1. Publishing Your Research/Thesis
Prof. David M. Schultz
Centre for Atmospheric Science,
School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester 1

2. Do you have publishable science?

3. Have you asked a good question?
Know the scientific literature.
Read it.
You need to understand what the
state of the science is before you can
contribute to it.
You need to understand what the state of the science is before you can contribute to it.
Source: 3

4. Have you asked a good question?
Know the scientific literature.
Read it.
You need to understand what the state of the science is before you can contribute to it.
You need to understand what the state of the science is before you can contribute to it.
Source: 4

5. Does your work resolve past disputes, have current relevance, or have future impact?
Source:

6. Do you have original results?
For example: saying that a flash flood
was caused by warm moist air going up
a mountain would not be considered
original.
Believe it or not, we get these kinds of papers more often than you would imagine at MWR. 6

7. Can you support your conclusions with evidence in the paper?
Avoid arguing by analogy.
(Just because a previous event happened
this way, doesn’t mean your event
happened this way.)
Avoid excessive speculation.
Speculation is like dessert. A little at the end of the paper is not a bad thing. But, the paper cannot consist of too much speculation. 7

8. “
Speculation is like dessert. A little at the end of the paper is not a bad thing. But, the paper cannot consist of too much speculation. ”
Source:
Fred Sanders

9. Scientific research is rarely 100% bulletproof
You will have to make assumptions.
Your study will have limitations.
Don’t be afraid to discuss them!
Even the best papers lack something or could have more work done to solidify your argument. Particularly in meteorology, you may not have all the data you need (soundings not in the right place or missing) or the model results may not make sense or be diagnosable. This doesn’t stop a potentially publishable result in many situations.

10. Is the content of your manuscript substantial enough to warrant publication?
Read the literature in the journal you
intend to publish in.
The threshold for publication in Weather
is different than Monthly Weather Review.

11. Preparing your manuscript for your target journal
Source:

12. Do not submit an article to a journal that you haven’t read yourself
Read mission statement.
Check out the journal table of contents.
Read some articles. 12 12

13. Read the “Instructions to Authors” web page
Word and LaTeX templates
Types of manuscripts allowed
Components of manuscript and order
Length and formatting instructions
Reference format
Guidance for figure preparation
Favor .eps and .tiff
Copyright forms and information
Cost 13 13

14. How do I maximize my paper’s chances of reaching an audience?
Source:

15. The Golden Rule of Writing
We write for our audience, not for ourselves.
You need to make the audience understand your work. You are extensively familiar with it. They are not. You need to teach it to them, and that takes patience and understanding of where they are coming from.
(thenerdpocalypse.com)

16. Stopped here on Tuesday

17. Organization of a Generic Paper
Cover Page (title, authors, affiliations)
Abstract (± keywords)
Introduction
Literature Synthesis
Data and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Tables and Figures
This is the generic content of a manuscript. Not all manuscripts will have all components, but many will. My point here is that if you are well read, this structure will be familiar to you.

18. Most people read journal articles nonlinearly
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusions
Figures
Body of paper
Tables
I did a survey of students and professionals in atmospheric science, and this was the order that most people read the papers in. Notice that the body of the paper is low on the list. Some people (like myself) read the figures after the abstract. If the figures are understandable in the absence of the text, then I have confidence that the authors know what they are talking about and have written the paper well. Figures that are unclear or difficult to read turn me off from reading a paper.
(Schultz 2010, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.)

19. Most people read journal articles nonlinearly
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusions
Figures
Body of paper
Tables
I did a survey of students and professionals in atmospheric science, and this was the order that most people read the papers in. Notice that the body of the paper is low on the list. Some people (like myself) read the figures after the abstract. If the figures are understandable in the absence of the text, then I have confidence that the authors know what they are talking about and have written the paper well. Figures that are unclear or difficult to read turn me off from reading a paper.
(Schultz 2010, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.)

20. Most people read journal articles nonlinearly
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusions
Figures
Body of paper
Tables
How to Attract an Audience
I did a survey of students and professionals in atmospheric science, and this was the order that most people read the papers in. Notice that the body of the paper is low on the list. Some people (like myself) read the figures after the abstract. If the figures are understandable in the absence of the text, then I have confidence that the authors know what they are talking about and have written the paper well. Figures that are unclear or difficult to read turn me off from reading a paper.
(Schultz 2010, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.)

21. How Do I Write an Effective Title?

22. Five Characteristics of a Good Title
Informative
Accurate
Clear
Concise
Attention commanding
(Lipton, Science Editor’s Soapbox)

23. Characteristic 1: Informative
One or two points in your manuscript are included in the title.
Be as specific as possible without adding unnecessary details.
Use keywords.

24. Characteristic 2: Accurate
Be truthful about the contents of your manuscript.
Do not overpromise on your results.

25. Characteristic 3: Clear
Audience should understand the title.
Title should be grammatically correct.
Title should not be ambiguous or have multiple interpretations.

26. Characteristic 4: Concise
Short titles are instantly recognizable.
Every word should have a meaning, contributing to the message of the title.

27. Characteristic 5: Attention Commanding
Attention commanding titles get noticed!
Not all manuscripts can produce attention-commanding titles, nor should they.
In my 120+ published papers, I would say that about one in every 5-10 articles gets/deserves an attention-commanding title.

28. How Do I Write an Effective Abstract?

29. Different Abstracts for Different Purposes
Specialist journals (Atmos. Res., Mon. Wea. Rev.) will have differently-structured abstracts than generalist journals (Nature, Bull. of the Amer. Meteor. Soc.).
Conference abstracts have an entirely different purpose. Don’t automatically reuse your paper abstract in a conference setting.

30. Contents of an Abstract
Principal objectives and scope of research
Methods
Summarize results
Principal conclusions
Each one of these should be 1-3 sentences long. That would be about 200–300 words.

31. Writing an Effective Abstract
Most journals have limits on abstracts: 200–300 words
One paragraph.
Avoid introductory material.
Avoid vague or general statements.
“There are significant systematic differences between
the newer numerical models and the older model. Two systematic differences are analyzed in detail, and causes
for these differences are proposed.”
Make sure keywords appear in abstract.

32. Thoughts about Abstracts
Often the last thing written.
Should not be written in haste.
Must be self-contained.
Avoid referential material (citations). 32

33. How do I write an effective introduction?
Source:

34. A good introduction has three parts
Contextualizing background information
Grounds the reader in familiar information
Problem statement
Hook to get reader into the paper
Conflict, controversy, paradox, errors, unknowns, inconsistencies
Response to the problem
How are you going to resolve the problem statement?
Gov 34

35. The classical conceptual model of a cold front typically is manifested as a baroclinic zone that monotonically tilts rearward with height over the cold postfrontal air. At the leading edge of the cold front, a narrow band of ascent occurs that sometimes produces a rope cloud, and, if precipitating, a narrow cold-frontal rainband. The passage of a classical cold front at the surface typically is marked by a relative minimum in sea level pressure (pressure trough), cyclonic wind shift, and temperature decrease. In some cases, however, cold fronts do not possess these characteristics: they can be tilted forward with height, possess prefrontal features (e.g., troughs, cloud bands), or both.
This is the first paragraph in one of my papers (Schultz and Steenburgh 1999). It has the first two components of an introduction in it. Can you spot them? 35

36. Background Information Problem Statement
The classical conceptual model of a cold front typically is manifested as a baroclinic zone that monotonically tilts rearward with height over the cold postfrontal air. At the leading edge of the cold front, a narrow band of ascent occurs that sometimes produces a rope cloud, and, if precipitating, a narrow cold-frontal rainband. The passage of a classical cold front at the surface typically is marked by a relative minimum in sea level pressure (pressure trough), cyclonic wind shift, and temperature decrease. In some cases, however, cold fronts do not possess these characteristics: they can be tilted forward with height, possess prefrontal features (e.g., troughs, cloud bands), or both.
Background Information
Problem Statement 36

37. Response to the Problem
The purpose of this paper is to address these nonclassical aspects of the cold front associated with [the March 1993 Superstorm] (the forward tilt of the cold front and its associated cloud bands) as it moved equatorward along the eastern slopes of the Sierra Madre in Mexico. The observed data presented in Schultz et al. (1997), although suggestive, were often inadequate to provide additional details about the evolution of this case and, therefore, to ascertain more confidently its structure and dynamics. Consequently, a mesoscale model simulation is used to provide a high-resolution four-dimensional dataset for analysis and diagnosis.
Response to the Problem
After a few paragraphs, here is a paragraph that gives the response to the problem. 37

38. More Introduction Tips
Do not include trite statements that are obvious to your audience.
“Tornadoes are frequent occurrences across the U.S. Plains, causing much death and destruction.” (in Weather and Forecasting)
“Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been linked to rising temperatures in the polar regions.” (in International Journal of Climatology)
Make an explicit statement about the purpose of your paper (“The purpose of this paper is to….”
Last paragraph of introduction can describe the organization of the paper.
The explicit “The purpose of this paper is to….” is guidance to the reader from the author that this is what they can expect in the paper. When the reader gets to the end, they can assess whether the author accomplished his/her explicitly stated goals. 38

39. How can I write an effective meteorological case study?

40. 40 40

41. 16 tips for writers of meteorology.
This paper offers
16 tips for writers of meteorology.
We want to focus
on just a few.
Of these 16 tips, you don’t have to cover all of them. Allow the readers to look it up themselves. Instead, focus on the forecast funnel and ingredients-based thinking. 41 41

42. “
Understanding and forecasting convection is best viewed through an ingredients-based forecasting methodology. ”
Johns and Doswell (1992)

43. The Three Ingredients for Deep, Moist Convection
Instability
Lift
Moisture

44. Use the forecast funnel
Provides you a structure for describing the meteorology
Makes sense to readers as most processes are driven from the large-scale downward

45. Tips for Nonnative English Speakers Before Submission
If you lack confidence in your language abilities:
Have your manuscript proofread by a native English speaker.
Hire a professional manuscript editing service.
Collaborate with a native English speaking scientist. 45 45

46. Gopen and Swan (1990): “The Science of Scientific Writing” American Scientist.
Schultz (2010): “How to research and write effective case studies in meteorology.” Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology.
Other resources that I find useful. These are the very best that are out there, in Dave’s opinion. Both Gopen and Swan and Schultz are freely available online.

47. Can I have some more writing tips?

48. Make your writing more accessible to your audience.
Evaluate alternative explanations.
Be quantitative, where possible.
Fully describe your methods, data, and purpose.
Use terminology, abbreviations, and language your audience understands.
With the first point: Don’t just select your pet hypothesis to confirm in your paper. Make sure that you test the other plausible alternative explanations in your paper, as well.
With the second point: Don’t just write “many studies show this…” or “a large temperature gradient occurred….” Provide specific numbers and examples.
With the third point: Remember to provide enough information so that your audience can reproduce your research independently of you. 48

49. Cite your sources. Historical literature Current literature
Criticize literature,
where appropriate. 49 49

50. Use the Writing/ Editing Funnel.
Provides you a structure for writing and editing (multiple passes)
Saves times and effort
Analogous to the forecast funnel, the writing/editing funnel saves you time and gives you a framework for writing and editing.

51. Devote time to creating the figures.
Make the labels large enough to read. (The one in this picture is classic. How can anyone read this and know what is being communciated, let alone get any quantitative information from it.) Annotate the figures to help reader interpretation. Label on the maps geographical locations described in the text.
(sciend.com)

52. Reference list is complete and accurate.
Every citation is in reference list.
Every item in reference list is cited.
(sciend.com)

53. Proofread, grammar-check, and spell-check BEFORE submission.
(essaycorrector.com)

54. Can I have some editing tips?

55. Never submit a first draft!
Set the paper down for a while. Too much focus can blind you to errors.
After this period of rest, crank the level of intensity of editing up a notch. 55

56. Revise, Revise, Revise! Read the paper out loud to yourself or others.
Get comments from friends, colleagues, enemies, etc.
If you feel uncomfortable with a sentence or paragraph, readers likely will, too. 56

57. Revise, Revise, Revise! Always perform final edits on paper.
Edit when you are fresh and undistracted. Set aside several hours without interruptions.
hcil.cs.umd.edu/trs/ / html 57

58. Tips for Nonnative English Speakers Before Submission
If you lack confidence in your language abilities:
Have your manuscript proofread by a native English speaker.
Hire a professional manuscript editing service.
Collaborate with a native English speaking scientist. 58 58

59. Develop your writing skills.
Read the scientific literature.
Collect your favorite well-written literature.
Create a word and phrase bank.
Maintain a list of your common mistakes.
(with help of Zhiyong Meng) 59 59

60. Avoid plagiarism. Emulate authors you enjoy reading.
Do not copy or emulate too closely.
Understand what was said, and then say it in your own words.
Many journals check for plagiarism. 60 60

61. How does peer review work?

62. Editors make decisions, not reviewers!

63. Grow a thick skin! Peer review improves papers.
Although just one reviewer’s opinion, that opinion may be widely held.
Do not dismiss it—take it seriously.
You are not perfect.
Have confidence in yourself!

64. Conduct a dialog.
Cut and paste all Editor and reviewer comments into a file.
Insert your responses in a different color or font style.
Remember to thank the reviewers (and Editor) in the revised manuscript.

65. Conduct a dialog.
Cut and paste all Editor and reviewer comments into a file.
Insert your responses in a different color or font style.
Remember to thank the Editor and reviewer.
For some examples of the back-and-forth between reviewers and authors, interested readers should check out the papers published in EJSSM.

66. Responding to Reviewers
Address or refute each reviewer’s concerns. Clearly state changes, provide quotations, and make reference to specific areas of text.
If you choose to not make the requested change, respond in as detailed a manner as possible.
Consider compromising, even if you don’t need to. This may avoid having the readers ask the same questions as the reviewers did.

67. What Do I Do If I’m Rejected?

68. they mislead and confuse inexperienced readers,
Papers of poor quality do more than waste printing and publishing resources;
they mislead and confuse inexperienced readers,
they waste and distract the attention of experienced scientists,
and by their existence they lead future authors to be content with second rate work.
This statement by the founder of the Journal of Fluid Mechanics, and the god of fluid mechanics, G K Batchelor.
G. K. Batchelor (1981)
eloquentscience.com
(Rupert Shephard) 68

69. First, recognize that you’re in good company.
Einstein’s paper on gravitational waves was rejected from Physical Review in 1936.
Nature rejected the important papers on the Krebs cycle (without review) and beta decay.
Physical Review Letters first rejected Peter Grünberg’s Nobel prize–winning paper on giant magnetoresistance (GMR).
Now, that doesn’t mean that you’re an Einstein because you got a paper rejected, but it doesn’t mean that what you’ve done is necessarily wrong. Maybe you didn’t convince the readers of its usefulness or correctness.

70. Second, rejection may be your wake-up call.
You haven’t convinced the community that your science is valid.
You haven’t presented your idea well enough.
Your topic is not of interest to this particular journal and its readership.
Your topic is not of interest to your community.

71. Allow time to pass. Read the reviews again and again.
How can I make my point more clear to the reviewers? Will additional figures/simulations/etc. help?
If the decision letter is unclear whether the manuscript is welcomed back at the journal, most likely it isn’t. (Although you can always ask the Editor.)
The first time you read reviews when you first get them you will see them differently than when you next read them days later. Guaranteed.

72. Always Behave Nicely Be professional. Take the moral high ground.
Never berate or threaten Editors.
planebuzz.com