in a suitable state for peer review

31 The editorial workflow Manuscript sent out for peer review Editor makes decision based on reports 3 GENERAL OUTCOMES Passed initial screening Editorial

32 Accept Editorial

33 Revise Editorial Major revision Minor revision

34 Editorial

35 Accept ? Editorial

36 Revise – major/minor Carefully consider reviewer comments Approach a revision decision as an opportunity to develop your paper into the best it can be Referee’s comments should not be seen as negative criticisms but development points Not all changes have to be made but require convincing arguments for changes not made Remember! Your response may go back to reviewers. You may need to convince them and the editor! Editorial

37 Rejection Technical/scientific issues Motivation unclear/unimportant Novelty/originality Conclusions do not support the data Results less important Results uninteresting Ethical questions Unclear presentation Editorial

38 Should you appeal a reject decision? Usually, no Risk of longer time to publication Editors and referees know journal Criticisms may be valid Occasionally, yes Importance / impact / novelty missed by editor/referees Factual errors in referee reports that led to rejection Editorial

39 Peer review Editorial

40 What is peer review? “Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.” - Wikipedia Editorial

41 Why do we peer review? Suitability for publication True / credible? Reproducible? Important, relevant? Communicated effectively? Novelty? Plagiarism? Verify & improve the research Interpretation of results Reasoning Presentation Critical but constructive feedback New / additional ideas Editorial

42 What peer review doesn’t do Peer review checks the likelihood of reproducibility, it does not recreate the experiments to verify reproducibility. Editorial

43 What peer reviewers are asked to do – the typical questionnaire Editorial Novelty Concise Comprehensive Accuracy Abstract Citations Language Decision Structure

44 What peer reviewers are asked to do – the referee report Is the motivation clear and is it important? Is the work novel and original? Are the conclusions supported by the data? Are the results important? Are there any ethical questions? Were any flaws or mistakes found? Should anything be added or removed? Does the author demonstrate a knowledge of prior work in the field? How might the article be improved? Will the community find the article useful? Editorial

45 On what basis are peer reviewers chosen? Journal’s reviewer database Current and past authors / referees, bibliographic searches, keyword, interests, publication history. Suggestions from authors Not just the biggest names please – others as well Also list people with conflicts of interest who should not be asked to review Suggestions from other reviewers Advisory Board Members Themselves or nomated referees Editor’s own knowledge of the community Contacts from conferences, prominent scientists, regular authors, etc. Editorial

46 Why be a peer reviewer? Access to latest research before it is published Duty in keeping the peer review mechanism buoyant To enhance ones gravitas as an expert To glean recognition by the editors Pedagogical altruism Visa application

47 Questions then break (15 mins) Editorial


49 Top ten tips for navigating ethical challenges in scholarly publishing 1.Adopt journal policy and practice that supports ethical best practice 2.Support efficient, effective, ethical peer review 3.Be mindful of breaches of publication ethics 4.Disclose conflict of interest 5.Accurately list those who contributed to the work and how 6.Comply with discipline guidelines for reporting standards 7.Ensure that ethical and responsible research is published 8.Take action and alert journals to suspected malpractice 9.Correct errors where found 10.Protect intellectual property Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics Editorial

50 There are ethical responsibilities for all actors in the publication process: Editors Authors Referees Publisher Editorial

51 Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript processing Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts Make the final decision on a submission Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for their own research Ensure a fair selection of referees Act upon allegations of scientific misconduct Deal fairly with author appeals Editor responsibilities Editorial

52 To gather and interpret data in an honest way To give due recognition to published work relating to their manuscript To give due acknowledgement to all contributors Notify the publisher of any errors To avoid undue fragmentation of work into multiple manuscripts (salami publishing) To ensure that a manuscript is submitted to only one journal at a time Author responsibilities Editorial

53 Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts and respect privileged information Not to withhold a referee report for personal advantage Return to editor without review if there is a conflict of interest Inform editor quickly if not qualified or unable to review Judge manuscript objectively and in timely fashion Explain and support recommendations with arguments and references where appropriate Inform editor if plagiarized or falsified data is suspected Reviewer responsibilities Editorial

54 Falsifying data Fabricating data Plagiarism Multiple concurrent/dual submissions Image manipulation Authorship misrepresentation Duplicate publication Ethical misconduct Examples of ethical misconduct that are not tolerated: Editorial PENALTIES CAN BE SEVERE!

55 The case of Jan Hendrik Schön


57 A Publisher’s Perspective, Second Edition now available FREE at Updated version of the first edition published by Wiley in 2006 Provides guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, researchers and other audiences The uniquely multidisciplinary guidelines have been revised, updated, and reviewed by 30 editors and ethics experts Guidance added about whistle-blowers, animal research and clinical research – particularly around clinical trial registration Now also includes guidance on best practice for journals in human rights and confidentiality, and addresses how approaches differ between cultures Ethics Resources Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics Editorial

58 Ethics resources

59 Part IV Production Production

60 The life of an accepted article – the production process Copyediting Typesetting Production

61 The life of an accepted article – the production process Copyediting Typesetting Correction Print product Online product Production

62 Manuscript published! Publication

63 Market your article Publication

64 Tracking the “impact” of your article Publication

65 That old classic - citation tracking “These cited references are authors’ acknowledgments of their debt to the published research findings of others” Publication

66 Web of Science ~11,500 Scopus ~16,500 Publication


68 1963 Impact Factor Publication

69 Journal level evaluation - The impact factor Articles published in 2011 Articles published in 2010 Papers published in 2012 Article types counted in the denominator [citeable item] Primary research articles, Review articles, Case reports, Proceedings papers. Articles not counted in the denominator [not citeable item*] Editorials, Corrections, Bibliographies, Letters, Abstracts. Divided by the number of citeable items in 2011 and 2010 Publication

70 Why is the impact factor based on two-year citations? “The two year period was chosen because in the fields that were of greatest interest to the readers of Current Contents, and later of the SCI... …the primary fields of interest were molecular biology and biochemistry. … nothing prevents the user of JCR from calculating three year or five year impact factors. I have done even seven year and 15 year calculations.” E. Garfield, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2003, Vol. 3, Nº 2, pp. 363-369 Publication

71 Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5 Number of citations The impact factor window Publication

72 Subject categories and their aggregate Impact Factors Aggregate impact factor

73 Myth? Research published in a high impact factor journal is more valuable than research published in a low impact factor journal Published in 2005 Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry – Impact Factor: 2.750 By comparison Science – Impact Factor: 31.853 Publication

74 “Skewness” Seglen P.O. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci, 1992, 49(9):628 Publication

75 Pros and cons of the Impact Factor Pros It is fundamentally a sound premise It is transparent It is easy to explain It is efficient After 50 years of use it is established Cons Target period (window) is not appropriate for all subject areas Free citations to ‘non citable’ items A citation is not necessarily a validation Differences in referencing behaviour between subjects Misused to judge author performance

76 2005 H-index Publication

77 Equation: An individual has an index of h, when they have published at least h papers, each of which has been cited at least h times The index was created in an attempt to move away from journal based measures such as the Impact Factor. An index which was applicable at the author level, accounting for the fact that the distribution of citations between articles can be tremendously skewed, even for the same author Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102(46), 16569-16572 Publication

78 ArticleCitations Article 13 Article 23 Article 34 Author A has published 3 articles 3 of these articles have at least 3 citations = H index of 3 Bibliographic record for author A Publication

79 ArticleCitations Article 13 Article 24 Article 32 Article 49 Article 52 Article 61 Author B has published 6 articles 3 of these articles have at least 3 citations = H index of 3 The author will gain a H index of 4 when a total of 4 articles achieve 4 or more citations each. Bibliographic record for author B Publication

80 ArticleCitations Article 11,000,001 Article 22,000,000 Author C has published 2 articles Both articles have been cited over 1 million times The author only has 2 papers so the maximum H index achievable is 2 The author will gain a H index of 3 when another article is published and it achieves 3 citations Author C Publication

81 H-index = 8! Publication

82 Pros and Cons of the H-index Pros Elegant Efficient Transparent Removes bias from individual highly cited articles Can be mobilized to evaluate a number of criteria, not just the author (e.g. institute, country, region) Cons Longitudinal bias No baseline It cannot decrease It may increase without an author publishing any new work Seminal thinkers may not necessarily publish lots of articles Citation index dependent – which database citation count is correct?

83 Altmetric Publication


85 Ethical responsibilities for all Disclose conflict of interest Be mindful of breaches of publication ethics Correct errors where found Protect intellectual property Take action and alert journals to suspected malpractice

Download ppt "Author Workshop Publishing and Evaluating Research Paul Trevorrow Executive Journals Editor Global Research Wiley- Blackwell."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google