Author Workshop
Publishing and Evaluating Research
Paul Trevorrow
Executive Journals Editor
Global Research
Wiley- Blackwell
The agenda
Why publish?
Submission
Editorial
Production
Publication
Why publish?
Why publish?
The common argument…
Why publish?
Publication with a reputable
publisher assumes:
Role of the publisher
Peer review
Editorial processes adhere to
industry agreed ethical
standards
Editorial &
author
services
Among leaders within the
field
Marketing,
Dissemination
and
Discoverability
Registration/
validation and
prestige
Provisions for:
Copy editing
Typesetting
Author tools
Provision of electronic
editorial offices
Funding of Receiving
editors
Provides a searchable
platform
A&I servicing
Article linking
Promotion/marketing
Publisher
Ensures a version of record is
available in perpetuity
Digitization of legacy
material. Maintaining the
completeness of the
academic record
Archiving
Community
outreach
Event sponsorship
Grants and awards
Author/referee workshops
Development of new
services/technologies to
assist researchers
Why publish?
Wiley’s Anywhere Article
Why publish?
Motivation for publication
Fame
Recognition by your peers
Fortune
Promotions, grant applications, research funding
Responsibility
To society, taxpayer-funded research, contribution to
progress
Probably the most common driver….
BECAUSE MY
BOSS TOLD
ME TO!
Submission
Part II – submitting an article
Submission
Editorial decision
Production
Publication
Submission
Choosing a journal
Submission
What am I trying to say and how can I
express it effectively?
• Research article
• Short communication
• Letter to the editor
• Perspective
• Review/Mini review article
• Historical
Which journals publish the type of article
that I want to write?
Submission
Which audience is right for me?
• Where do you read papers related to your
research?
• Which journals do you like the most?
• Where were your references published?
• What do your peers suggest?
Submission
Evaluating the target journal
• Prestige
• Speed
• Audience
• Aesthetics
• Author service / experience
• Cost
• Likelihood of acceptance
Submission
I don’t know where to submit or I want to
survey my options.
• Publisher website (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
• Abstract and Indexing (A&I) services (Web of Science,
Scopus, PubMed etc)
• Google/Google Scholar
Submission
Preparing and submitting your manuscript
Read the author
instructions and format
your article
appropriately
Submission
Writing up my research – the important
components of a research article
Title
Author name and position
Abstract
Submission
The abstract – one of the most important
elements of your article
• Referee and editor assessment
• Abstract and indexing / search-ability
Submission
What makes a good abstract?
State why the research
is important to a broader
non-scientific audience
Introduce the procedure
simply
Describe the experiment
in detail
Offer a brief overview of
the results
Submission
Think “structured” abstract format
Submission
What makes a bad abstract?
Why? What is the
significance of this
study? Why is
Gardeniae Fructus
important?
Straight into a
shopping list of the
results and
characterized acids
Submission
Typical structure of a research article
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Method
Results and Discusssion
Conclusion
Submission
Artwork
• Use one standard/common font (preferably Arial)
• Use one font size
• Avoid use of shadows/glows/reflections
• Check the author instructions with regard to reproducing colour
• For ChemDraw images use the object settings set by the journal
wileyeditingservices.com
authorservices.wiley.com
Submission
How to write resources
Journal articles
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
How to write a paper for Rapid Communications in Mass
Spectrometry
Rapid Comm. Mass Spec. 2012, 26, 1725
authorservices.wiley.com
Submission
...so your article is written, format is good.
Time to submit your article with your covering letter
Together with the abstract 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 are you submitting to this journal?
Why will this journal’s readers read it?
Keep the letter as direct and short as possible
The longer it is, the easier it is to overlook something important
Submission
Submitting the manuscript
• Typically via an Electronic Editorial Office (EEO) such as
ScholarOne Manuscripts
• Occasionally direct to Editor
Submission
Article submitted!
Now it’s over to the journal Editors….
Editorial
Part III
The editorial process
Editorial
Production
Publication
Editorial
The editorial workflow
Manuscript submitted
Manuscript rejected
Editors examine and make Initial
editorial decision
Manuscript sent back to author for
alteration before resubmission
largely based on:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Language
Formatting / completeness
Scope
Is the article type correct
Significance
Readership
Impact
Send to peer review
Ensures that the article is in a
suitable state for peer review
Editorial
The editorial workflow
Passed initial screening
Manuscript sent out
for peer review
Editor makes decision
based on reports
3 GENERAL OUTCOMES
Editorial
Accept
Editorial
Revise
• Major revision
• Minor revision
Editorial
Editorial
Accept
Editorial
Revise – major/minor
Carefully consider reviewer comments
• Approach a revision decision as an opportunity to develop
your paper into the best it can be
• Referee’s comments should not be seen as negative criticisms
but development points
• Not all changes have to be made but require convincing
arguments for changes not made
Remember! Your response may go back to reviewers.
You may need to convince them and the editor!
Editorial
Rejection
Technical/scientific
issues
Motivation
unclear/unimportant
Novelty/originality
Conclusions do not
support the data
Results less important
Results uninteresting
Ethical questions
Unclear presentation
Editorial
Should you appeal a reject decision?
Usually, no
Occasionally, yes
Risk of longer time to
publication
Importance / impact /
novelty missed by
editor/referees
Editors and referees know
journal
Criticisms may be valid
Factual errors in referee
reports that led to rejection
Editorial
Peer review
Editorial
What is peer review?
“Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more
people of similar competence to the producers of the work
(peers).
It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members
of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review
methods are employed to maintain standards of quality,
improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia
peer review is often used to determine an academic
paper's suitability for publication.”
- Wikipedia
Editorial
Why do we peer review?
Suitability for publication
True / credible?
Reproducible?
Important, relevant?
Communicated effectively?
Novelty?
Plagiarism?
Verify & improve the
research
Interpretation of results
Reasoning
Presentation
Critical but constructive
feedback
New / additional ideas
Editorial
What peer review doesn’t do
• Peer review checks the likelihood of reproducibility, it does
not recreate the experiments to verify reproducibility.
Editorial
What peer reviewers are asked to do –
the typical questionnaire
Novelty
Concise
Comprehensive
Accuracy
Abstract
Citations
Language
Structure
Decision
Editorial
What peer reviewers are asked to do –
the referee report
• Is the motivation clear and is it important?
• Is the work novel and original?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data?
• Are the results important?
• Are there any ethical questions?
• Were any flaws or mistakes found?
• Should anything be added or removed?
• Does the author demonstrate a knowledge of prior work in the
field?
• How might the article be improved?
• Will the community find the article useful?
Editorial
On what basis are peer reviewers
chosen?
Journal’s reviewer database
Current and past authors / referees, bibliographic searches, keyword, interests, publication history.
Suggestions from authors
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
Advisory Board Members
Themselves or nomated referees
Editor’s own knowledge of the community
Contacts from conferences, prominent scientists, regular authors, etc.
Why be a peer reviewer?
• Access to latest research before it is published
• Duty in keeping the peer review mechanism buoyant
• To enhance ones gravitas as an expert
• To glean recognition by the editors
• Pedagogical altruism
• Visa application
Editorial
Questions then break (15 mins)
Editorial
Editorial
Wiley’s Best Practice
Guidelines on
Publishing Ethics
Top ten tips for navigating ethical challenges in scholarly publishing
1.Adopt journal policy and practice that supports ethical best practice
2.Support efficient, effective, ethical peer review
3.Be mindful of breaches of publication ethics
4.Disclose conflict of interest
5.Accurately list those who contributed to the work and how
6.Comply with discipline guidelines for reporting standards
7.Ensure that ethical and responsible research is published
8.Take action and alert journals to suspected malpractice
9.Correct errors where found
10.Protect intellectual property
Editorial
There are ethical responsibilities for all actors in the
publication process:
Editors
Authors
Referees
Publisher
Editorial
Editor responsibilities
• Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript
processing
• Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
• Make the final decision on a submission
• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for
their own research
• Ensure a fair selection of referees
• Act upon allegations of scientific misconduct
• Deal fairly with author appeals
Editorial
Author responsibilities
• To gather and interpret data in an honest way
• To give due recognition to published work relating to
their manuscript
• To give due acknowledgement to all contributors
• Notify the publisher of any errors
• To avoid undue fragmentation of work into multiple
manuscripts (salami publishing)
• To ensure that a manuscript is submitted to only one
journal at a time
Editorial
Reviewer responsibilities
• Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts and respect privileged
information
• Not to withhold a referee report for personal advantage
• Return to editor without review if there is a conflict of interest
• Inform editor quickly if not qualified or unable to review
• Judge manuscript objectively and in timely fashion
• Explain and support recommendations with arguments and
references where appropriate
• Inform editor if plagiarized or falsified data is suspected
Editorial
Ethical misconduct
Examples of ethical misconduct that are not tolerated:
Falsifying data
Fabricating data
Plagiarism
Multiple concurrent/dual submissions
Image manipulation
Authorship misrepresentation
Duplicate publication
The case of Jan Hendrik Schön
WATCHOUT!!!
Editorial
Ethics Resources
Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
•A Publisher’s Perspective, Second Edition
now available FREE at
http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines
•Updated version of the first edition published by Wiley in 2006
•Provides guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical
concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors,
researchers and other audiences
•The uniquely multidisciplinary guidelines have been revised,
updated, and reviewed by 30 editors and ethics experts
•Guidance added about whistle-blowers, animal research and
clinical research – particularly around clinical trial registration
•Now also includes guidance on best practice for journals in
human rights and confidentiality, and addresses how approaches
differ between cultures
Ethics resources
publicationethics.org
Production
Part IV
Production
Production
The life of an accepted article – the
production process
Copyediting
Typesetting
Production
The life of an accepted article – the
production process
Copyediting
Typesetting
Correction
Print product
Online product
Publication
Manuscript published!
Publication
Market your article
Publication
Tracking the “impact” of your article
Publication
That old classic - citation tracking
“These cited references
are authors’
acknowledgments of their
debt to the published
research findings of
others”
Publication
Scopus
~16,500
Web of Science
~11,500
Publication
Publication
1963
Impact Factor
Publication
Journal level evaluation - The impact
factor
Articles published
Papers published in
2012
in
2011
Articles published in
2010
Divided by the number of citeable items in 2011 and 2010
Article types counted in the denominator [citeable item]
Primary research articles, Review articles, Case reports,
Proceedings papers.
Articles not counted in the denominator [not citeable item*]
Editorials, Corrections, Bibliographies, Letters, Abstracts.
Publication
Why is the impact factor based on two-year
citations?
“The two year period was chosen because in the
fields that were of greatest interest to the readers
of Current Contents, and later of the SCI...
…the primary fields of interest were molecular
biology and biochemistry.
… nothing prevents the user of JCR from
calculating three year or five year impact factors.
I have done even seven year and 15 year
calculations.”
E. Garfield, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2003, Vol. 3, Nº 2, pp. 363-369
Number of citations
Publication
The impact factor
window
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Subject categories and their aggregate
Impact Factors
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
SCIENCES
CELL BIOLOGY
7
6
BIOCHEMISTRY AND
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
PSYCHIATRY
TOXICOLOGY
POLYMER SCIENCE
BIOLOGY
SPORTS SCIENCES
4
ACOUSTICS
BUSINESS
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
AGRICULTURE
ECONOMICS
NURSING
MATHEMATICS
3
CULTURAL STUDIES
1
HISTORY
0
FOOD SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
5
Aggregate impact factor
2
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
CHEMISTRY
8
Publication
Myth?
Research published in a high impact factor journal is
more valuable than research published in a low
impact factor journal
Published in 2005
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry
– Impact Factor: 2.750
By comparison
Science
– Impact Factor: 31.853
Publication
“Skewness”
Seglen P.O. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci, 1992, 49(9):628
Pros and cons of the Impact Factor
Pros
•It is fundamentally a sound
premise
•It is transparent
•It is easy to explain
•It is efficient
•After 50 years of use it is
established
Cons
•Target period (window) is not
appropriate for all subject areas
•Free citations to ‘non citable’ items
•A citation is not necessarily a
validation
•Differences in referencing behaviour
between subjects
•Misused to judge author
performance
Publication
2005
H-index
Publication
• Equation: An individual has an index of h, when they have published at
least h papers, each of which has been cited at least h times
• The index was created in an attempt to move away from journal based
measures such as the Impact Factor. An index which was applicable at the
author level, accounting for the fact that the distribution of citations
between articles can be tremendously skewed, even for the same author
• Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research
output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102(46),
16569-16572
Publication
Bibliographic record for author A
Article
Citations
Article 1
3
Article 2
3
Article 3
4
Author A has published 3 articles
3 of these articles have at least 3 citations = H index of 3
Publication
Bibliographic record for author B
Article
Citations
Article 1
3
Article 2
4
Article 3
2
Article 4
9
Article 5
2
Article 6
1
Author B has published 6 articles
3 of these articles have at least 3 citations = H index of 3
The author will gain a H index of 4 when a total of 4 articles
achieve 4 or more citations each.
Publication
Author C
Article
Citations
Article 1
1,000,001
Article 2
2,000,000
Author C has published 2 articles
Both articles have been cited over 1 million times
The author only has 2 papers so the maximum H index
achievable is 2
The author will gain a H index of 3 when another article is
published and it achieves 3 citations
Publication
H-index = 8!
Pros and Cons of the H-index
Pros
•Elegant
•Efficient
•Transparent
•Removes bias from individual highly
cited articles
•Can be mobilized to evaluate a
number of criteria, not just the author
(e.g. institute, country, region)
Cons
•Longitudinal bias
•No baseline
•It cannot decrease
•It may increase without an author
publishing any new work
•Seminal thinkers may not necessarily
publish lots of articles
•Citation index dependent – which
database citation count is correct?
Publication
Altmetric
Ethical responsibilities for all
•
Disclose conflict of interest
•
Be mindful of breaches of publication ethics
•
Correct errors where found
•
Protect intellectual property
• Take action and alert journals to suspected malpractice