1. FEMS Microbiology Ecology Getting Your Work Published Telling a Compelling Story Working with Editors and Reviewers Jim Prosser Chief Editor FEMS Microbiology Ecology

2. FEMS Journals  FEMS – Federation of European Microbiological Societies  Five journals  FEMS Microbiology Ecology  FEMS Microbiology Letters  FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology  FEMS Yeast Research  FEMS Microbiology Reviews

3. The Research  Research never published is research never done  What will paper look like?  Why will anyone want to read it:  Interest  Topicality  Significant novelty  Hypothesis-driven  Can you identify a significant advance that will arise from the paper  Is the study more than just ‘handle-turning’?  Could the study change the way people think?  Be very objective and very critical  Don’t adopt a ‘scatter gun’ approach

4. FEMS Manuscript Central – review Manuscript ID: Manuscript Type: Keywords: Date Submitted: Manuscript Title: Date Review Returned: Authors: Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Lower 50% Lower 25% Significance of Research Originality of Research Experimental Design and Quality of Data

5. Preparation  Which journal would be most appropriate?  What do the editors want?  Author guidelines  Journal scope and aims  Look at papers already published by the journal  Ask  What do you want to say?  Draft key points  Add:  Abstract  Figures  Tables  Text  Stay focussed and seek criticism  Language

6. Blackwell language service

7. Title  Exciting  Concise  Catchy  Attention-grabbing

8. Abstract  Possibly most important section  May be only section read  Title and abstract used for key word searching  Repeat key phrases  Concise  Catchy  Attention-grabbing

9. Introduction  Mention key facts and relevant published literature  Note important issues of background and/or technique  Place your work in the context of previous work  Where are the (important) gaps in knowledge  How will your work fill them  Hypothesise, and explain how you will test the hypothesis  State aims of the work clearly

10. Methods  Describe methods and equipment (with justification, where appropriate)  Mention manufacturers and locations  Cite previously published methods where possible  Describe experimental design  Describe statistical analysis methods

11. Results  Describe the data clearly – readers will be less familiar with material than you  Think carefully about use of tables and figures  Which?  Which type?  Use same symbols to represent same features  Include standard errors or significant differences, where appropriate  Describe statistical analysis  Describe data critically, objectively and dispassionately  Always remember the aims of the study  Avoid jargon and slang

12. Discussion  What do the results mean in relation to the question you set out to address and the aims of the study?  Did the work fill a gap?  Did the results provide evidence supporting, or rejecting hypothesis?  Mention caveats – critically assess results, pitfalls, biases  Compare results with those published  What are the implications of your results and the conclusions you’ve drawn?  Highlight the novelty of your findings

13. Editorial process Submit paper Authors

14. FEMS Manuscript Central – submission

15. FEMS Manuscript Central – title

16. FEMS Manuscript Central – attributes

17. FEMS Manuscript Central – authors

18. FEMS Manuscript Central – reviewers

19. FEMS Manuscript Central – details

20. FEMS Manuscript Central – upload

21. FEMS Manuscript Central – review

22. Editorial process Submit paper Editorial office Chief Editor Editor Reviewers Reject Authors On-line publication Publisher Revise AuthorsAccept Proof check Publication

23. Dealing with revision  Be humble, polite and objective  Do not assume the reviewers and editor are:  Stupid  Wrong  Biased  Competitors  Enemies  Do not take comments personally  Do not try to guess who reviewers were  Do not insult reviewers or editor  Address all points made by reviewers clearly  Track changes  Challenge points if justified

24. Dealing with rejection  Be humble, polite and objective  Do not assume the reviewers and editor are:  Stupid  Wrong  Biased  Competitors  Enemies  Do not take comments personally  Do not try to guess who reviewers were  Do not insult reviewers or editor  Wait 24 hours  Challenge points if justified

25. Trends  Increased demands on speed to first decision  Increasing volume of submissions  Increased focus on quality  Increasing level of reject without review  Increase level of reject  Impact factor  Digital form of increasing importance

26. Wiley-Blackwell  Journal author services  Tracking performance  Increased information for authors on their papers  Marketing and dissemination  Links with indexing and abstracting services e.g. PubMed  Retrievability by search engines e.g. Google, Academic Search  Publicity of individual articles