Writing great papers in
High Impact Journals
An introduction for researchers
Your presenter
Cary Bruce
Senior Vice President & General Manager
EBSCO Information Services
Central, Eastern and Southern Europe
Your Author
Dr. Anne Deveson,
Deputy Editor,
Chemistry - A European Journal
Wiley
The publishing process
•
•
•
•
•
Overview Wiley
Roles of journals
How journals work
Open Access
A look to the digital future
Wiley - Serving the Research Community
Life Science
Publisher of 450+ Nobel Prize Winners
Marie Curie
Kofi Annan
Günter Grass
Woodrow Wilson
Ivan Pavlov
Nelson Mandela
Mikhail Gorbachev
Milton Friedman
Akira Suzuki
Albert Einstein
Ei-ichi Negishi
George Bernard Shaw
Christopher A. Sims
Sir Alexander Fleming
Leymah Gbowee
Bruce A. Beutler
Earl Bertrand Russell
Henry Kissinger
Linus Pauling
Jules A. Hoffman
Brian P. Schmidt
Thomas J. Sargent
Frédéric Joliot & Irène Joliot-Curie
Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio
World’s Largest Society Publisher
800 societies globally partner with
Wiley to publish their journals
Portfolio
Health
Sciences
Physical
Sciences &
Engineering
Life
Sciences
Social Sciences
& Humanities
Wiley-VCH chemistry journals
30 Journals
Why publish at all?
“Fame”
Recognition by your peers
“Fortune”
Promotions, grant applications, research funding
Responsibility
To society, taxpayer-funded research, contribution to progress
Making your research public
“If your research does not generate papers, it might just as well not
have been done.” – George Whitesides (Harvard University)
“Papers provide the basis for further research!”
The role of scientific journals
Registration: Recording author precedence and merit
Other systems
of publication
do not
necessarily
offer all four
functions (e.g.,
open archives)
Peer Review: Selection, quality control and
improvement
Dissemination: Sharing results and methods
Archiving: Maintaining records of publication
Increasingly important
Search & Navigation:
In the internet age—raising the discoverability
Choosing your research topic
“If you are a chemist in your mid-20s and have your mind
set on an academic career, then the only worthwhile advice
I have to offer is whatever you do, tackle a "big problem" in
chemistry. Although the road you will travel along will be
quite unpredictable, it will reveal an endless supply of
surprises and the experience will be a rewarding one."
Fraser Stoddart
(Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 12902)
Publishing a paper
• Writing a manuscript
• The editorial workflow
• The technical workflow
• Editorial decision making requirements
• Peer review process
First, write your paper
• Title - be specific (not too technical) and concise — and
authors
• Abstract - should be short, you do not have to give all the
details
• Introduction - why did you do the research
• Results and Discusssion – what you did, what does
it mean and why it makes a difference
• Conclusion - ake home message
• Experimental Section – how you did it
Extra tips
• Are there any data, figures or results are
still needed to complete the paper
• Use simple English
Wiley-Blackwell Author Services
http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/english_language.asp
• Avoid using too many buzz words
“This is yet another example of a nanoscience
paper with nanonovelty and nanocontent”
Anonymous Referee
Artwork
•
•
•
•
Use one typeface (preferably Arial)
Use one size of typeface
Avoid use of shadows/glows/reflections
For ChemDraw pictures use object settings for a Wiley document
“How to write” resources
http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/more_resources.asp
“How to write” resources
Essays:
Tips for Writing Better Science Papers
by Richard Threlfall
on Chemistry Views
http://www.chemistryviews.org/
Webinar:
Coloration Technology: Getting
Published
on Chemistry Views
http://www.chemistryviews.org/
Whitesides‘ Group: Writing a Paper
G. M. Whitesides
Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1375
A Brief Guide to Designing Effective
Figures for the Scientific Paper
M. Rolandi, K. Cheng, S. Pérez-Kriz
Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 4343
Ten Tips for Authors
B. Johnson
Chem. Asian J. 2011, 6, 2859
Selecting the journal
• Journal Impact Factor is
not everything!
• What are the
implications of your
research?
• How important will
others find your
research?
– In your field?
– In related fields?
• Where do you read
papers related to your
research? Which do you
like the most?
• What is the scope of
your candidate journal?
• Who reads your
candidate journal?
• What is the format of
your candidate journal?
• Where were your
literature references
published?
Writing the cover letter
Together with the conclusions section of your paper, the cover letter
is one of the first things the editor will see, so make it count!
• Why is this topic important?
• Why are these results significant?
• What is the key result? (breakthrough!)
• Why is it an advance on previous work?
• Why are you submitting to this journal?
• Why will this journal’s readers read it?
• State related manuscripts published or submitted
• Disclose conflicts of interest
• Provide reviewer suggestions
Tip: Keep the letter as short as possible – the longer it is,
the easier it becomes to overlook something important.
The editorial workflow
Manuscript submitted
Editors examine
& make initial decision
Manuscript rejected on topic
Manuscript rejected on format
but re-invited (e.g., shorten)
Manuscript sent out
for peer review
Editor makes decision
based on reports
Manuscript rejected on reports
Manuscript is accepted as
is or with minor revisions
Manuscript rejected on reports
but re-invited if
major revisions promising
Manuscript transferred
to technical workflow
Revisions requested
if possible in short time
Revision
• Carefully consider
reviewer comments
– Not all changes have to be
made…
– …but need convincing
arguments for changes not
made
• Prepare revision
– Revise manuscript
• Highlight changes in
manuscript
– Point-by-point response to
all reviewer issues
• Changes made
• Why changes not made
– Response may go back to
reviewers!
• Need to convince editor
and reviewers
Rejection
• Direct (“in-house”, “on
topic”)
–
–
–
–
Outside scope
Wrong format
Novelty unclear
Impact/importance
unclear
– Interest unclear
– …
• On reports
– Technical/scientific
issues
– Motivation
unclear/unimportant
– Less novel, less original
– Conclusions do not
support the data
– Results less important
– Results less interesting
– Ethical questions
– Unclear presentation
Should I appeal?
• Usually, no
– Risk of long time
to publication
– Good papers are
cited
– Editors and
referees know
journal
– Criticisms may be
valid!
• Occasionally, yes
– Importance /
impact / novelty
missed by
editor/referees
• Need for a good
cover letter!
– Factual errors in
referee reports
that led to
rejection
The technical workflow
Electronic files received
Article published online
on EarlyView
Article edited and typeset
Proofs checked (by author)
Corrections made & checked
Article ready for publication
Issue compiled
Issue published online
Issue
printed &
dispatched
What editors look for (suitability)
Initial screening
Scope? Does the topic fit my journal?
Might better fit a sister journal ...
Format?
Communication, full paper, review, ...?
Too long – should this be a full paper instead?
“Make sure the journal of your choice publishes the
article type of your paper!”
What editors look for (significance)
After the initial check for scope and length is done, the
manuscript is examined more closely:
Is the novelty high enough?
Difference to prior work?
Important to researchers in this field?
Most important hurdle:
Important to the whole readership?
“Publishing space is limited – choose a journal whose readership
will be keen to see your results!”
Where will the editor look?
Cover letter
Conclusions section of manuscript
Keywords
Literature references
Abstract
Visual information
“If I’m interested, my readers will be, too!”
Why peer review?
Selection for publication
True / credible?
Reproducible?
Important, relevant?
Communicated effectively?
Quality?
Verification & improvement
Interpretation of
results
Reasoning
Presentation
Critical feedback
New / additional ideas
Peer review because it is competitive and cooperative!
Why peer review?
Peer review is definitely not perfect, but it’s
the best form of research evaluation so far
developed.
or, put differently,
All alternatives that have been suggested so far
haven’t got past the controversial discussion
stage.
Selecting reviewers
Quality of peer review depends on good reviewer choices
Our reviewer database
> 10,000 active reviewers
Are found via keywords, interests, own publication history, or reviewing history
Suggestions from authors
Very helpful!
Not just the biggest names please – others as well
Also list people with conflicts of interest who should not be asked to review
Suggestions from other reviewers
Can provide leads to further candidates
Suggestions from our Advisory Board Members
Especially in difficult cases, appeals or disputes we are supported by our board members
Editor’s own knowledge of the community
Contacts from conferences, prominent scientists, regular authors, etc.
“You can help keep decision times short with good
keywords and reviewer suggestions!”
What we ask our reviewers to look for
Quality of peer review depends also on clear reviewer reports
Is the motivation clear?
Is the motivation important?
Is the work novel and original?
Are the conclusions supported by the data?
Are the results important? (Are they interesting?)
Are there any ethical questions?
Were any flaws or mistakes found?
Should anything be added or removed?
Is the presentation clear?
“Besides your general opinion, please give clear reasons for
rejection or acceptance!”
Academic Publishing Depends on Trust
• Science should, ideally, be competitive but fair
• Ethics lay down a standard code of conduct for
scientists
• Authors, referees, and editors have a
responsibility to behave in an ethical fashion
Editor responsibilities
• Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript processing
• Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
• Make the final decision for accepting or rejecting
• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for
their own research
• Ensure fair selection of referees
• Respond to suggestions of scientific misconduct
• Deal fairly with author appeals
Author responsibilities
• To gather and interpret data in an honest way
• To present a concise and accurate report of their research
• To give due recognition to published work relating to their
manuscript
• To avoid undue fragmentation of their work into multiple
manuscripts
• To consider publishing related manuscripts in the same
journal
Author responsibilities
• To inform the editor of related manuscripts under
consideration for publication
• To ensure that a manuscript is submitted for publication in
only one journal at a time.
• To give due acknowledgement to all workers contributing
to the work
• To revise the manuscript according to the referees
suggestions as far possible
More information can be found in the “Author Guidelines”
section at the journals homepages
Reviewer responsibilities
• Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts
• Inform editor quickly if not qualified or unable to review
• Judge manuscript objectively and in timely fashion
• Return to editor without review if conflict of interest
• Explain and support recommendations with arguments
and references where appropriate
Reviewer responsibilities
• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for
one’s own research
• Inform editor of similarities between submitted
manuscript and published or unpublished manuscripts
elsewhere
• Inform editor if plagiarized or falsified data is suspected
More information can be found under “For Reviewers”
at the journals’ homepages
Ethical misconduct
Examples of ethical misconduct that are not tolerated:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Falsifying data
Fabricating data
Plagiarism
Multiple concurrent submissions
Image manipulation
Authorship misrepresentation
Duplicate publication
All of the above can have serious consequences for the author, ranging from a
letter of reprimand all the way up to criminal proceedings (e.g., Jan Hendrik
Schön, Woo Suk Hwang)
Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest arise when ...
• ... two scientists are working towards the same research goal
• ... a referee is a collaborator of an author
• ... a referee is a personal friend, family member or former supervisor
of an author
• ... a referee’s intellectual beliefs are at odds with those stated in a
paper
• ... a referee and an author do not like one another (personal,
political, professional)
… All of these factors may lead to unethical behavior
Ethics resources
www.wiley.com/bw/publicationethics/
Ethical guidelines
from chemical societies
“ON BEING A SCIENTIST
A guide to responsible
conduct in research”
By Carolyn Bartozzi
www.euchems.eu
www.acs.org
http://publicationethics.org/
Open Access Publishing
Types of Open Access
• Green OA
• Nobody pays
• Gold OA
• Paid open access
Green OA
• Nobody pays (not true – there is no such thing)
• Better expressed as “Nobody Pays to Grant Access”
• Author self-archiving – under investigation via the PEER project in
the EU, a five year study into the effects of self-archiving on journal
usage and citation – not clear if self-archiving can exist without the
existing publishing infrastructure.
• Government funded research should be free to access
• Often driven by publishing mandates from interested parties
(governments, funding bodies, universities)
The Gold Road
• Distinction to be made between “wholly gold” (pay to
publish) and hybrid models (such as Online Open – pay
to make OA, NOT pay to publish).
• Major wholly Gold players are PLoS, BioMedCentral,
Hindawi, Copernicus. Most publishers offer some form
of OA, either one or two wholly gold titles or hybrid OA
articles in subscription titles
• Concern with hybrid models if the % uptake of OA
payment becomes significant, users may end up paying
twice for the same content – ‘double dipping’
Wiley and Open Access
• Gold Road – 2 provisions
• Wiley Open Access Journals and Online Open
– Online Open – hybrid model whereby authors can elect to
make a publication in a suscription journal open access for
a fee of 3000 USD
– Wiley Open Access Journals – new journals launched in
2011 and 2012 (mainly Life Sciences and Medicine titles)
which are solely open access.
Wiley and Open Access
• High standard, rigorous peer review
• Each journal has an appointed Editor-inChief and Editorial Board
• Rapid publication
• Authors retain Copyright
• Wiley Open Access Journals - licensed
under Creative Commons CC BY-NC ,
compliant with Open Access mandates
• Widest possible dissemination
• Automatic transfer into PubMed Central
What do the Authors think?
• It depends what field you work in (and where you work) –
overwhelmingly, the greatest amount of Online Open business is in
Medicine and Life Sciences, with UK-based authors the most active
in uptake.
• SOAP survey 2010 (Society for Open Access Publishing)
– Claims 90% of scientists surveyed believed OA would improve their
research field, BUT
• Only 8-10% of articles were actually OA
• 29% of survey did not publish in OA – journal quality, lack of
established journals/visibility, cost
• Survey sample heavily skewed (biomedcentral and sage mailing
lists) towards pro-OA areas of research
– Even so, prevailing message – OA is fine as long as it‘s not my
research.
Cost of Publishing
The Print World
The Digital Future
• Personnel
• Personnel
• Paper
• Programmers
tagging of manuscripts
behind Wiley Online library
• Postage
• Warehouses
• Storage/digtal archive
Digital future—information retrieval
Journal
homepages
Free services
Subscription-based services
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Google
PubMed
ScienceWatch.com
HighlyCited.com
Discovery Systems
Web of Knowledge
Web of Science
Chemical Abstracts
Scifinder
Reaxys
Cochrane Library
Scopus
Portals
www.chemistryviews.org
• News
• Journal Highlights
• Videos
• Webinars
• Conferences & Events
• Books
• Ezine
www.chemistryviews.org
The Smart ArticleTM
Cross-linked, enriched chemistry content
to support and expedite the chemist‘s research
Digital future
Angewandte
Chemie
and
The iPad App
Enjoy a new
reading experience
Thank you for your attention
Any questions?
Cbruce@ebsco.com
Deveson@wiley-vch.de