Author Workshop How to Publish & Review

1

Dr. Nebo Jovanovic

CSIR, South Africa Editor in Chief:

Agricultural Water Management

Dr. Elaine van Ommen Kloeke

Elsevier

Agronomy & Remote Sensing

1st CIGR Inter-Regional Conference

Tuesday, September 10th 2013

2

What will we cover in this workshop?

• Understanding scholarly publishing

• How to get published:

• Preparing

• Structuring & writing

• Using Proper Scientific Language

• Publishing ethics

• Reviews and reviewing

3

Understanding Scholarly

Publishing

4

5

Number of publications - Bari

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

PolitechnicUniversityBari

UniveristyBari

6

Elzevirianas circa 1629

First scientific journals

published in 1665

Registration

Timestamp

Certification

Peer review – validity & integrity

Dissemination

Medium to share findings

Preservation

Preserve and archive records of science

Journal publishing has thrived for over 340 years but the fundamental role of Publishers remains unchanged

Let’s Start at the Beginning

The Publishing Industry Over Time…

1580

Today 1665 1880 1989

1998-1999

2000

7

The Publishing Cycle

Solicit & manage

submissions

Manage peer

review

Production

Publish &

disseminate Edit &

prepare

Archive &

promote use

8

10 million articles

in archive

30-60% rejected by >

7,000 editors

500,000+

reviewers

Nearly ½ million

articles accepted

9.8 million articles

available

>480 million

downloads by >30

million researchers

in >180 countries!

Helps to determine the quality, validity, significance and originality

of research

Helps to improve the quality of papers

Publishers stand outside the academic process and are not prone

to prejudice or favour

Publishers facilitate the review process by investing in online review systems and providing tools to help

Editors and Reviewers

9

Peer Review

A well understood

concept

Without it there is no control in scientific

communication

Journal Editors evaluate and reject certain articles

prior to external peer review

Principles of Peer Review

10

Submission

Editor (preliminary Assessment)

Editor: Decision

Reviewer 1 Reviewer 1

In press

Print proof

Published

OUT

Initia

l

changes m

inor/m

ajo

r revis

ions re

quire

d

reje

ction

rejection

accepted

Typesetting,

copy editing

Branding, logos,

page numbers

Global Expansion of Scientific Research

United States

China

United Kingdom Germany

Japan

France

India

Republic of Korea

Brazil Taiwan Turkey

Iran

Malaysia

Romania

Thailand

Egypt

Pakistan

Saudi Arabia

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 100 200 300 400 500

Co

mp

ou

nd

An

nu

al

Gro

wth

Ra

te In

Art

icle

s

20

06-1

0

Articles 2010 (Thousands)

11

12

Solicit and

manage

submissions

Manage Peer

Review

Production

Publish and

Disseminate

Edit and

Prepare

Archive and

promote use

Added Value of Publishing:

The Digital Age of Publishing

eJournal Backfiles

eReference Works

Mobile

content

Electronic

platforms

Electronic

warehousing

Author submission &

Editorial systems

Production tracking systems

What is Open Access Publishing? The History

• Free availability on the public internet

• Permitting users to read, download, copy,

distribute, print, search, or link to the full

texts of these articles

• Crawl them for indexing

• Licenses to allow use and re-use without

financial, legal, or technical barriers

• Accessible online without cost to readers,

but not costless to produce. So, funding

needed by authors, institutions, funders or

others

13

Publishing with Open Access

• Elsevier’s open access publication fees are

market based & provide competitive prices

which range from 500-5000 USD.

• Offer authors a choice of user licenses,

including Creative Commons.

• Developed a number of institutional and

funding body agreements to help streamline

processes and manage open access

policies.

14

For more Open Access information:

http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-options

Two Recent Developments in the Publication

Process

Flow

Article Transfer

Service

15

Speed

Article-Based

Publishing

Innovative Thinking in Peer Review

Peer Review Grand Challenge

Your Paper, Your Way

The Reviewer Guidance Program

16

Innovative Article Format

– Article of the Future Addressing Presentation, Content and Context

17

‘How To Get Published’ Preparing Your Manuscript

May 2013

18

Are You Ready To Publish?

19

Are you ready to publish? Guiding questions

20

• Have you done something new and interesting?

• Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?

• Have you checked the latest results in the field?

• Have you verified the findings?

• Did you perform the appropriate controls?

• Do your results fit - is the story complete?

Types Of Manuscripts

Full articles

Letters or short communications

Review papers

21

Citations per Article Type

22

Choosing the right journal

Agricultural Water Management

Find the journal that best suits your work: Look at the Aims & Scope of a journal

An International Journal

The journal publishes papers of international

significance relating to the science,

economics, and policy of agricultural

water management. In all cases,

manuscripts must address implications and

provide insight regarding agricultural water

management.

The primary topics that we consider are the

following:

… www.journals.elsevier.com/agricultural-water-

management/

Read The ‘Guide for Authors’ • Find it on the journal homepage of the publisher, e.g. Elsevier.com

• Keep to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript

• Editors do not like wasting time on poorly prepared manuscripts

24

25

‘How To Get Published’ structuring & writing and your article

26

Title Abstract Keywords

General structure of a research article

Introduction Methods Results AND Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Supporting Materials

Fewest possible words

Adequately describes content

Identifies main issue

Does not use rarely-used

abbreviations

27

Titles

Effective manuscript titles

28

Titles - example

Relationships between information processing, depression, fatigue and cognition in multiple sclerosis

Slower processing is correlated with higher levels of depressed mood, fatigue, lower verbal fluency, fewer words and digits recalled and poorer recall of visual-spatial information in MS patients

29

Abstract

This is the advertisement of your article. Make it interesting and understandable

Make it accurate and specific

A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your work is considered

Keep it as brief as possible

< 200 – 300 words

Keywords

Used by indexing and abstracting services

Are the labels of the manuscript

Use only established abbreviations e.g. DNA

Do not repeat words in the title

30

Highlights

Advertise your work

3-5 bullet points

Key conclusions

Use full sentences

31

Introduction

Provide a brief context to the readers

Address the problem

Identify the solutions & limitations

What is hoped to be achieved

Consistent with the nature of the journal

32

Methods

Describe how the problem was studied

Include detailed information

Do not describe previously published procedures

Identify the equipment and describe materials used

Other researchers should be able to reproduce your work using the

method description

33

Ethics Committee Approval

Experiments on humans or animals must follow applicable ethics standards

Approval of the local ethics committee is required and should be specified in the manuscript, covering letter or the online

submission system

Editors can make their own decisions on ethics

34

Results

Be clear & easy to understand

Highlight the main findings

Feature unexpected findings

Provide proper statistical analysis

Include clear illustrations & figures

35

Discussion

Most important section!

What do the results mean?

Make the discussion correspond to the results

Compare your own results with published work

What is the ‘bigger picture’?

Go beyond your results

36

The Conclusion

Should be clear & concise

Provide justification for the work

Advance the present state of knowledge

Provide suggested future experiments

Take Home Message!

Advisors Financial

Supporters & Funders

Proofreaders & Typists

Suppliers who may have donated materials

37

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgments

Do not use too many references

Always ensure you have fully absorbed material you are referencing

Use published work – not grey literature

Avoid excessive self-citations

Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region/country

Conform strictly to the style in the guide for authors or ‘Your Paper Your Way’

38

References

39

The Process of Writing Building the Article

Methods Results Discussion

Conclusion

Figures/Tables (your data)

Introduction

Title & Abstract

Cover Letter

Your chance to address the Editor directly

– “selling” your work

– WHY did you submit the manuscript to THIS journal?

• Do not summarize your manuscript, or repeat the abstract

– Mention special requirements, e.g. if you do not wish your manuscript to be reviewed by certain reviewers

– Although most editors will not reject a manuscript only because the cover letter is bad, a good cover letter may accelerate the editorial process of your paper

Suggest potential reviewers

• Your suggestions may help the Editor to pass your

manuscript to the review stage more efficiently

• The reviewers should represent at least two regions of

the world. They should not be your supervisor, direct

colleagues at the same institute or close friends

• Generally you are requested to provide

3-6 potential reviewers. Check the Guide for Authors!

Post-review revision

•Respond to all points - even if you disagree

• Write a polite, scientifically solid rebuttal

• State specifically what changes you have made to

address the reviewers’ comments, mentioning the page

and line numbers where changes have been made

•Perform additional calculations, computations, or

experiments if required; these usually serve to make the

final paper stronger

•Avoid repeating the same response over and over

Carefully study the reviewers’ comments and prepare a

detailed letter of response

‘How To Get Published’ Using Proper Scientific Language

43

44

It can delay or block

publication of work

Proper English should

be used

Why is language important?

Do publishers correct language?

No! It is the Author’s

responsibility...

...but resources are available

45

46

Manuscript language: Overview

Accurate

Concise

Clear

Objective

46

47

Write direct and short sentences

One piece of information per sentence

Avoid multiple statements in one sentence

Manuscript language: Sentences

47

48

Present tense:

for known facts & hypotheses

Past tense:

for experiments conducted & results

Manuscript language: Tenses

49

Manuscript language: Grammar

Use active voice to shorten sentences

Avoid abbreviations

Minimize use of adverbs

Eliminate redundant phrases

Double-check unfamiliar words or phrases

50

Recap

Important so Editors and

Reviewers can understand the

work

Refer to the journal’s Guide for Authors for specifications

Work has short sentences,

correct tenses, correct

grammar and is all in English

Have a native English speaker

check your manuscript or

use a language editing service

Am I using proper manuscript language?

Publishing Ethics Authorship, Plagiarism, multi submissions

51

52

What does it mean to be an Author?

An “author” is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study

Being an author comes with credit but also with responsibility: they are two sides of the same coin

Decisions about who will be an author and the order of authors should be made before starting to write up the project

Corresponding Author

First Author

Good Listing Principle

Ghost Authorship

Gift Authorship

Poor Listing Principle

Authorship

53

Authorship (A)

Example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (aka

Vancouver Group) declared that an author must:

1. substantially contribute to conception and design, or acquisition of

data, or analysis and interpretation of data AND

2. draft the article or revise it critically for important intellectual content

AND

3. give their approval of the final version to be published

all 3 conditions must be fulfilled to be an author

54

Authorship policies vary across disciplines, cultures and journals

What is Plagiarism?

“Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes,

results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those

obtained through confidential review of others’ research proposals

and manuscripts.”

source: Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999

“Presenting the data or interpretations

of others without crediting them, and

thereby gaining for yourself the

rewards earned by others, is theft,

and it eliminates the motivation of

working scientists to generate new

data and interpretations.”

Professor Bruce Railsback Department of Geology, University of Georgia

M. Errami & H. Garner, A tale of two citations

Nature 451 (2008): 397-399

55

What may be Plagiarised?

Work that can be plagiarised includes…

56

Words (Language)

Ideas

Findings

Writings

Graphic Representations

Computer Programs

Diagrams

Graphs

Illustrations

Information

Lectures

Printed Material

Electronic Material

Any Other Original Work

Higher Education Academy, UK

Question

57

A researcher notices a paragraph in a previously published article that would be suitable as the Materials & Methods in his

article.

The researcher decides to copy that paragraph into his paper without quotes or

attribution.

•Has the Researcher violated any ethical

boundaries?

•How about if you copy your own work?

Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing is restating someone else's ideas while not copying their actual words verbatim

Unacceptable:

Using exact phrases from the original source without enclosing them in

quotation marks

Emulating sentence structure even when using different words

Emulating paragraph organization even when using different wording or

sentence structure

58

– Statement on Plagiarism

Department of Biology, Davidson College.

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/dept/plagiarism.html

Huge database of 30+ million articles, from 50,000+ journals, from 400+ publishers

Software alerts Editors to any similarities between the article and this huge database of published articles

Many Elsevier journals now check every submitted

article using CrossCheck

Plagiarism Detection

59

Cross Check Initiative (2009)

Submission (Q)

60

A researcher is ready to submit her paper and decides to submit to Science, Nature and Cell at

the same time.

A researcher has had his paper rejected by Science and decides to submit it to Nature.

Failing that, he plans to submit it to Cell. Failing that, he plans to submit to each journal in his

discipline until it is accepted.

The first scenario is not acceptable to most research

communities and journals

The second scenario is acceptable but authors should heed the

advice of referees and editors concerning improvements.

Submissions (A)

61

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication issues

• Should be avoided where manuscripts that describe essentially

the same research are published in more than one journal or

primary publication.

• An author should avoid submitting a previously published paper

for consideration in another journal.

• Duplication of the same paper in multiple journals of different

languages should be avoided.

• “Salami Slicing”, or creating several publications from the same

research, is manipulative and discouraged.

62

All Stakeholders Authors

Institutions

Companies

Agencies

Funding Bodies

Publishers/

Journal Editors

Who is really responsible for Ethics?

All Elsevier journals are

members of:

Consequences

63

What are the potential consequences ?

Potential consequences can vary according to

the severity of the misconduct and the standards

set by the journal editors, institutions and funding

bodies.

Possible actions include:

• Written letters of concern and reprimand

• Article retractions

• Some form of disciplinary action on the

part of the researcher’s institute or

funding body

Reviews How to review papers

64

Academic ‘duty’

General interest in the area

Updated with latest developments

Helps with own research or new ideas

Builds association with journals and Editors

Career development

Awareness of new research before their peers

Why do Reviewers review?

65

GIVE TAKE

86%

Enjoy reviewing and will continue

to do so

73%

Technological advances mean it is easier to do

thorough reviews

68%

Formal training of reviewers

should improve review quality

56%

There is generally a lack of guidance on how to review

papers

66

Reviewing – The Facts

(Source: Peer Review Survey 2009)

Some Facts

Declining to review

58% paper outside my area of expertise

49% too busy doing own research, lecturing, etc.

30% too many prior reviewing commitments

20% personal reasons

67

(Source: Peer Review Survey 2009)

Time taken to review

Greatly Improved By Elsevier’s EES

(Source: Peer Review Survey 2009)

68

Role of Reviewer and tasks

The peer review process is based on trust

The scientific publishing enterprise depends largely on the quality and integrity of the reviewers

Reviewer should write reports in a collegial and constructive manner

Treat manuscripts in the same manner as if they were your own

69

Guide for reviewers - General Impression

70

Three main questions:

1. Does the subject fall within the general scope of

the journal?

2. Is this a new and original contribution? (For

review articles this does not necessarily apply)

3. Are interpretations and conclusions sound,

justified by the data and consistent with the

objectives?

General Impression and Abstract

General

Impression

Short summary of the article

Avoid personal remarks about the

Authors

Abstract

Is it a real summary of the paper?

Is it too long?

General comprehension of the manuscript

Language/style/grammar

Reviewer’s general level of enthusiasm

Add such remarks to “comments to Editor”

Including the key results

Journals set a limit for the number of words

71

Introduction

Is it effective, clear and well organized?

Does it really introduce and put into perspective what follows?

Suggest changes in organization and point Authors to appropriate citations

Don’t just write “the Authors have done a poor job”

72

Can a colleague reproduce the

experiments and get the same outcomes?

Did the Authors include proper references to

previously published

methodology?

Is the description of new methodology

accurate?

Could or should the Authors have

included supplementary

material?

73

Assessing the Methodology

Results and Discussion (I)

Suggest improvements in the way data is shown

Comment on general logic and on justification of interpretations and conclusions

Comment on the number of figures, tables and schemes

Write concisely and precisely which changes you recommend

74

Results and Discussion (II)

List separately suggested changes in style, grammar and other small changes

Suggest additional experiments or analyses

Make clear the need for changes/updates

Ask yourself whether the manuscript is worth to be published at all

75

Comment on importance, validity and generality of conclusions

Request toning down of

unjustified claims and

generalizations

Request removal of redundancies and summaries

The abstract, not the conclusion, summarizes the

study

76

Assessing the Conclusions

References, Tables & Figures

Check accuracy, number and citation appropriateness

Comment on any footnotes

Comment on figures, their quality and readability

Assess completeness of legends, headers and axis labels

Check presentation consistency

Comment on need for colour in figures

77

References: Tools for Reviewers (I)

For Editors • Plagiarism detection tool at time of submission

• Find a reviewer tool, based on Scopus database

For

Reviewers

• Free access to ScienceDirect:

All content published by Elsevier

• Free access to Scopus:

The world's largest abstract and citation database

• Reference-linking and resolution in PDF of the manuscript

78

Editors’ View:

What makes a good Reviewer?

79

Provides a thorough and comprehensive report

Submits the report on time

Provides well-founded comments for Authors

Gives constructive criticism

Demonstrates objectivity

Provides a clear recommendation to the Editor

Contact for further questions:

• njovanovic@csir.co.za

• e.vanommenkloeke@elsvier.com

Thank You & questions

80

Further reading and info:

Authors: www.elsevier.com/authors

Reviewers: www.elsevier.com/reviewers

Ethics: www.ethics.elsevier.com

Free webcast tutorials on getting published:

www.elsevier.com/trainingwebcasts

81

Extra slides

82

Reviewing (2) • If the answers to the main three points are positive, then please continue with the

following:

– Does the title clearly reflect the contents?

– Is the abstract sufficiently informative, especially when read in isolation?

– Are appropriate keywords given?

– Is the statement of objectives of the article adequate and appropriate in view

of the subject matter?

– Is the description of materials and methods sufficiently informative to allow

replication of the experiment?

– Are the statistical methods used correct and adequate?

– Are the results clearly presented?

– Is the organisation of the article satisfactory (e.g. no discussion in Results)?

– Does the content justify the length?

– Are the figures and tables all necessary, complete (e.g. titles) and clearly

presented?

– Are the references adequate?

– Is the English correct and understandable to a multidisciplinary and

multinational readership?

Examples of topics

Agricultural Water Management • Irrigation, fertilization and agronomic practices

– At least two years of research, especially if dealing with slow changes like in soil chemistry

• Climate change – Hot topic, usually predictive modelling, predictions can’t be

validated, they need a high level of novelty

• Rainfall and evapotranspiration – Recommended Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

• Irrigation engineering and equipment – Recommended to engineering journals

• Reuse and treatment of wastewater in agriculture – Hot topic

• Catchment modelling – Runoff or streamflow studies recommended to journal of

Hydrology; land use and non-point-source pollution studies sent for review

2,000 STM Publishers

20,000 Peer-

Reviewed Journals

1.4 Million Peer-

Reviewed Articles

85

Scholarly Publishing Today

Scientific, Technical and Medical communities around

the world are united through STM Publishing

It is influenced by editorial policies of journals and

turnover of research

It is how many times the papers in a journal are cited

on average

The Impact Factor

86

Number of citable items

published in 2008 and 2009

All citations in 2010

to articles published in 2008 and 2009

Impact Factor

example

4214

1321

3.190 =

Plagiarism high amongst ethics issues

Sample of cases reported to Elsevier Journals publishing staff in 2012

88

89

Publishers provide free or low cost access to thousands of peer-reviewed journals to public institutions in

over 100 developing countries

Information Philanthropy