How to get published
Tips from the editors
How it happens
• 100s, sometimes 1000s papers received
each year (BMJ 6500, TC 420).
• Acceptance rates typically 5%-30%
• Papers are rejected at three stages:
• without review (circa 50%)
• after review (circa 45%)
• after revision (circa 5%)
Nobel prize work rejected..
• Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all
times? Journal of the American Society for Information
Sciences, 47 (4), 1996, 302-310.
• Commentary on influential books and journal articles
initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations .
Science Communication, 16 (3), 1995, 304-325.
• Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to
publish papers that are later highly cited. Social Studies of
Science, 23 (2), 1993, 342-362.
• The competition for journal space among referees, editors
and other authors and its influence on journal's impact
factors. Journal of the American Society for Information
Sciences, 47 (3), 1996, 184-192.
• Using Citation Classics to study the incidence of
serendipity in scientific discovery .Scientometrics, 37 (1),
1996, 3-24.
Journal Impact factors
• The ISI Impact Factor indicates how often
articles in a certain journal are cited within
the two years following the publication
date. For example, the ISI Impact Factor for
Ecology in 1996 is calculated as the sum of
all 1996 citations of articles published in
Ecology in 1994 and 1995 divided by the
total sum of all articles published in
Ecology in those two years.
Impact factors (2)
• Will anyone ever cite this paper? Or will it
be a dead weight on our impact factor, no
matter how “worthy”?
• Heavily cited: reviews; highly original
papers; papers that receive high press
attention
PAUSE & PONDER
• select journal
carefully
• consider audience
• consider chances of
success
• review Instructions
for Authors
Target your paper at a particular
journal
• Familiarise yourself thoroughly with
potential journals
• what sort of papers do they publish?
(original articles, briefs, reviews,
commentaries, iconoclastic pieces?)
• What is the “culture” of the journal?
• National or international focus?
• Write for that journal
Is this the right journal for your
paper?
• Many papers submitted that suggest authors
have never read the journal.
• Clue to likely desperation (ie rejected many
times before) or that authors are not cuttingedge/up to speed
If for a general medical journal..
• Mostly read by clinicians, so “practical”,
useful, papers highly regarded.
If a specialist journal...
• Cut to the chase!
• Do not waste time with elementary ABC
introductory sections -- it is being read by
people who know the field
• locate your paper precisely in what has gone
before
RULES OF THUMBS
• bad research is almost always rejected
• sensational research usually accepted even if badly written
• BUT most papers are neither: in gray
zone
WHY PAPERS ARE REJECTED:
1. general
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
issue not important
not original
not appropriate for journal
data old & now irrelevant
practical difficulties -> doubtful results
conflict of interest
ethical issues
WHY PAPERS ARE REJECTED:
2. scientific
•
•
•
•
•
•
unclear hypotheses
poor or weak design
sample biased or too small
statistics inappropriate or misapplied
conclusions unjustified
references outdated
WHY PAPERS ARE REJECTED:
3. presentation/style
•
•
•
•
•
•
poorly organized
badly written
careless errors
terrible tables
needless figures
outdated or improperly cited references
PLAN & REFLECT
• worth reporting?
• do systematic &
critical review
• is it original? better?
• choose appropriate
format (original,
review, etc.)
• draft outline
Preliminaries: Abstract & Title
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
VITAL! VITAL!
May be all that is read
structure abstract if so required
make it tell the whole story
tell it well; may be all that is seen
will influence editor
title: choose with care (not too clever)
The Introduction
• construct as an inverted pyramid
– move from broad statement to rationale for
the study: why this study
•
•
•
•
catchy opening sentence
keep it short
review literature selectively
justify your study in light of above
• end with sharp focus: hypothesis, question
METHODS
Provide Details
• Enough to permit replication; or to assess
validity of findings; quality of study
• Tell the story: “To assess xyz, we did the
hoodgie-wadjie procedure, using Blatz
technique (3)”
• if new measures or procedures, describe
in detail in appendix, or from authors
RESULTS
Portray...
• build from the graphics (which must be
good and able to be understood without
reference to text)
• use figures sparingly
• learn when to use a pie chart, bar chart,
etc.
• tell the story briefly (“we found that…)
• consider photos
DISCUSSION/INTERPRETATION
A pyramid
• restate main findings (key results) and
move quickly to broad conclusion
• place results in perspective (other studies)
(avoid excess repetition)
• describe limitations
• restrict interpretation to these results
• implications for practice or research
• don’t conclude “more research needed”
PROCRASTINATE
• pass it around
• comments from coauthors
• seek criticism from
colleagues
• get mentor’s advice
• put it away for
awhile
POLISH
• revise, revise, and revise for:
accuracy, brevity, clarity, grace
• accuracy: spelling, figures differ in tables
and text; too many decimals
• brevity: empty phrases and words;
excessive weak verbs and connectives
• clarity: first person; basic grammar
• grace: choice of words; vary sentences
STYLE POINTERS
• revise for Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity,
Grace
• vary sentence and paragraph lengths
• make transitions between paragraphs
• put sentences in logical sequence
• choose the right word
• avoid weak verbs and connectives
• prune empty phrases and words
Elements of style
• It behooves the writer to avoid archaic
expressions
• do not use hyperbole; not one writer in a
million can use it correctly
• avoid clichés like the plague
• mixed metaphors are a pain in the neck and
ought to be thrown out the window
• consult the dictionary frequently to avoid
mispellings
PARSIMONY
• make it “lean and mean” -- make every
word justify its existence
• check word limit; do word count
• even if o.k., shorter is (almost) always
better
• cut all extra words, phrases, paragraphs
• prune, prune, prune
PUNCTUATION
•
•
•
•
•
enhances meaning
gives style; saves space
avoid! consider?
learn: comma, semi-colon, dash, colon
read with your ears
PERSUADE
• covering letter to editor
• explain why your paper is special
Been previously rejected by
another journal?
• DO send the reviewers’ comments, + a letter
showing how you’ve addressed changes to
the new journal editor
Anticipate your reviewers
• Who has published recently in this journal
on a related topic?
• What are their preoccupations?
• Can you cite their work?
PREPARE
• for rejection
• rarely accept without
revision
• respond to comments
promptly and in
detail
PERSIST
• revise promptly as requested
• resubmit
• push and explain
• choose another journal
Multiple Authorship
• You must be able to justify the inclusion
of every author
• See:
http://www.wame.org/rsources.htm#auth
or
ALWAYS REMEMBER...
Journals need
papers (almost as
much) as authors
need journals
Editors want their
journals to be read and
their papers to be cited
Is your paper a paper, a brief or a
research letter?
• Easier to get letters & briefs accepted
(space). They are indexed!
• Decide whether you should submit it as a
brief or letter
Author Crimes
•
•
•
•
Duplicate publication (& not telling)
salami slicing (& not telling)
media coverage prior to publication
web publication?
Topicality … fast tracking
• Editors want to publish relevant,
newsworthy material
• Some journals have “fast track” option. Do
not be shy if you think your paper might
qualify