1. Tips for Successful Publishing
How to Prepare a World-Class Paper… and improve your chances of publication
Wendy Hurp – Executive Publisher, Food Science, Elsevier
October 2012

2. Outline An introduction to food science research
Are you ready to publish?
Where should you publish?
What is a good manuscript?
How to prepare a good manuscript
Revision and response to reviewers
Responsibilities of editors, authors and reviewers
Ethical issues in publishing
Conclusion: what leads to ACCEPTANCE
Please remember that this general advice will be true across all areas of research, for all journals.

3. An introduction to food science research
Elsevier publishes more than 20 journals related to food across a number of different portfolios (food science, toxicology, neuroscience…)
In 2011, more than 23,500 papers were submitted to these journals; 6500 papers were published in these journals
In the first 6 months of 2012, more than 13,600 papers were submitted
Submissions to Elsevier food science journals are increasing by 15% over the past 12 months
The rejection rate for these journals averages around 70%

4. We are launching 3 new journals!
Food Bioscience – editorial office based at Jiangnan University
Bioactive Carbohydrates and Dietary Fibre – Editor in Chief Dr Steve Cui
Food Structure – will be accepting submissions in November 2013

5. This table shows volume of research papers.
United States at top, major growth from China and Brazil

6. Food Science Research Output
Scholarly papers
1996
2001
2010
CAGR
CAGR
CAGR
Brazil
100
162
1165
19%
25%
27%
China 52
252
1532
22%
Korea, Republic of 83
201
724
17%
15%
Spain
515
602
1256 7% 9% 5%
United Kingdom
743
784
822 1%
United States
2873
2987
3685 2%
This next slide shows food science publication data for selected countries from Scopus, Elsevier’s abstracting database of 18,500 peer-reviewed journals (including 1,800 Open Access journals).
This slide shows food science research output (number of scholarly papers) for a selected number of countries. This includes CAGRs (compound annual growth rates) over various periods of time.
China has the highest growth rate over the past 15 years, while Brazil has taken over from China as the country with the highest growth rate over the past 5 years.
With double digit growth rates in food science submissions, we have a healthy level of competition amongst publishers to be the first choice for authors.
Source: Scopus

7. Growth of published articles from China
Papers: shows number of scholarly papers published annually by scientists with a Chinese affiliation in all and Elsevier journals. Our market share is solid, and they’re publishing in a growing number of journals (Elsevier and all).
In 1996, there were 6 Elsevier food science journals and 28 journals from other publishers – in 2010 there were 26 Elsevier journals and 113 from other publishers
Elsevier published 32% of food science papers from China in 2010
Source: Scopus

8. The increasing impact of these articles
Impact: shows field weighted 5 year relative impact. This takes into account 5 year of data for each year, so 2010 is based on citations to papers. This is also restricted to scholarly papers. The relative impact is calculated by dividing the actual citation impact to the world impact in this area, so that a field weighted impact of one would mean that China is on par with world in terms of citation impact in the food science area. This has been growing nicely between , and reached nearly world average in 2010 – a considerable feat given the rapid content increase China has seen in this area.
Source: Scopus

9. Most active institutes in food science 2006-2010
The relative impact is calculated by dividing the actual citation impact to the world impact in this area, so that a field weighted impact of one would mean that China is on par with world in terms of citation impact in the food science area.

10. Are you ready to publish?
You should consider publishing if you have information that advances understanding in a certain scientific 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
You should consider NOT publishing yet if:
Your report is of no scientific interest
The work is out of date
You would be duplicating previously published work
Your conclusions are incorrect/not acceptable

11. Have you done something new and interesting?
Can I publish this?????
Have you done something new and interesting?
Have you checked the latest results in the field?
Have the findings been verified?
Have the appropriate controls been performed?
Do your findings tell a nice story or is the story incomplete?
Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
Are the results of interest to a wide audience?
Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
A STRONG manuscript is crucial in order to present your contributions to the scientific community

12. 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

13. …and my own publishing advice is:
Submit to the right journal
Submit to one journal only 
Do not submit “salami” articles
Pay attention to journal requirements and structure 
Check the English – ask a native English speaker for help 
Pay attention to ethical standards
Ask your colleagues to proof read the article
Be self-critical
Adhering to ethical standards is essential; failure to do so may impact your future career.
Avoid salami slicing - the practice of creating several papers out of material that could have been published in a single paper or review.

14. Where should you publish??
Do you want to reach specialists, multidisciplinary researchers, or a general audience? You will need to adjust information and writing style accordingly
Journals, even in similar subjects, reach readers with different backgrounds
Each journal has its own style; read other articles to get an idea of what is accepted
Is the readership worldwide or local?
Point 2 – For example, we publish two journals dealing with food microbiology – International Journal of Food Microbiology, and Food Microbiology, one with a European EIC and one with an American EIC. This can impact the authors choice of where to submit.
Point 5 – Is the quality of your research at the right level for the journal? Everyone would like to publish in the top journals in their field, but be honest in your assessment of your work that it is the right level.

15. What about the Impact Factor?
the IF can give guidance but should NOT be the sole reason to submit to a journal.
The IF indicates the cites to recent items / number of recent items (published in a 2 year period) in a journal
Journals are measured against other journals in similar categories, and pressure is put on scientists to publish in journals with high impact factors.
For 2011 the IF is the number of cites in 2011 to articles published in 2009 and 2010, divided by the number of source items (research papers, review articles, short communications) published in 2009 and 2010

16. What influences the Impact Factor?
Editorial policies of journals can influence the number of citations/article, which in turn will influence the IF.
The turnover of research in a certain field influences the IF as more recent citations will be made in a very “fast” area like genetics (bear in mind the IF window of two years).
The article type influences the IF, reviews are generally better cited. 1 2 3 4
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Average cites per item
Article
Review
Conference Paper
Source:
These are not always good policies – such as requiring authors to cite research previously published in the journal. This is called impact factor engineering or manipulation
Impact factors cannot be compared across different fields – for example, an IF of 3.0 in food science is very high, but might be considered low in the genetics area.

17. WARNING!
DO NOT gamble or take risks by submitting your manuscript to several journals. Only submit once!
International ethical standards prohibit multiple/simultaneous submissions, and editors DO find out – and your paper will be rejected.
DO NOT resubmit a paper rejected by another journal without undertaking major revisions
Research communities are small, and many people know each other. The same reviewers may see the same paper.

18. What is a good manuscript?
A good manuscript makes readers grasp the scientific significance easily
It has a clear, useful and exciting message
It is presented and constructed in a logical manner
2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine awarded to Elizabeth Blackburn
Readers, reviewers, and editors should be able to easily grasp the scientific significance of the research
The scientific message must be clear, useful, and exciting
The author’s messages must be presented and constructed in a logical manner. The reader should arrive at the same conclusions as the author. The format chosen should best showcase the author’s material.
Editors, reviewers and readers all want to save time and not waste it.

19. How to prepare a good manuscript
Decide which type of paper is most appropriate
Full articles/original articles/research articles
Review papers/perspectives
Letters/rapid communications/short communications
There are a number of things you must do before you start to write your manuscript
Full articles:
Standard for disseminating completed research findings
Typically 8-10 pages, 5 figures, references
Good way to build a scientific research career
Review papers
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
Some journals allow uninvited review papers. It is a good idea to check with the editor of the journal first to see if your idea for a review is suitable.
Letters / Rapid Communications / Short Communications are usually published for the quick and early communication of significant and original advances
there are also short communication or “letters” journals in some fields where authors can present short preliminary findings and then usually follow up with a full length paper
Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full article? Or are your results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?
Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for advice on manuscript type. Sometimes others can see things more clearly than you.

20. Preparations before starting: Read the Guide for Authors
CRITICAL ADVICE Apply the Guide for Authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc.). It will save your time, and the editor’s.
Pay particular attention to small things – they may not seem important but failure to follow them will lead to editor upset!
Page numbering
Line numbering
Number of figures
Names of possible referees
This may sound basic advice but the Guide for Authors is too often ignored, it is there for a reason!
Look at it as the recipe for the journal – a list of ingredients that must be used to make a successful submission.

21. Example Guide for Authors - All the information you need is here.

22. Some technical details
Pay attention to length of manuscript
Consider supplying data as supplementary material
Text layout
Always number the pages, and number the lines
Abbreviations
Names of potential reviewers – authors in your subject area, not collaborators or friends, international
Include a strong cover letter with your submission
Pay particular attention to small things – they may not seem important but failure to follow them will lead to editor upset!
Page numbering
Line numbering
Number of figures
Names of possible referees - You do not need to know potential reviewers, and the editor may not use them. But if they are requested, make sure you supply them. They should not be from your institute!
Check the Guide for Authors of the selected journal for specific instructions – not all guides are the same!

23. Characteristics of good writing
Good writing possesses:
Clarity
Conciseness
Correctness (accuracy)
Good writing avoids:
Repetition
Redundancy
Ambiguity
Exaggeration
The key is to be as brief and specific as possible without omitting essential details
Repetition and redundancy
Vary the sentences used when writing the abstract or describing findings at the end of the introduction
Don’t copy from other sections verbatim!
Avoid words with the same meaning

24. Do publishers correct language?
Sometimes…
Publishers often provide suggestions of resources for authors who are less familiar with the conventions of international journals , but these are generally author-pays services. Traditional copyediting by the publisher is rare.
Some publishers may perform technical screening prior to peer review
But…
It is the author’s responsibility to use proper language prior to submission
Copyediting is only done after an article is accepted and is done by typesetters, not editors
Articles may be pre-screened by the publisher for English language before they are sent to the editor – failing papers will be sent back to the author for fixing and resubmission

25. Final checks before submission
Ask colleagues to read and be critical
All requirements from Guide for Authors are met
Scope of paper is appropriate for journal
Have your manuscript checked for language, either by a native English speaker or an editing service
Ensure that the literature cited is balanced and that aims, purpose and significance of results are clear
All listed authors agree to the submission
Use a spellchecker!

26. Example from one journal’s Guide for Authors
“…..The Editor-in-Chief and Editors have the right to decline formal review of the manuscript when it is deemed that the manuscript is 1) on a topic outside the scope of the Journal, 2) lacking technical merit, 3) focused on foods or processes that are of narrow regional scope and significance, 4) fragmentary and provides marginally incremental results, or 5) is poorly written.” Make sure your manuscript does not fall in any of these categories or it will fail at the first hurdle!

27. How to respond to a request to revise your paper
Be positive – the reviewers think there is merit to your paper, or it would have been rejected
Prepare a detailed letter of response
State specifically what changes you have made to the manuscript.
Provide a scientific response to the comment you accept; or a convincing, solid and polite rebuttal to the point you think the reviewer is wrong.  
Revise the whole manuscript
Minor revision does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision.
Do not consider a request for revision as a negative thing – the editor has considered your paper worthy of sending for review, and the reviewers feel that it is a candidate for publication if certain issues are addressed.
Carefully study the comments of the reviewers and prepare a detailed letter of response.
Copy-paste reviewer comments and address one by one. Don’t miss any point.
Give page and line number.
A typical problem–Discussion is provided but it is not clear what changes have been made.
…. Not just the parts the reviewers point out
Do not count on acceptance, but address all comments carefully
 Consider reviewing as a discussion of your work. Learn from the comments, and join the discussion.

28. …and if your paper is rejected
Don’t be desperate – it happens to everybody 
Try to understand WHY, consider reviewers advice
Be self-critical
If you want to submit to another journal, begin as if you are going to write a new article. Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal, again and again.
I believe the first paper written about the discovery of DNA was initially rejected!
Good reviewers should be constructive, not destructive
What could you have done better?
Use the comments to improve your paper.

29. Accepting rejection – and moving on
Suggested strategy for submitting elsewhere:
In your cover letter, declare that the paper was rejected and name the journal
Include the referees reports and show how each comment has been addressed
Explain why you are submitting the paper to this journal; is it a more appropriate journal?
This is suggested in case the new journal sends your paper to the same reviewer who already reviewed it for the other journal – it has been known to happen!

30. Editor, reviewer and author responsibilities towards each other
All parties should carry out their duties with respect and fairness
Every effort should be made to handle papers and make editorial decisions within a reasonable amount of time
Authors should undertake to complete revisions within the expected timescale
Expectations should be managed realistically
Problems should be reported to the journal/editor within a reasonable timeframe
An editor of one of my journals specifically requested that I add this slide to my presentation.
Authors have high expectations of the editorial process, but authors also have their own responsibilities to editors.
If a paper is sent for review, it may be the case that six or more reviewers need to be invited before two complete reviews are received, this takes time.

31. Ethical issues in publishing
Unethical behaviour can earn rejection and even a ban from publishing in some journals. Unethical behaviour includes:
Scientific misconduct
Falsification or 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
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
“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”
Multiple submissions waste editor and reviewer time
The editorial process of your manuscripts will be completely stopped if the duplicated submissions are discovered
Competing journals constantly exchange information on suspicious papers
DO NOT send your paper to a second journal until you receive the final decision from the first
An author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper
Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable provided there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source
At the time of submission authors should disclose details of related papers, even if in a different language, and similar papers in press
Avoid salami slicing - the practice of creating several papers out of material that could have been published in a single paper or review. Editors may sometimes consider this to be self-plagiarism

32. Publishers have tools to detect plagiarism
CrossCheck is a database of current and archival scholarly literature, and contains content from 3800 publishers, as well as web content.
This database is one of two parts that make up the CrossCheck service. The second part is the iThenticate tool, which compares authored work against the content in the database and highlight matching or similar text for further editorial review.

33. Elsevier has advice for authors on ethics issues

34. We have an Ethics Toolkit

35. Consequences of breaking ethical rules
In extreme cases of repeat offending it would be reasonable for an editor to conclude that consideration of further papers from such an author (for some period of time) would be likely a waste of their time and resources (and those of the peer review community).
Authors of this article committed plagiarism. It won’t be removed from ScienceDirect. Everyone who downloads it will see the reason for retraction

36. Authorship disputes
Author: someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study
Authors should...
make substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
AND
draft the article or revise it critically for intellectual content
have final approval of the version to be published
Definition can vary per discipline and even per university
All authors must agree to have their name included on the paper
Authorship disputes are very time-consuming and should be avoided at all costs by following this advice.
Requests to add or remove an author, or to rearrange the author names, must be sent to the Journal Manager from the corresponding author of the accepted manuscript and must include: (a) the reason the name should be added or removed, or the author names rearranged and (b) written confirmation ( , fax, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed. Requests that are not sent by the corresponding author will be forwarded by the Journal Manager to the corresponding author, who must follow the procedure as described above. Note that: (1) Journal Managers will inform the Journal Editors of any such requests and (2) publication of the accepted manuscript in an online issue is suspended until authorship has been agreed.
Definitions from:

37. What leads to acceptance???
Attention to details
Check and double check your work
Consider the reviewers’ comments
English must be as good as possible
Presentation is important
Take your time with revision
Acknowledge those who have helped you
New, original and previously unpublished
Critically evaluate your own manuscript
Ethical rules must be obeyed
Nigel John Cook
Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews

38. A final thought…..
If your paper is accepted, you may be asked to review papers for the journal in future.
Please accept this invitation – your accepted paper is only published thanks to the work of editors and other reviewers, and your participation in the review process will be a positive contribution to the scientific community.

39. For more information
Each journal has its own website with information on aims and scope, and links to guides for authors
Visit for a list of food science journals and links to these pages
Visit the Authors Home page for even more information:
Download a copy of the booklet “Understanding the Publishing Process in Scientific Journals” from
Learn more about advancing your research career at
Download the free book “Charting a Course for a Successful Research Career” from

40. Download this booklet online!

41. Any questions?
Thanks for listening!!