Jason A. Burdick, PhD
Department of Bioengineering
University of Pennsylvania
burdick2@seas.upenn.edu
Associate Editor
ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering
December 2015
Associate Editors:
Editor: David Kaplan
Milica Radisic
Jason Burdick
Chris Holland
University of Toronto
University of Pennsylvania
University of Sheffield
1st issue in January 2015
Check out the latest issues at pubs.acs.org/biomaterials
Tufts University
Accepting submissions in:
•
•
•
•
Modeling and Synthesis of New
Biomaterials
Biomaterial Interfaces , Interactions,
Health Risk Studies
Regenerative Medicine
Tissue Manufacturing and Technology
•
•
•
•
Bioelectronics and BioMEMS
Biomaterials Based Devices and
Prosthetics
Bioinspired and Biomimetic Approaches
to Biomaterials
Genetic Designs and Bioengineering
Journal Vision: high quality publication to fill an important niche in
the ACS portfolio for the biomaterials scientific community
Key Goals:
•reviewers that provide high quality input for authors
•rapid review – short turnaround times
•ACS support – no costs for publication, color; open access
options….
Types of Contributions:
•primary papers
•communications
•reviews
•perspectives
•special issues
ACS editors are your peers
American Chemical Society
3
A Bit More on Journal Scope:
Modeling and informatics tools for biomaterials – scaling methods to guide biomaterial
design, predictive algorithms for structure-function, biomaterial mechanics; integrating
bioinformatics with biomaterials discovery, metabolomics in the context of biomaterials
New biomaterials, bioinspired and biomimetic approaches to biomaterials – synthesis
and chemical modifications, exploiting structural hierarchy and architectural control,
combinatorial strategies for biomaterials discovery, new processing modes to purify and
utilize natural polymers, biophysical regulation of cell functions, controlled and
bioresponsive delivery of regulatory molecules, genetic biomaterials design, synthetic
biology, new composite systems
Biomaterial interfaces, biology and health - material-biology interactions,
chemical/morphological/structural communication, signaling and biological responses,
health risks, toxicology, safety, calcification, corrosion and degradation of biomaterials
and devices, prosthetics
Manufacturing, technology and tissues in the context of biomaterials – regenerative
medicine, tissue engineering for basic and applied studies, organ-on-a-chip,
bioreactor/perfusion systems, microdevices, 3D printing, inks, BioMEMS, optics and
electronics interfaces with biomaterials, systems integration
American Chemical Society
4
Questions:
1. How do Journals measure/evaluate the quality
of a paper/decide to publish a paper?
2. Editorial decision making process. How does
the process work and vary between different
Journals?
What is the goal of publishing?
To share your high quality work with the right
community, in a timely manner
American Chemical Society
5
Pre-submission:
Picking the right journal!
• Is the scope appropriate?
• Does it fit within recently published papers in the journal?
• Is it the right level of impact and completeness?
Some journals do a pre-submission inquiry
• Formal versus informal
• Ask your peers
American Chemical Society
6
Post-submission:
Step 1: Brief review by the main Editor
• Outcomes: Rejected right away or sent to Associate Editor
• Usually rejected because it is out of scope
• Very poor writing, figures
• Cover letter?
Step 2: Reviewed by Associate Editor
• Outcomes: Rejected editorially or sent to review
•
•
•
•
•
Rejected due to concerns of novelty, completeness, scope
Similar to papers you have published recently? (e.g., title similar)
Missing experiments, thorough? (e.g., animal study)
Extremely poor grammar, writing
Quality of figures, including stats, etc.
• Editor may not be an expert, but this is who you need to convince
American Chemical Society
7
Step 3: Peer review
• Outcomes: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Reject with
resubmission recommended, Reject
• Always provide reviewers, not just your friends
• Usually getting reviewers to respond initially and then provide
review is most time-consuming step
• How long would it take to revise?
• Rarely do all reviewers agree
• Need to consider all reviewers
American Chemical Society
8
Step 4: Revisions
•Outcomes: Rarely another major revision, mostly accept, minor
revision, reject
•Sent back to reviewers versus editor decision?
•Usually same reviewers, maybe new ones added
•Be thorough in your response, avoid “left for future studies”
•Respond to all comments clearly, use evidence and references
•Change the paper – don’t just respond to the reviewer
Step 5?: Appeal
• Of course you disagree with the reviewers (especially the 3rd one!)
• Some journals have formal appeal process, but must have clear
reasoning or evidence to support appeal
• Be realistic
American Chemical Society
9
Modified from:
‘8 reasons I accepted your article’
By Elizabeth Zwaaf January, 2013
1. It provides insight into an important issue.
2. The insight is useful to others.
3. The insight is used to develop a framework or theory, either
a new theory or advancing an existing one.
4. The insight stimulates new, important questions.
American Chemical Society
10
Modified from:
‘8 reasons I accepted your article’
By Elizabeth Zwaaf January, 2013
5. The methods used to explore the issue are appropriate (for
example, data collection and analysis of data).
6. The methods used are applied rigorously and explain why
and how the data support the conclusions.
7. Connections to prior work in the field or from other fields
are made and serve to make the article's arguments clear.
8. The article tells a good story, meaning it is well written and
easy to understand, the arguments are logical and not
internally contradictory.
American Chemical Society
11
Scope and Fit
with Journal
Quality of
Content
Major
Points
Novelty vs.
Incremental
American Chemical Society
Conclusions
Match Results
12
Good
Luck!
American Chemical Society
13