Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Avoiding Rejections John Morris
KRIS, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang previously Engineering, Mahasarakham University Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Auckland Iolanthe II leaves the Hauraki Gulf under full sail – Auckland-Tauranga Race, 2007
2
ฝรั่ง working in a Thai university sees this fairly often ….
I have a problem with this paper ... The editor wants …
3
Usually .. After an editor has sent an initial rejection ..
I regret to advise you that, following the referees’ comments, we are unable to accept your paper in its present form. However … Do not be disheartened Everybody gets a letter like this! Elsevier notes that most papers require some revision Aim in this talk: help you avoid the final rejection! i.e. turn that first rejection into an acceptance
4
Understanding rejections
Types of rejections Out of scope Minor revisions Major revisions Reject
5
Response: Out of scope Editor decided: topic of your paper was not suitable for his or her journal Usually fast Sent directly from editor Quickly weeks Indicates paper was not sent out for review Your response: none No argument or discussion Editor is “the big cheese” Can set very narrow scope for his or her journal
6
Response: Out of scope Your action: Before choosing another journal
Simply send to another journal Before choosing another journal Study topics for the current journal Can you understand why editor considered it ‘out of scope’ ? Helps you to read ‘Call for Papers’ for next journal
7
Avoiding ‘out of scope’ rejection
Read Call for Papers for the journal Carefully Look at recent papers in the journal Can you find similar papers? Reality Editors sometimes do not set out aims clearly Do not worry .. There are many journals now!!
8
Rejection: Minor revisions needed
Everyone get minor revisions Elsevier Only papers from large groups (20+ authors) get accepted without change These are small communities Everyone has already seen the paper All the rest of us At least one reviewer will find something that needs change!! Editor will simply tell you ‘minor revisions’ needed and invite you to send a revision Minor Revisions are normal! Everyone gets them!
9
Rejection: Major revisions needed
Paper is not rejected yet Editor considers paper is publishable if Modifications are made Some editors are very helpful Detailed instructions One now common demand Certificate that your paper was edited by an expert but Generally Invite you to revise
10
Rejection: Reject If all reviewers to recommend it
Editors tend to continue If 1 reviewer recommends modifications only Invite you to revise Sometimes Invite a new (ie start again) modified submission Your action: Defend or Accept and try again New work Different journal After improvement!
11
Avoiding rejections
12
Common rejection reasons
From experience Rejections brought to me for advice Not sufficiently novel Poor English Technical faults Out of scope ….. How to avoid these faults ………….
13
NOT sufficiently novel
Avoiding Rejection Reasons NOT sufficiently novel
14
Not sufficiently novel
Very common rejection reason! Need to read literature thoroughly Very hard in 2019 100s of papers on every topic Many papers on ‘hot’ topics Accept this! Plan to spend many hours in library or Google searches <1 day / week on reading literature ‘Not sufficiently novel’ rejections
15
Not sufficiently novel
Large research groups are more successful Working by yourself Not able to cover literature Team work helps Able to cover more papers Regular research meetings More papers Share ideas Share reading load Find important papers Internal review of new papers English saying Many hands make light work!
16
Avoiding Rejection Reasons
English WEAK
17
English problems Have your text checked! Find a native speaker!
or European Languages with similar complex grammar Bad English can lead to long delays Checking before submission takes days or less for short papers Rejections take weeks or months
18
English weak Rule #1 KEEP IT SIMPLE
Rule #2 Do not add any unneeded words Rule #3 Make sure every sentence has <subject> <verb> <object> Rule # Read KISS before starting Rule # Make sure somebody checks it carefully Preferably a native speaker Rule # Find some good model papers * Look in high impact factor journals * Native speaker authors * If you can’t read the paper, probably others can’t read it either
19
English weak Rule #5 KEEP IT SIMPLE (in case you forgot Rule #1)
Make sure somebody checks it carefully Preferably a native speaker Rule #7 Find some good model papers Look in high impact factor journals Native speaker authors But some of them write badly too!! If you can’t read the paper, probably others can’t read it either Apply John’s 24 hour rule
20
Avoid writing like this!!
Australian authors Native speakers? Can you understand it? If you want to get cited, Avoid writing like this!!
21
Recent phenomenon Editors demand certificate - English was checked
Professional editing service All publishers have one now Use it to generate extra revenue! Editors use it routinely! Even when authors are native speakers Happened to MSU team including me Reviewer Not native speaker English of review comments was weak Complained about grammar and spelling Editor demanded certificate Wasted our time to respond .. 3rd author WAS native (although Australian)
22
Avoiding Rejection Reasons
NOT ENOUGH DATA
23
Not enough data New experiments needed Use more data sets
More tests needed Check experiment plans Apply critical eye to your work Be your own reviewer Use colleagues to review Check other similar papers Reviewers can be demanding!! Also unreasonable Maybe works in large lab in US Can you justify not needing those extra tests?
24
Responding to the editor
ReVISION Required
25
Minor or Major Revisions
Actions Read and study review carefully Ask colleagues to comment Make sure you understood criticism Review comments are often cryptic Reviewers are under pressure to complete quickly
26
Minor or Major Revisions
Actions Prepare a response for the editor Copy every comment by the editor or reviewers Start with comments from the editor Good idea Reviewers comments in italics Your response in normal text or Use colours to distinguish reviewer complaints vs your answers Insert your answer
27
Responding to the editor
SUMMARY
28
Actions Form large research groups Team work the best solution
Multiple disciplinary groups are good Modern communications Group can cover many countries Team work the best solution Use colleagues to review your paper first
30
Plagiarism
31
Plagiarism Checks Editors routinely run papers through plagiarism checks Types of plagiarism Accidental Using same words to describe some experiment Everybody writes the same (or similar) things Copying phrases used by others in introduction When you are writing about their work and Reference it Self plagiarism Copying your own already published work
32
Real Plagiarism Avoid this Claiming other people’s work as your own
Theft of their work or ideas If detected Your paper and your thesis too Will be rejected Avoid this Good institutions and good journals Will not accept your work again Google serious plagiarism is detected easily now
33
Accidental and self plagiarism
Unfortunately plagiarism checkers are not smart Life most other AI software Turn It In Used by KMITL and many others Can be downright stupid!! Blindly reports short phrases Used by everyone Counts them as plagiarism!! Requires expert to read the report and remove the silly things!! Example Report for one of our students
34
Self plagiarism Turn It In Example Sample report KMITL student Overall
26% copied??? 19% self similarity Too much ?? Scary?? but If we examine detail Example
35
Plagiarism Reports Turn It In can be dumb Editors will use it
but Editors will use it So you must know what it tells them Routinely Run Turn It In on your paper Available from the library I have it in KRIS too Some staff also Check its report ~16% similarity is probably OK Check very long phrases or whole sentences Edit them to avoid similarity reports
36
Negotiating with editors
REJECTIONS
37
Rejections Topics Review cycle Initial letter to submit
Editor responses Types of response Not all are complete rejections Your response Possible actions Plagiarism
38
Procedures ReviEWS
39
Blind reviewing Some journals and conferences review papers without authors’ names on them To prevent bias Reviewer may not believe the work of someone he’s had an argument with or who criticized the reviewer’s work before! Terms Single blind review Reviewer name(s) not known Double blind review Neither author(s) nor reviewer(s) known Normal practice 95% + Sometimes 50% ?
40
Blind reviewing Preparing for blind reviews
Remove your names and institution from the author list I usually substitute some dummy names like Author X, Author Y, etc University ABC Check for references to your institution in the text .. in the Photogrammetry Laboratory at Auckland changes to .. in the XYX Laboratory at PQR University Remove citations to your own work from reference list Again I usually substitute something like Self citation 1: some journal, 2006 Substituting dummy names makes it easy to put the real ones back when the paper is accepted! Layout of the paper will not be changed
41
Reviewing Journal editor will send your paper to at least two experts in your area They will be asked to write a review of your paper They will comment on Errors Experimental methods Presentation Results Analysis Writing style in fact everything!
42
Reviewing or Editor will send the reports back to you
If you agree with the comments of the referees Amend the paper to satisfy referees’ objections Submit again If you don’t agree, then Write a carefully argued response and send to the editor Do not attack the referees personally! Editor may accept your comments and publish your paper or Send them back to the referee This may take several iterations Actual procedure depends on journal policy and editor and may take some time! Allow many months!
43
Review Cycle Authors Editor Reviewer #2 Reviewer #1 Paper Write report
44
Reviewing Referees are anonymous You will not be told who they are
Don’t even ask!! Big mistake of some authors – argue personally with the referees Journal editors will not allow it If you start such an argument, your paper is likely to be rejected immediately You will be considered unprofessional You must accept the referees’ comments as reasonable Even if you don’t agree with them! Anonymity is important in the reviewing process Allows the referees to express their opinions freely! Even a junior lecturer can criticize a senior professor IF he or she can justify the criticism!!
45
Final preparation Editor has advised you that your paper is accepted
Make any corrections that the editor or the referees have requested Prepare a final copy of your paper Often referred to as the ‘camera ready’ copy It will be photographed and bound into the journal Check it carefully!! Any mistakes will end up in print forever! Check formatting requirements too Some journals will ask for original LaTeX files and separate image files
46
PREPARING YOUR PAPER
47
Submission Check your paper first!! Spelling
Spell checkers are mostly reliable Use them!! Few problems, eg where, were, wear Mostly easily recognized Dictionaries often incomplete Technical terms missing Word allows a custom dictionary File Options Proofing You can add technical terms to it Avoids all those squiggly lines under words it thinks you did not type correctly
48
Submission Check your paper first!! Spelling
Spell checkers are mostly reliable Use them!! Few problems, eg where, were, wear Mostly easily recognized Dictionaries sometimes incomplete Technical terms missing
49
Spell check in operation
OK! Note the wavy red line Useful ??? Found two typos OK!
50
Spell check in operation
??? but ‘Li’ is an English word??? Thai names confuse it!! Technical terms confuse it too! You can add ‘Sripiachai’ ‘alatus’ to the dictionary Don’t add ‘Li’ Could be a typo … should be ‘lie’ ??? ???
51
Spell checkers Spell checkers will highlight 90+% of real errors but
Always check them! Otherwise you find ‘red book’ converted to ‘read book’ because some ‘smart’ AI software thought books are ‘read’ Let a spell checker run in ‘automatic’ mode Same as ..
52
Spell checkers Let a spell checker run in ‘automatic’ mode or
Letting Google translate whole sentences Same as .. English expression: Shooting yourself in the foot Luckily .. Your brain is still better than most AI software!! It has been refining the tool for 300,000 years … compared to only 20 years for AI software
53
Grammar checkers Use with EXTREME care Some will just waste time
eg Want you to convert conventional scientific passive to active In principle, active is better but Conventional use is strong With passive, target of an operation is the subject Simple direct active We measured the yield of the …… with … Passive The yield of …. was measured with .. Passive version puts emphasis on ‘yield’ May be your primary concern
54
Checking Spelling, grammar Journal rules
Words in abstract Formatting Numbering sections Reference format Figures and tables in text or at end Serious differences may cause your paper to be sent back for correction before Any reviewer has seen it!! Loss of time and slower acceptance Check plagiarism with Turn It In More later
55
John’S 24 Hour Rule NOW it is finished
After you think you have finished Choose one (or more) of the following Take a break, minimum 24 hours Read your paper again If you did not find 3 things to correct or improve You did not read it carefully enough! After you corrected 3+ errors or improvements NOW it is finished Go to the pub Play football Run >5 km Go to a movie with friends Play with your kids Long dinner with spouse, paramour, … Go to a concert Play your guitar Teach ภาษาไทย Aj John Tidy up your desk Cook a proper meal Your choice ??
56
Keep it Simple COVER Letter
57
Cover Letter Editors are busy .. Help them Nice touch
Address the editor(s) by name Dear Sir/Madam Ouch .. You did not even find out the name of the editor!! Politer, less ‘business-like’ Dear Prof Watson or Dear Profs Black and White Can’t find the editor name(s) Dear Editor(s) Better than Sir/Madam
58
Cover Letter My standard form Dear Prof Watson,
We would be grateful if you would consider our paper <Title> by <Authors> for consideration in Journal of xxxxxx. <Follow by ..> <Max 2 sentences explaining why the work is interesting or relevant or … > Set title and names clearly in first sentence Editor (or sub-editor) can paste into their database
59
Cover Letter My standard form Dear Prof Watson,
We would be grateful if you would consider our paper <Title> by <Authors> for consideration in the Journal of xxxxxx. <Follow by ..> <Max 2 sentences explaining why the work is interesting or relevant or … > Yours sincerely John Morris KRIS, KMITL, Labrakang, Thailaind Remind them which journal! Some editors have 2 or more VERY SHORT Reason why this paper is relevant to this journal and important VERY SHORT Editor will read the abstract too .. Do not duplicate too much
60
Standard form KRIS, KMITL, .. July 3, 2019 Prof Watson, Editor,
<Name of Journal> Dear Prof Watson, We would be grateful if you would consider our paper <Title> by <Authors> for consideration in the Journal of xxxxxx. <Max 2 sentences explaining why the work is interesting or relevant or … > Yours sincerely John Morris KRIS, KMITL, Labrakang, Thailand
61
RESPONSE FROM EDITOR
Similar presentations
