Transcript پژوهش های کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی در بريت

Writing
For ISI journals
Hamid R. Jamali
[email protected]
1
An ISI article: Ingredients
motivation, the more the better
 enthusiasm, the more the better
 Something to say
 Patience, as much as required

Types of articles
Research article
 Review article
 Point of view
 Work in progress
 Letter
…

Sections of article









Title
Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Aims and objectives
Literature review
Methods
Results
Discussion and conclusion
Title



Keep it short and attractive
Use as many keywords as possible
Start with keyword if possible


Avoid using words like




5
Essential hypertension: The effect of
“Studies on….”
“Characterisation of ….”
“Observations on….”
“Investigations into….”
Title: declarative
Descriptive (neutral): Impact of open
access on citations received by
articles.
 Question: Do open access articles
receive more citations?
 Declarative: Open access articles
receive more citations.

6
Questions
Sometimes if there is no clear answer
to question
 For review articles


7
How long is a giant sperm? (Nature)
Use verbs instead of abstract
nouns
Treatment of polycystic ovary
syndrome
 How to treat . . . (this is more
dynamic)

8
Avoid abbreviations in the
title
OCs o-t-c? (editorial in Lancet, 1993)
 Maybe exception: Oral contraceptives
over-the-counter?

9
Abstract

Usually structured
Background/aims
 Method
 Results
 Conclusion

Avoid abbreviation
 Make it informative

10
Introduction
New England Journal of Medicine
(1975)
Most medical communications are
difficult to read. To determine why,
contributions to three issues of the
New England Journal of Medicine
were studied and the prose analyzed.

11
example
Nose bleeds in adults are the commonest
reason for emergency admission to an
otolaryngology ward, but the cause of the
condition remains unknown. Case reports
suggest an association between nose
bleeds and regular, high alcohol
consumption.
We conducted a prospective case-control
study to compare the alcohol habits of
adults with nose bleeds with those of
controls being treated for other
otorhinolaryngological conditions.
12
Literature review
 Show
that you know the literature
 Use the literature; Citation is not
enough
 Show your research will contribute
to knowledge in this field
 What is the gap you are trying to fill
13
Method
Provide
the information a reader
needs in order to understand (and
replicate) your research
E.g., clear explanation of the
sample, procedure
Others should be able to repeat
your research
Results
Do
the necessary, relevant
analyses to test the research
question, hypotheses
Make sure the analyses are
appropriate
Do not discuss the results in
results section
Discussion
Giving
a summary of findings is not
enough
Address the research question/s
Integrate the relevant literature
State your contribution
Acknowledge limitations
What’s the conclusion?
What tense, Past or
present?
Use tense to show the status
 Summary and abstract: past
 Introduction: present
 Methods & Results: past
 Discussion: past & present
 For facts and generalization: present

17
Present perfect

For repeated observation…: present
perfect
These drugs have been shown to
produce significant elevations in blood
pressure.
18
Past
Use past tense to discuss results that
cannot be generalized
 Barber (1980) reported that 28% of
the 396 wasps in his study showed
signs of parasitism.
 Use the past tense for unpublished
results
 In the study presented here, the drug
killed 95% of the tuberculosis bacilli.

19
Present

Use the present tense to refer readers
to your figures and tables
Antibodies occurred in 11% of our mice,
as Table 1 indicates.
20
Abbreviation
Use the standard form
 Be consistent PhD or Ph.D
 Don’t overuse
 Use the full form the first time

21
Avoid jargons
22
Keep it short and simple
At this point in time use
Now
Due to the fact that
Because
High degree of accuracy
Accurate
Employ, utilize
Use
In the event that
If
Make a decision
Decide
Make a choice
Choose
Formulate a plan
Plan
Have a discussion
Discuss
Implement
Do
23
Avoid gender bias
Instead of: Each technician must be
sure that s/he signs his/her time card.
 Better but awkward: Each technician
must be sure to sign his or her time
card.
 Better yet: Each technician must be
sure to sign a time card.

24
American or British?
Just be consistent
 ..ization, ize (isation, ise)
 Favor, color (colour, favour)
 Center (centre)

25
Rules for simple writing
Use the active voice
 Use articles wherever possible
 Use simple verb tenses
 Use language and terminology
consistently
 Avoid lengthy compound words
 Use relatively short sentences

26
Ask yourself
So what?
 Who cares?

Collaboration
Try to co-author your first paper with
an experienced author
 Collaboration increases the quality
and chance of acceptance
 Always make the order of authors
clear in the beginning

Plagiarism
Don’t submit to two journals
simultaneously
 Don’t copy text without quoting
 ….

Selecting the
target journal
30
When to choose?

31
Choose journal early in the writing
process
What to look for?
Where does your supervisor publish?
 Where do your colleagues publish?
 Which journals are you reading?
 Which journals do you cite?
 Check recent editorial notes for any
changes in direction

32
32
Factors to consider
Significance of your work, be realistic
 Target audience
 Journal scope statement
 Articles on a similar topic

33
33
Review and publication
Speed of review
 Speed of publication
 Cost of publication (e.g. color pages)
 Access policy (Open Access)

34
34
Journal Website

Find the website
Scope statement
 Editor and contact information
 Time to publication
 Author fees


35
Look for “Calls for Papers”
35
Final Decision
Discuss with your supervisor
 Discuss with your collaborators
 Select 1st and 2nd choice journals

36
36
Overshooting
and Undershooting
Seek the advice of colleagues
 If you overshoot, be prepared for
rejection
 Don’t undershoot to guarantee
publication

37
37
ISI Journals

38
Check Journal Citation Reports
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Search for a specific journal
51
52
53
Journal Immediacy Index
‫ متوسط تعداد دفعاتي كه يك مقاله در سال انتشار‬
.‫خود مورد استناد قرار مي گيرد‬





54
The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an
article is cited in the year it is published.
The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly
articles in a journal are cited.
The Immediacy Index is calculated by dividing the
number of citations to articles published in a given year
by the number of articles published in that year.
Frequently issued journals may have higher II and vice
versa
Useful for comparing journals in cutting-edge research
Journal Impact Factor
‫ تعداد ارجاعات به مقاالت منتشرشده دو سال قبل‬
‫مجله در سال مورد ارزیابی‬




55
IF is the average number of times articles from the
journal published in the past two years have been cited
in the JCR year.
The Impact Factor is calculated by dividing the number
of citations in the JCR year by the total number of
articles published in the two previous years.
E.g. IF=2.5 means that, on average, the articles
published one or two year ago have been cited two
and a half times.
Citing articles may be from the same journal
Impact Factor 2007 Hydrobiologia
Cites in 2007 to
articles published
in:
2006 =
525
2005 =
753
Sum:
Calculation:
56
Number of
articles
published
in:
1278
2006 =
602
2005 =
462
Sum:
Cites to
recent
articles
1278
Number
of recent
articles
1064
=
1.201
1064
5-Year Journal Impact
Factor


57
is the average number of times articles from
the journal published in the past five years
have been cited in the JCR year. It is
calculated by dividing the number of
citations in the JCR year by the total
number of articles published in the five
previous years.
It is available only in JCR 2007 and
subsequent years.
Aggregate Impact Factor


58
The aggregate Impact Factor for a subject category is
calculated the same way as the Impact Factor for a
journal,
The Impact Factor mitigates the importance of
absolute citation frequencies. It tends to discount the
advantage of large journals over small journals
because large journals produce a larger body of citable
literature. For the same reason, it tends to discount the
advantage of frequently issued journals over less
frequently issued ones and of older journals over
newer ones. Because the journal impact factor offsets
the advantages of size and age, it is a valuable tool for
journal evaluation.
Median Impact Factor

59
is the median value of all journal
Impact Factors in the subject
category.
Prior to Submission
and Submission
60
Instructions for Authors
or Author guidelines
Locate on journal website
 Read carefully
 Instructions for preparing the
manuscript
 Ethical policies and standards

Authorship
 Pre-publication

61
61
62
63
Submitting
Your Manuscript
How to submit (usually electronically)
 Review process
 Time frame for review
 Forms needed for copyright and
permissions

64
64
Before You Submit








65
Proofread the manuscript, tables and figures
one more time
Accuracy
Spelling/grammar (read on paper)
Double-check the correctness of the
figures/tables vs. manuscript
Double-check the references (20%)
Have your colleagues read the paper
scope, type of paper, word length, references
style, etc
Cite relevant articles published in that journal.
65
Cover Letter

Disclosures

Prior publication
• Published in abstract form
• Published as draft on web site (give
location)
• Published another paper that is similar
(give citation)

Figure adjustments
Reviewer suggestions or exclusions
 Thank the editor

66
66
Add the Additional Forms
Final version of manuscript
 Final versions of figures/tables
 Letter to editor (Cover letter)
 Correct forms (submission form,
copyright, conflict of interest, etc.)
 Payment (if applicable)

67
67
Experience Issues
Suggesting reviewers
 Excluding certain reviewers
 Querying Journal Editor

68
68
What Happens Next?

69
Peer review
69
Review
and
the result
Peer review
Normally 1-3 referees, normally 2
 Double-blind
 20 days – a few months

Review results

You have waited a few months and
now you receive a decision letter from
the editor
Accept, reject, conditional…
 Rejection is a fact of life, everybody
has got rejected once
73
Example: an Emerald Journal
29% published
55% rejected
16% withdrawn
Reviewers look for








Originality – what’s new about subject, treatment or
results?
Relevance to and extension of existing knowledge
Research methodology – are conclusions valid and
objective?
Clarity, structure and quality of writing – does it
communicate well?
Sound, logical progression of argument
Theoretical and practical implications (the ‘so what?’
factors!)
Recency and relevance of references
Adherence to the editorial scope and objectives of the
journal
Referees
Their comments are not personal
 They are helping you for free
 Listen to their suggestions, unless you
really have a good reason not to do so

results
Pure accept
Revise minor problems and resubmit
Revise major problems and resubmit
Rejected but will entertain a resubmit
Rejected and dismissed
Rejected by editor
77
What if rejected? 
Don’t get disappointed
 examine why
 make changes, find another target, or
 make significant change?
 Improve and submit somewhere else
 Maybe even to a better journal

The most common mistakes,
as reported by reviewers
 This is the wrong journal for this
manuscript
 This paper has no (or inadequate)
theoretical foundation
 Proof-reading errors
 The manuscript does not follow the style
for this journal
 the article is too long
 Writing style:
 verbose, vague, unclear;
 too many ‘bullet points’;
 lack of justification of claims,
generalisations;
The most common mistakes
(cont.)









‘Key’ references are not cited
References are cited but has the author actually
read them?
The manuscript structure is illogical, difficult to
follow
What is the author really trying to test?
Inadequate argument leading to hypotheses
I cannot understand or do not approve of the
research method
The research analysis is inappropriate / inadequate
The discussion misrepresents the findings
So what? Does this paper make a contribution?
How to handle a ‘revise & resubmit’





Be polite (it’s a small world)
Follow the recommendations as much
as possible (referees volunteer their
time, they are trying to be helpful!)
Follow the editor’s advice, instructions
Address each of the points made by
each referee
Return the revised MS as soon as
possible