Publishing your paper in a high-quality journal a guide for authors Sarah Quin, Senior Publisher, IOP Publishing

Transcription

1 Publishing your paper in a high-quality journal a guide for authors Sarah Quin, Senior Publisher, IOP Publishing Date: 5 th November 2014

2

3

4

5 Publishing your paper in a high-quality journal a guide for authors Introduction to IOP Choosing your journal Writing your paper Top 10 tips for getting published Peer review Introduction to refereeing

6 Choosing Your Journal

7 Deciding on the right journal for your paper First things first: Decide on your first-choice journal before even writing your paper! What is the best journal for the work that you have done? Which journal will give you the most recognition for your work? What is your second choice? What other factors do you need to consider? You could have many things to think about

8 Deciding on the right journal for your paper Considerations for your preferred journal: Audience who reads it? Scope does your paper fit? Reputation of the journal Quality criteria and acceptance levels Impact/visibility Speed of publication Recommendation from colleagues Open access or subscription model Copyright policy Costs (pages/figures/apcs etc.) Others?

9 Submission requirements Each publisher or journal may have different submission requirements Make sure that you know what your chosen journal needs Some journals have set submission formats Have all the required information available all the author details, copyright forms, permissions for reproduced articles, supplementary data, etc, etc. At IOP we try and make this process as easy as possible for authors

10 IOP Journals use Scholar One

11 Writing Your Paper

12 Writing Your Paper Start Before you start: Consider your choice of journal Decide on the key message of your paper Assess your main results Prepare an outline: topic, contexts, significance Any paper in a leading research journal should clearly and concisely demonstrate a substantial, novel and interesting scientific result.

13 Writing Your Paper Title and abstract Title and abstract: The most visible part of your paper Title: Concise and informative; draws attention of the reader immediately Should distinguish your paper from other published work Abstract: Summarizes paper into a single paragraph Allows readers to decide whether they are interested in your paper

14 Writing Your Paper Introduction The introduction should: Describe the main goals of your work Give an overview of methods Set the work in the context of previous research Cite all relevant references Use your own words and interpretation

15 Writing Your Paper Methods, results and discussion Methods, results and discussion need to: Show your data in an organized manner Give enough information to allow duplication of your results Show the significance and impact of your results Compare with other published work Discuss the implications and applications

16 Writing Your Paper Conclusion Your conclusion needs to: Summarize your major points Highlight the novelty and significance of your work Clearly demonstrate what your work has achieved Answer questions put in the Introduction Include your plans for future work

17 Writing Your Paper References References and acknowledgments: Cite the right references Original works both historical and recent Check for accuracy Follow the reference style of the journal Recognize the contribution of funders or other assistance

18 Writing Your Paper Finally Get feedback and comments on your paper before submission Your supervisor Other colleagues Internal review Make changes following their input Get help from a fluent English speaker if you need it

19 Writing Your Paper Copyright and permissions Copyright and permissions have to be considered Do you need permission to use photographs, images, charts, tables or graphs you have included in your work? You ll need permission to use anything where copyright is owned by a third party Guidance can be found here: copyright.iop.org

20 IOP s Tips for successfully writing up your research

21 Do 1. Check the literature for similar results in your field 2. Use references that show the context of your work and why it is new and significant 3. Decide whether you are writing for a specialist or non-specialist audience 4. Choose which journal you want to publish in before writing your paper 5. Spend a lot of time on your title and abstract this will be what most people will see first

22 Do 6. Keep abbreviations or technical terms to a minimum or clearly define them 7. Avoid speculation or anecdotes keep to the facts and clearly state your conclusions 8. Keep it concise even when there are no word limits and use your own words 9. Allow plenty of time for rewriting 10. Get feedback from colleagues before submitting your article

23 Some definite ethical don ts

24 Don t 1. Fabricate, falsify or misrepresent data or results 2. Submit an article to more than one journal at a time 3. Add someone as a co-author without their permission 4. Exclude anyone who has made a significant contribution 5. Sign any forms on behalf of your co-authors unless you are authorized to do so

25 Don t 6. Copy and paste from other articles, including your own this will be classed as plagiarism or duplicate publication 7. Forget to check your funder s copyright/open access policy 8. Forget to disclose any potential conflicts of interest 9. Ignore any part of a reviewer s reports 10. Take any criticisms of your work personally IOP s ethical policy for authors can be found on authors.iop.org

26 Any questions on writing papers?

27 Peer Review

28 Peer Review Peer review is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field (Wikipedia) Vital part of publishing Gives the scientific community and the public a reliable indicator on what to believe Gives authors feedback that can help to improve a paper Critical filter for 1 million plus research papers written every year Helps editors decide what to publish

29 Peer review

30 Peer review at IOP: Pre-refereeing assessment The editorial team review all submissions Check for content, originality, novelty and scope Use to detect plagiarism or duplication Consult the journal s Editorial Board if necessary If the paper is not suitable it will be rejected at this stage

31 Peer review at IOP: Pre-refereeing assessment We check for: Incremental papers a very small advance on earlier work Papers outside of the journal s scope Papers that do not have enough content or new data for the journal - the expected quality level may vary between journals Papers that reproduce earlier work including text and including the author s own previous work

32 Peer review: Referee selection Referees are chosen based on their: Expertise Independence Availability Previous record Generally, the referee knows who the author is (Single Blind) The authors don t know who the referee is

33 Peer review: Making a first decision We normally require at least two referee reports An adjudicator is consulted if reports disagree Decision is based on the reports sent to the editorial team Immediate acceptance is unusual but does happen Usually revisions based on suggestions by the referees Rejection rate can be high - 50% common in quality journals

34 Peer review: Referees comments sent to authors Authors should: Read each referee s report carefully Respond to each and every comment specifically Keep a list of all your changes If you disagree with the referees, clearly explain why this is Never ignore a comment This is free advice - use it!

35 Peer review: Revised paper resubmitted Paper will be accepted if the referees are satisfied or rejected if the revisions are not strong enough

36 Peer review: What if your paper is rejected? Use the advice you received to improve your paper You can re-write your paper and re-submit it to another journal If you think the decision was wrong most journals give you an opportunity to appeal

37 What if your paper is accepted? Congratulations!

38 Any questions on peer review?

39 Introduction to Refereeing

40 Referees Referees are a vital part of the peer review process Provide validation for over 1 million scientific articles published every year Provide a stamp of trust and authority on published work Referees are selected for their: Expert knowledge Reliability Availability Quality of previous reports Impartiality

41 What should referees check for? Is the work understandable and correct? Is it clear what the authors want to achieve? Do the references provide background and context for the work? Are the results backed up with evidence? Are there any unsupported claims? Is the work correct no errors, flaws or mistakes? Are the mathematics or statistics correct?

42 What should referees check for? Is the work interesting? How relevant is the work to researchers in the subject? Is the research important and do the authors explain why it is important, or how it advances understanding of the field? Will the paper be cited by other researchers? Is the work original? Does it contain new material? Have any parts of the paper been published before? Is this just an incremental advance over previous work?

43 What should referees check for? Is the work well presented? Does the title reflect the contents of the paper? Does the abstract include all essential information? Are the figures and tables correct and informative? Are there too many figures, or too few? Does the conclusion summarize the work well and explain why it is interesting and useful? Is the text clear and concise? Is the paper an appropriate length for its content?

44 A good referee report Professional and polite, without personal comments Fair and impartial approach Clear and constructive what is interesting about the paper, what needs to be improved Specific about any criticism given Clear discussion of any recommended changes No need to correct the English unless the science is unclear Makes a clear recommendation to the Editors

45 Confidentiality and conflict of interest Any paper sent for review is confidential until it is published Referees must not use or cite a paper until it has been formally published Authors must feel confident that their results will not be misused or misappropriated Referees should avoid any conflict of interest, for example: A close colleague of the authors Someone who has helped the authors with their work A direct competitor of the authors In a position to exploit the authors work

46 Thank you very much Any further questions?

47 More information