How to Get Published in a Research Journal Professor Verity J Brown Head of School (“Departmental Chair”) School of Psychology & Neuroscience University of St Andrews SfN (October 2012)

How to Get Published in a Research Journal Professor Verity J Brown Editor-in-Chief, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews SfN (October 2012)

What needs to be done before starting to write a manuscript?

You should only be thinking of publishing a paper if you have information that advances understanding Are you ready to publish? This could be : new, original results or methods rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results reviewing or summarizing the topic / field If you are ready to publish, now you need a strong manuscript

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

Decide the most appropriate type of manuscript Brief Communications / Letters –Be honest: Are you proposing a ‘brief communication’ because you don’t really have enough data? Are your results really so thrilling that they need to be known as soon as possible? Full / Original articles –Do you have enough data for a full report without resorting to ‘padding’? Review papers –Do you really know the field well enough to be able to write a review?

Choosing a journal Make a list of candidate journals and consider: Aims and scope of the journal Types of articles that are accepted Do not submit your manuscript to more than one journal at a time. –International ethical standards prohibit multiple/simultaneous submissions, and editors WILL find out (see webcast on publishing ethics Articles in your reference list will likely lead you to the right journal

Choosing a journal

Summary – where to start? Are you ready to publish? What type of manuscript? Which journal? Have you read the Guide for Authors?

How can I ensure I am using the right “Manuscript 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.”

Do editors, reviewers or publishers correct language? No. It is the author’s responsibility to make sure the paper is in its best possible form when submitted for publication However: –Some publishers perform technical screening prior to peer review or provide language editing assistance after a positive review, or they may offer advice prior to submission (e.g., for translation and language editing services) –Reviewers often (kindly!) correct minor errors

Write with clarity, objectivity, accuracy, and brevity Manuscript Language – Overview Key to successful manuscript writing is to be alert to common errors: –Sentence construction –Incorrect tenses –Inaccurate grammar –Mixing languages Check the Guide for Authors of the target journal for specific language specifications

Manuscript Language – Grammar Avoid adverbs (“However”; “In addition”) Use active voice to shorten sentences Never use contractions (“isn’t”; “didn’t”) Only use abbreviations when absolutely necessary or for units of measure or established scientific abbreviations Find (and eliminate) redundant phrases Find (and eliminate) ‘lab jargon’ “For me, DNA does not mean ‘Delayed Non-Alternation’” – Reviewer

The structure of a research article Title Abstract Keywords Main text –Introduction –Methods –Results –Discussion Conclusions Acknowledgements References Supplementary information The reader’s time is not unlimited: Be concise Make it easy for people to find your manuscript Be informative Be accurate

Title A good title should contain the fewest possible words that adequately describe the content of a paper The vast majority of readers will not read beyond the title Effective titles: –What we did –To whom we did it –What we found Articles with short, catchy titles are often read and cited more But do not try to be too clever!

“ Valproate promotes the survival of neurons and preserves motor performance in a transgenic mouse model of Huntington's disease ” ~ “Excitotoxic lesions of the prelimbic- infralimbic areas of the rat prefrontal cortex disrupt motor preparatory processes” Examples

“ Valproate promotes the survival of neurons and preserves motor performance in a transgenic mouse model of Huntington's disease ” ~ “Excitotoxic lesions of the prelimbic- infralimbic areas of the rat prefrontal cortex disrupt motor preparatory processes” What they did

“ Valproate promotes the survival of neurons and preserves motor performance in a transgenic mouse model of Huntington's disease ” ~ “Excitotoxic lesions of the prelimbic- infralimbic areas of the rat prefrontal cortex disrupt motor preparatory processes” To whom they did it

“ Valproate promotes the survival of neurons and preserves motor performance in a transgenic mouse model of Huntington's disease ” ~ “Excitotoxic lesions of the prelimbic- infralimbic areas of the rat prefrontal cortex disrupt motor preparatory processes” What they found

Abstract … is freely available in electronic abstracting & indexing services [ PubMed, Medline, Embase, SciVerse Scopus,....] –This is the advertisement of your article. Make it interesting, and easy to be understood without reading the whole article. –Be accurate and specific –A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your work is further considered. –Be brief

Introduction context and background Be brief Address the following: –What is the problem? –Why is it interesting? –What previous work has been done? –What are the limitations of this work? –What remains to be demonstrated? –How will your work contribute to the field? Be consistent with the style of the journal

Include detailed information, sufficient for replication, about materials, equipment and procedures Balance the need for detail and precision against the requirement not to duplicate previous publications Include number, species, strain and provenance of any animals used Methods

Ethics Committee approval Experiments on humans or animals must have been subjected to (and approved by) an ethical review process The nature of the review and the approval obtained should be specified in the manuscript Editors can make their own decisions as to whether the experiments meet their ethical standards –local ethical approval may still not meet the journal’s standard (check the Guide for Authors)

Results – what did you find? Tell a clear and easy-to-understand story. – Be structured (sub-headings) Include the main findings Thus, not all findings: Use “Supplementary Material” for data of secondary importance Only describe results of experiments described in the Methods section Highlight differences from previous publications, as well as anything unexpected Be accurate in reporting statistical analysis

Discussion The most important section? The Discussion should not contradict the Results –a “trend” (e.g., p=0.056) is NOT significant and should not be discussed as if it were –Do not ignore “inconvenient” findings Consider how your results fit with other published work and how they advance the field

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 or the abstract alone Avoid excessive self-citations Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region Conform strictly to the style given in the Guide for Authors References Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based

30 Acknowledgments Recognition for all of the people who made the work possible Include individuals who made the work possible, including: Advisors Financial supporters (including ‘in kind’ support) Proof-readers, writers and editors not otherwise acknowledged Technical / workshop / husbandry support

Cover Letter Submitted along with your manuscript Mention what would make your manuscript special to the journal Note special requirements (reviewers, conflicts of interest) Your chance to speak to the editor directly

Cover Letter Final approval from all authors Explanation of importance of research Suggested reviewers

Authorship General principles for who is included 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 The person who will take responsibility for communicating about the research. Usually, the person whose address is least likely to change and who is qualified to answer (or re-direct) questions Avoid Ghost Authorship – authors who are not included, but did contribute Gift Authorship – authors who did not make a significant contribution Variations in the spelling of names: Be consistent

How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers By Tim Albert and Liz Wager This document aims to help new researchers prevent and resolve authorship problems. In particular it provides: suggestions for good authorship practice that should reduce the incidence of such dilemmas, advice on what to do when authorship problems do arise, and a glossary of key concepts in authorship, with some reading lists and websites for those who wish to take this further. Download PDF (64 kb)

Before submission: Proof-read the manuscript thoroughly before submission Ask colleagues and supervisors to review your manuscript Check that co-authors are happy with the manuscript and destination journal Finally, SUBMIT your manuscript with a cover letter and await a response…

After submission Refereeing speed varies tremendously between journals The Editor will decide to “Accept”, “Accept with Revision (Minor or Major)”, or “Reject” the manuscript