1. Getting Your Paper Published: A Workshop for Authors
Dr Kim Clube Royal Astronomical Society
Prof. David Flower Editor-in-Chief, MNRAS
Adam Leary Oxford University Press

2. Overview Choosing the right journal How to write a good paper
Submitting to MNRAS
How the review process works
Responding to referee reports
How to be a referee
Post-acceptance – copy-editing, proofing
Online publication, Dissemination, Promotion

3. Choosing the right journal
Scope and audience
Quality of peer review, publication speed, reputation/Impact Factor, charges
MNRAS scope: “publishes the results of original research in astronomy and astrophysics, including work which is observational, theoretical or concerned with astronomical instrumentation”
(See Instructions to Authors and Code of Practice for more details)
Other specialized journals? Choose one journal only!

4. MNRAS First published in 1827
Published 3 times a month, but no longer publishes the notices of the Society…
Welcomes submissions from any astronomers anywhere:
>80% of submissions from outside UK
60% from outside Europe
2016 Impact Factor – 4.961
vs (ApJ), (A&A), (PASP), (AJ)
The way the 2016 Impact Factor is calculated: No. of citations in all journals in 2016 to MNRAS articles published in 2014 and 2015/Total no. MN articles in 2014 and 2015

5. MNRAS Main Journal – print and online, no page limit
Letters – online only, 5-page limit (papers with immediate impact)
No charges to authors (except for colour printing - optional)
>4500 submissions a year; >80% accepted for publication
Green and Gold open access options
>3000 subscribing institutions worldwide
Criteria for Letters- short papers which merit urgent publication. They must not exceed five pages in length, and are handled along a fast-track process. Letters should be self-contained and describe the results of an original study whose rapid publication might be expected to have a significant influence on the subsequent development of research in the associated subject area.

6. Before writing a paper
Novelty – is this new science? How does it build upon previous work?
What are your key results? What you want to include in the paper (data etc.)? What conclusions do you draw?
Which journal? Format (Letter, paper), page charges
Who contributed/author list
Develop outline
Summary: Your paper must report a major advance or new approach and should be set in the context of previous work. Check literature. Is it sufficiently significant? - Incremental steps, for example adding a couple more objects to a previous survey of 100, is not a significant new result. Consult co-authors early and keep them updated with drafts.

7. General outline Title and author list Abstract Introduction
Observations/models/methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Appendices
Although you may not write paper in this order.
Authorship order – who did most of the work. All co-authors need to know they are on the paper.

8. Structure -Title and Abstract
Important as they are what people search for and look at first
Title:
Short!
Indicate the main result
Be intelligible to a wide readership
Abstract:
“Shop window” - Allows readers to quickly see what your paper is about and whether to read the full paper
Length: 200 words Letter; 250 words Main Journal
Single paragraph, no references
Understandable to all astronomers
Summarizes goals, methods and new results
Titles – avoid words such as ‘new’, ‘novel’, ‘studies on’, ‘investigations on’ and abbreviations. Puns/jokes may not be best idea, think about searches. May be best to write abstract last. Abstract very important as it is what most people will look at first. When a reviewer is invited they receive the abstract.

9. Introduction State the main aims and reason for your work
Indicate the problem or question to be addressed
Provide background/context and acknowledge relevant previous work
Clarify how this work differs from previous work
Don’t pad – this is not a review article (MNRAS does not publish reviews)
Define abbreviations
What are the objectives? Why is this interesting?

10. Observations/Methods
Describe how the work was done
Include details of observations or methods such as which telescope/instrument/software programs were used
Explain how you analysed the data
Include enough detail so that an expert could reproduce your work if required
Use subsections when necessary, these should be numbered (this applies to other sections too)
Include enough detail – not a step-by-step tutorial, but should be a complete description of what you have done. This enables the reader to judge the validity of your results.

11. Results & Discussion Results:
Decide what data to present and how to present it (including additional material online)
Present results clearly and concisely, then follow with discussion section
Discussion:
Include interpretation, implications and applications of results
Compare with other published work
Discuss significance and limitations
Pose questions and make suggestions for future work
Tables and figures - provide numbers and captions and cite in text in order
Do not just summarise results, answer bigger questions.
Figures should be visible and distinguishable when printed out in black-and-white.
Not always about what you found..also what you didn’t find.
Table captions should explains what columns/symbols/etc. are.

12. Conclusion Summarize the content and key results of paper
Highlight major points
Answer any questions posed in introduction
Do not introduce anything not previously discussed in the paper…
…but don’t just restate the results

13. Acknowledgements & References
Include funding, people not in author list who have contributed, facilities and equipment (there may be specific text), referee (if they’ve been helpful; even though anonymous)
Do not include non-research contributions - parents, friends, pets
References:
Follow Harvard reference style, e.g. Smith & Jones (2014)
List all citations in the text alphabetically at end of paper
Cite papers that have been influential in the work
People may have given guidance, participated in discussions or shared unpublished results – you can specify. Avoid footnotes unless it is a requirement of a particular telescope etc. Most acknowledgements should go into the Acknowledgements section.
Papers with the incorrect reference format are unsubmitted immediately.
It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure the accuracy of their references. This is particularly important for the online version of the journal, where links are provided to cited references. If the reference details are wrong then the links will fail, and the citations will not be counted in bibliographic databases.

14. How to write a good paper
Be concise
Limit unnecessary jargon
Avoid fragmentation of papers - ‘salami slicing’
Figures should be clear, with good captions, axis labels etc.
Write in good scientific English
Be objective – report results, not an opinion piece
Language is important. Don’t make it difficult for the reader!
Guideline at least 75% of material should be understandable to most researchers in your general area of research. Language editing option. Avoid salami-slicing but also the other extreme of cramming 3 separate studies into one. Think about whether to publish a single paper of a series. Series should not refer forward. It’s impossible to judge a paper which relies on the results of a future (unavailable) paper.
"I am a great sinner but I don't think I have deserved the cruel and unusual punishment I have been subjected to through reading this paper”

15. Submitting to MNRAS LaTeX is best but MS Word also accepted
MNRAS LaTeX style available
British English
Requirements in the journal instructions to authors (ITAs)
Approval from all co-authors
Submit your manuscript to one journal only
Online submission and tracking system
No paper submissions
Language editing option. New version on the MNRAS LaTeX package v3.0 released May 2015

16. Submitting to MNRAS
ScholarOne Manuscripts – online manuscript submission and peer-review system
mc.manuscriptcentral.com/mnras
Log in or create an account
You will have an Author Centre and a Reviewer Centre by default
Create an account if you don’t already have one. User IDs are case sensitive.
Don’t create a second account – log in and change your address instead.

17. Submitting to MNRAS Fill out online form, instructions on each page
Manuscript types: Main Journal, Letter, Erratum
Letter – need to state reasons for seeking this format
Submission steps can be done in any sequence
Different headings in Author Centre – Submitted manuscripts, manuscripts you have co-authored, revised versions.
Save each step. Some compulsory fields. Do not use back button.

18. Submitting to MNRAS Cover letter seen by editor, not referee
Options for colour printing, online-only material, press releases
Step 4 is used to list any non-preferred referees and editors. Reasons should be given. Preferences will be taken into consideration but choice of editor and referee is that of the journal.
Step 5 - Also asked for information on supplementary information/online only material and whether you expect to use this as basis for press release. What should be in cover letter? (not a summary of your paper).
Highlight special requests, reasons for non-preferred referees, additional information such as companion papers

19. Questions so far?

20. How the review process works
Peer review by the Royal Astronomical Society
MNRAS Editorial board: 24 Scientific Editors
Senior researchers in different subject areas
Located worldwide, appointed by the RAS
RAS editorial office in London: 6 Assistant Editors
Office checks papers before assigning to a Scientific Editor, usually within 24 hours

21. How the review process works
Editorial office handles all correspondence
Check for plagiarism
Paper may be rejected immediately:
Out of scope
Clearly unsuitable
Obvious errors
Duplicate submissions etc.
Papers with really poor English may be returned to authors to find a native English speaker.

22. How the review process works
Authors submit
Yellow – authors
Blue – office
Green – editor
Red – referee
Revisions usually go back to the same referee
Authors withdraw

23. How the review process works
Editor chooses a referee (usually one)
Referees are independent experts in the field who:
assess the paper
point out errors, suggest improvements
recommend whether to publish or not
Referees give up their time for free as a service to the community
Editor uses the report(s) and own judgement to make a decision to accept, reject, or ask authors to revise
Single blind review – editor and referee anonymous to authors
Conflicts of interest avoided

24. How the review process works
Reviewer recommends, Editor decides
Accept – passed straight to publisher
Accept after revision – very minor corrections, usually then accepted without further review
Major/moderate/minor revision – you will have to address some shortcomings in the paper, may need more research
Withdraw – referee is opposed to publication, but the editor is allowing you to respond or revise
Reject – two editors agree that the paper is unsuitable and will not be considered any further

25. How the review process works
Expect to have to make revisions before acceptance
Median time from submission to first decision:
32 days for Main Journal
23 days for Letters
Median time from receipt to acceptance (mostly revision time taken by authors):
15 weeks for Main Journal
8 weeks for Letters
Any delays are usually caused by late referees. We have limited options for dealing with this…

26. Responding to referee reports
The vast majority of papers undergo at least one round of revision – nobody’s perfect!
Respond explicitly to each comment in the report, explaining what you changed and why
Highlight changes in bold/colour
Be polite! Peer review is not an argument. You don’t want an angry referee…
Any confidential comments to the editor should be in your cover letter

27. Responding to referee reports
If the referee didn’t understand something, the onus is on you to make it clearer
If you think the report is unfair, you can request a second referee but:
Not always granted
May or may not see report of first referee
Should be your last resort option
New referees may be more critical, not less – can be a gamble!
Time allowed for revisions:
2 months for Letters
6 months for Main Journal for R1; 3 months for further revisions
Second referee should be your last resort – usually better to revise the paper and explain why you didn’t do everything they asked. Only request if absolutely necessary.

28. Rejection Reasons for rejection: Out of scope Major errors
“Salami-slicing”
Plagiarism
Not novel
Unwilling to revise
Not always because it is bad research – don’t take rejection as a personal attack or insult!
Reassess approach, consider other options e.g. different journal, extend the research, change method etc.
Could extend the work, completely re-write the paper, abandon idea entirely!

29. Accepted papers
If accepted, production and publication handled by Oxford University Press
Discussed in the last section of the workshop

30. How to be a referee
You will be invited to act as a referee: respond to all correspondence promptly
Are you an expert on this field? Do you have time to review the paper (and subsequent revisions)?
Suggest alternatives if unable to review
Follow ethical guidelines:
Keep all information confidential
Declare any possible conflict of interest e.g. competing research, personal or professional connection with one of the authors, same institution etc.
Be objective: assess the paper, not the authors
Possible conflicts...old boss, acrimonious competition.
If standard of English is too poor to understand, return the paper.

31. How to be a referee Comment on: Context/referencing
Methods and assumptions
Any errors or mistakes
Interpretation
Clarity of language, figures, length etc.
Make suggestions for improvement
Report on time
Critique the manuscript, not the author.
Referee score sheet/standard questions. Below this is a box for comments to the editor and a box for comments to the referee and an option to upload any files. This screenshot is score sheet for a Letter. Main Journal is almost the same but does not have the question about whether the paper is urgent enough for a Letter.
The referee is asked to check that the author has sufficiently acknowledged previous work.
Referees can decide whether to reveal their identity, and are informed of the final decision.
Don’t need to correct English but helpful if you flag it.
Don’t write paper for authors.
Score sheet is being updated. Comment on paper’s originality, how it will advance the field.

32. Questions so far?

33. Overview The Production process Copy-Editing and Proofing
Online Publication
Promotion – OUPblog, social media
Author Services

34. Transfer to Production/ Welcome Email
Copy-Editing
Typesetting
Proofs Out
Author Corrections
Final Revision
Online Publication
It’s helpful to outline the various processes that your article will go though on its way to publication.
On the day of acceptance the article is transferred out of the submission system and into our production system. Each journal has an assigned Production editor who will
organise-editing, typesetting, proofing AND
Act as central point of contact for authors, editors, and third parties such as the copy-editor or typesetter
Your first contact with the PE will be via a welcome – please keep this. Important as contains:
Article id – part of the doi that will be assigned to the published article. The DOI is the persistent unique identifier for your article which can also be used to create a permanent link to the Version of Record of your article once it is published in the journal.
Link to publishing licence – which you’ll need to sign online for your article to be published.
Important contact details
The Welcome is unique to each article. Please keep it as you will need to the links to get access to the correct publishing licence form.
The article will then be copy-edited to match MNRAS style and typeset into the MNRAS layout before being sent out to you on proof. The proof of your article will be marked with track changes to make it easier for you to see what has changed.
On receipt of author corrections to the proof we will create a final revised version of the paper to publish online.

35. Copy-Editing and Proofing
Minor changes only – nothing that affects the science
Layout and formatting; Figures and Tables
Spelling in UK English – MNRAS style
Be available - check s regularly
3 days to respond!
Author Queries – Respond to ALL!!
Last chance to make corrections
Copy-edit
MNRAS has two distinct levels of copy edit – a standard copy-edit which will take a light-touch approach to the text and a more detailed copy-edit that can be requested for papers where the language requires a bit more work. In the vast majority of cases papers will go through a standard copy-edit. The rules that apply to a general copy edit are:
Only apply minimal changes – nothing that affects science
Check that the paper is in MNRAS style inc. UK spelling; check correct use of formal terms and abbreviations
Check layout of the article in particular titles and sub-titles, Figures and Tables, References etc
Proofing
Once the paper has been copy-edited and typeset the corresponding author will receive proofs to check - this typically happens within 3 weeks of acceptance
During this time make sure you are available! Check s regularly!
Speed is everything at this stage. You will be usually given about 3 days to respond to proofs!
Ensure you read the proof carefully and respond to ALL queries
Make minor changes only. Nothing that affects science
This is your one and only chance to make corrections to the article.
It is not possible to submit corrections as a revised LaTeX file. Authors may submit their corrections either by completing an online form – which is our preference for ease of transmission to the typesetters
or by ing directly to the Production Editor. Roughly two thirds of authors will use the online form to submit their corrections

36. Online Publication
‘Accepted Manuscript’ online within 24 hours with DOI
‘Version of record’: 3–6 wks
Final citation details
Indexed in NASA ADS
Indexed in Web of Science
Search-Engine-Optimised
Mobile-Optimised
Usage and Altmetric
Author toll-free links
Dissemination to libraries;
Access for developing nations
The reason for all this speed is that faster publication times allow journals to attract more cutting edge papers. As a result most publishers production methods are geared towards getting the accepted article online as soon as possible.
Typeset articles typically appear online within 3-6 weeks of acceptance. The published article is called the ‘Version of Record’ which means a) it is fixed and cannot be changed or edited and b) it is declared ‘formally ‘published’
This version of the article is downstreamed to indexing services such as Web of Science and NASA ADS. NASA ADS does a weekly update for new content (each Friday). In theory your article could be added within a day or two of publication, but it certainly shouldn’t take longer than a week.
A good online publisher should apply HTML tagging to the various key sections of the journal such as title, keywords, abstract etc. This enables discovery by search engines – at OUP 60% of traffic to our journal content comes via Google
Increasingly publishers are creating ‘mobile optimised sites’ that allow their content to be easily viewed on and navigated via handheld devices such as smartphones and tablets. Readers accessing MNRAS on a mobile device will be directed to the mobile site.
Authors receive a toll-free link that provides permanent access. You may post these links to your personal or institutional website to encourage your colleagues to read your article.
DISSEMINATION – subscriptions, content packages, dissemination programme for developing nations
3D interactive figures and video – S2PLOT is the recommended package – can be enabled in PDF – live DEMO
Support for press releases – embargoes – contact RAS press officer
----and then over to promotion

37. Online Publication (cont.)
Support for embedded video /
3D-interactive figures
Video presentations
ORCID integration – live links to your ORCID profile
RAS press office – provides
support for press releases
Interactive figures produced using S2Plot. We would work with authors to try to accommodate figures produced using different packages.
Demo embedded video?
ORCID – for authors who provide their ORCID when submitting a paper we publish the ORCID alongside their affiliation and use it to link to the ORCID profile

38. 240K Views each month 6000+ Subscribers
OUPblog – 180K Visitors /
240K Views each month Subscribers
Twitter – 28K Followers
Tumblr – 110K Followers
Facebook – 1.1M Likes
YouTube – 25K Subscribers
The OUPblog and our social media activities enable us to promote your work to your colleagues and to readers with a general interest in astronomy & astrophysics outside academia.
Over the last couple of years several papers have led to the publication of blog pieces covering subjects including dark matter, the shape and formation of our galaxy, gravitational waves and the recently observed major lunar impact. Research that provides an interesting means of explaining the science behind a&a and the methods used in conducting research would provide an interesting subject
- vanishing exoplanet, Alpha Cen Bb
- Exploring spiral-host radio galaxies

39. Author Services
Typically a publisher will have an author services site or online resource kit designed to help guide you through the publishing process. The OUP version contains:
Manuscript tracking tools – allowing you to track the progress of your paper through production
Guidance on preparing figures, tables or using specific software programmes such as Latex
Guidance on how to ensure you have the correct permissions in place for re-use of figures or text. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
Author retained rights: Funding agencies often require authors to make their articles available via open access or institutional repositories. Most journals (including RAS and OUP journals) have options for authors to either pay to publish their article open access or make their article available via an open access or institutional repository - check the terms of your publishing agreement, or the journal website, for the rights retained by authors and if you are in any doubt contact PE. Authors published in MNRAS are permitted to post the accepted version of their paper to the arXiv, or to other repositories, immediately on publication in the journal.

40. Contacts Submitted papers: kclube@ras.ac.uk
Royal Astronomical Society Burlington House Piccadilly London W1J 0BQ Tel: +44 (0) /4582
Accepted papers:
RAS Journal Production Oxford Journals Oxford University Press Great Clarendon Street Oxford OX2 6DP Tel: +44 (0)
Other questions about publishing
with OUP: