Transcript Slide 1

Editor's advice of getting published
UTS library research week
Jie Lu
Editor-in-Chief
Knowledge-Based Systems
Faculty of EIT
University of Technology Sydney
[email protected]
Outline
1. Editorial issues: editorial process and impact
factor
2. Publication issues: distribution, speed and
acceptance rate
3. Guideline for writing high quality manuscripts:
4. Revisions and response to reviewers
2
Using KBS as an example
3
1. Editorial Issues
To publish a paper
4
Purpose of peer review
Check the
manuscript for
• Mistakes in procedures or logic
• Conclusions not supported by the results
• Errors or omissions in the references
• Compliance with ethics standards
• Animal research: e.g. “Guiding Principles in the Care and
Use of Laboratory Animals”
• Human research: Most recent “Declaration of Helsinki”
• Originality of the work
• Significance of the work
5
Basic peer review process
Author
Editor
Reviewer
START
Submit a
paper
Basic requirements met?
[Yes]
Assign
reviewers
[No]
REJECT
Revise the
paper
Collect reviewers’
recommendations
[Reject]
Review and give
recommendation
Make a
decision
[Revision required]
[Accept]
ACCEPT
6
Review process (i)
Regular articles are initially reviewed by at least two reviewers
When invited, the reviewer receives the Abstract of the manuscript; if a
reviewer rejects to review, the editor will invite another one
The editor generally requests that the article be reviewed within reasonable
time (such as 7-8 weeks), limited extensions sometimes acceptable
Reviewers are invited mainly from the journal reviewer database; Authors
could become reviewers with key research areas.
The reviewers’ reports help the Editors to reach a decision on a submitted
paper
• The reviewer is the recommends; the editor decides!
7
Review process (ii)
If a report has not been received in good time, the Editorial office contacts
the reviewer by sending reminders (such as one week before, one week
after the deadlines..)
If a reviewer cannot submit his/her review report after few reminders, the
editor will un-invite him/her and re-invite a new reviewer. It will delay at
least 7 weeks to feedback to authors
If there is a notable disagreement between the reports of the reviewers, a
third reviewer may be consulted
If a review report is not written in a professional, way the editor will invite a
new reviewer as well.
The anonymity of the reviewers is strictly maintained
Conflict of interests will be identified (same organisation, co-authors...)
8
Review process (iii)
• Reviewers do not communicate directly
with authors
• All manuscripts must be treated confidentially by
editors and reviewers
– The manuscript cannot be distributed outside
this small group
As author
As editor
As reviewer
As reader
• The aim is to have a “first decision” to the authors
as fast as possible after submission of the
manuscript
• Meeting these schedule objectives requires a
significant effort on the part of the Editorial staff,
Editor and Reviewers
As a researcher,
you wear many
hats!
• If reviewers treat authors as themselves would like to
be treated as authors, then these objectives can be
met
9
• Importance and clarity of
research hypothesis
• Originality and innovation of
work
• Delineation of strengths and
weaknesses of methodology,
experimental / statistical
approach, interpretation of
results
• Writing style and figure / table
presentation
• Ethics concerns
“ Novelty”
Reviewers look at
“ Technical” Quality
10
Rejection without external review
The Editor-in-chief evaluates all submissions, and determines
whether they go into the review process or are rejected by the editor
(pre-rejection) (about 20-30% of new submissions)
Criteria
• Out of scope (journal scope/focus is dynamic; the focuses between
two similar journals)
• Too preliminary
• Lack of novelty and innovation
• English language is inadequate
• Prior publication of (part of) the data
• Multiple simultaneous submissions of same data
Benefit to authors—submit to another journal or conference
Benefit to reviewers---save their time
11
Reviewer comments to Editors
• Comment on novelty and significance
• Recommend whether the manuscript is suitable for publication or not,
usually
– Accept / Minor revision / Major Revision / Reject
Reviewer makes a
recommendation
Editor makes
the decision
• Confidential comments will not be disclosed to author(s)!
12
Reviewer checklist
Confidential checklist meant for editor’s eyes only
Rating Scale
Top 10%____Top 25% ____ Top 50%_____ Lower 50%____
For each of Experimental Design, Data Quality, Originality,
Overall priority
Manuscript
Length
OK ______ E(xpand) ______ S(horten) ______
For each of Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results,
Discussion, References
Recommendation to
editor
Accept / Minor revision / Major Revision / Reject
13
What you get back from review?
• Accepted without change (very rare!)
• Minor revision (means you will have to change a few things, such as
figures, provide more data, etc)
• Mayor revision (means you will have to dares some fundamental
shortcomings – possibly doing additional research and certainly
rewriting big sections)
• Rejection (means the manuscript is not deemed suitable for
publication in that journal) (in principle, don’t encourage authors
revise and re-submit.
• The re-submitted revised version will be sent out to previous
reviewers (or new reviewers when previous reviewers are not
available) for review again if you received “major” revision.
14
KBS review times per stage
Author
revision
2nd and 3rd round
review
Initial peer
review
<- Accepted!
<- reject after
revision
<- reject after 1st
review round
<- Desk reject
15
2. Publication Issues
• Acceptance and rejection rates
• Publication speed
16
KBS 2013(-Oct) report
(acceptance and rejection rates)
Subm.
No. of
articles
Total
1266
(1300)
Final disposition
No. of
articles
1259
(1241)
Processing times (in weeks)
Results
Subm. to
1st decn.
Auth. rev.
time
Sub. to fin.
disp.
Withdrawn
Accepted
Rejected
Rejec. rate
8.3
(16.1)
10.2
(10.2)
13.6
(21.7)
37
(20)
220
(224)
1002
(997)
0.82
(0.82)
17
Publication speed (in weeks)
Publication speed (in weeks) 2013
Production
time
All
issues
No. of
articles
Editorial
time
218
33.9
Publication time
Article in Complete
final
issue on
version on
web
web
2.8
8.2
Printed
issue
On web
Printed
issue
13.8
42
46.3
From submission of a paper to get a result (reject/accept) --- in average,
33.9 weeks, 7.5 months;
If a paper is accepted, from its submission to online with issues---in
average, 42 weeks, 9.5 months.
18
Editorial per year
19
KBS published issues
(2012 and 2013)
Published
Issues
26C to 37C
2012
Number of issues
Pages
Editorial pages
12
3196
3138
2013
Issues
38C to 53C
Number of issues
Pages
Editorial pages
16
2584
2528
20
KBS issue progress
21
3. Writing a Quality Manuscript
•
•
•
•
Preparations,
Article construction,
Language and
Technical details
22
Writing a quality manuscript
• Preparations
23
Can I publish this?
• Have you done something new and interesting?
• Have you checked the latest results in the field?
• Have the findings been verified?
• Have the appropriate controls been performed?
• Do your findings tell a nice story or is the story
incomplete?
• Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
• Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
If all answers are “yes”, then start preparing your
manuscript.
24
Quality of the work
Are the methods appropriate and presented in sufficient detail to allow the
results to be repeated?
Are the data adequate to support the conclusions?
Methods
Results
1. Do all “methods” have a
“results”?
2. Have all “results” been
described in the “Methods”?
Conclusions
1. Are all “conclusions” based
on “results”?
25
What type of manuscript?
Full articles / Original articles
Short Communications
Review papers
• Self-evaluate your work: Is it sufficient for a full article?
Or are your results so thrilling that they need to be
revealed as soon as possible?
• Short communication papers also need review process
• Reviewer papers are normally written by established
researchers with track record in this area
• Ask your supervisor and colleagues for advice on
manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders may see things
more clearly than you.
26
Which journal?
Consider:
• Aims and scope (check journal websites and recent articles)
• Types of articles
• Readership
• Acceptance rate
• Impact factors
• Process speed
• Current hot topics (go through recent abstracts)
Check that the scope of the paper is appropriate for the selected journal
– change journal rather than submit inappropriately
Submit your paper to the journal where you can find more interesting
papers in your research area.
27
Format
• Consult and apply the list of guidelines in the
“Guide for Authors”
• Ensure that you use the correct:
– Layout
– Section lengths (stick to word limits)
– Nomenclature, abbreviations and spelling (British vs.
American)
– Reference format
– Number/type of figures and tables
– Statistics
28
Presentation of the paper
Writing
• Clear, concise, good English?
• But no need for reviewers to act as language editor
Title
• Specific, and reflecting the content of the
manuscript?
Abstract
• Brief, and describing the purpose of the work, what
was done, what was found, and the significance?
Figures
• Justified? Clear? Sharp, with fonts proportionate to
the size of the figure? Clear and complete legends?
Tables
• Can they be simplified or condensed? Should any
be omitted?
Trade names,
abbreviations,
symbols
• Properly used where indicated? Abused?
29
Final checks
Revision before submission can prevent early rejection
What can I do to ensure my paper is in the best
possible state prior to submission?
•Ask colleagues to take a look and be critical
•Check that everything meets the requirements set out in the Guide
for Authors – again!
•If necessary, get an editing service to improve the language and
ensure that the manuscript possesses the three “C”s
•Ensure that the literature cited is balanced and that the aims and
purpose of the study, and the significance of the results, are clear
30
Writing a quality manuscript
• Article construction
31
Article structure
•
•
•
•
Title
Authors
Abstract
Keywords
Need to be accurate and informative for
effective indexing and searching
• Main text (IMRaD)
– Introduction
– Methods
– Results
– Discussion (Conclusion)
Each has a distinct function
• Acknowledgements
• References
• Supplementary materials
32
Title
A good title should contain the fewest possible words
that adequately describe the contents of a paper
DO
Convey main findings of
research
Be specific
Be concise
Be complete
Attract readers
DON’T
Use unnecessary jargon
Use uncommon
abbreviations
Use ambiguous terms
Use unnecessary detail
Focus on part of the
content only
33
Title
A combination of CF method and social network to
generate more accurate recommendations in
recommender systems
A social network –based collaborative filtering
method for recommender systems
34
Abstract
The quality of an abstract will strongly influence
the editor’s decision
A good abstract:
•Is precise and honest
•Can stand alone
•Uses no technical jargon
•Is brief and specific
•Cites no references
Use the abstract to “sell” your article
35
Keywords
Keywords are important for indexing: they
enable your manuscript to be more easily
identified and cited
Check the Guide for Authors for journal
requirements
•Keywords should be specific
•Avoid uncommon abbreviations and general terms
36
Keywords
Bad keywords:
Combination of social network and CF, RS;
recommender system sample, association
Good keywords:
Social network, collaborative filtering; recommender
systems, association ruls
37
Introduction
Provide the necessary background
information to put your work into context
It should be clear from the introduction:
•Why the current work was performed
–aims
–significance
•What has been done before (in brief terms)
•What is your main contribution? Innovation?
•What is your research methodology (in brief terms)
38
Methods
The Methods section must provide sufficient information so
that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment
List suppliers of reagents and manufacturers of equipment, and define
apparatus in familiar terms:
“using an AD 340C plate reader (Beckman Coulter)”
OR
“using a plate reader (Beckman Coulter AD 340C)
NOT
“using a Beckman Coulter AD 340C.”
Unless the Guide for Authors states otherwise, use the past tense; the
present tense is usually only used in methodology-type papers
39
Results
The main findings of the research
DO
•Use figures and
tables to summarize
data
•Show the results of
statistical analysis
•Compare “like with
like”
DON’T
•Duplicate data among
tables, figures and
text
•Use graphics to
illustrate data that can
easily be summarized
with text
40
Graphics
•Legend is poorly defined
•Graph contains too much
data
•No trend lines
41
Graphics
•Legend is well
defined but there is
still too much data
and no trendlines
42
Graphics
•Legend is clear
•Data is better organized
•Trend lines are present
43
Conclusion
Put your study into CONTEXT
Describe how it represents an advance in the field
Suggest future experiments
BUT
Avoid repetition with other sections
Avoid being overly speculative
Don’t over-emphasize the impact of your study
44
References
Check the Guide for Authors for the correct format
Check
Avoid
•Spelling of author names
•Personal communications,
unpublished observations
and submitted manuscripts
not yet accepted
•Punctuation
•Number of authors to
include before using “et
al.”
•Reference style
•Page no
•Citing articles published
only in the local language
•Excessive self-citation and
journal self-citation
•Journal and conference
45
Writing a quality manuscript
• Language
46
The three “C”s
Good writing possesses the following three “C”s:
•Clarity
•Conciseness
•Correctness (accuracy)
The key is to be as brief and specific as
possible without omitting essential details
47
Know the enemy
Good writing avoids the following traps:
•Repetition 反复
•Redundancy 重复
•Ambiguity 含糊
•Exaggeration 夸张
These are common annoyances for editors
48
Conciseness
•Example 1: Method, approach,..
•In Abstract:
“This paper proposes a new ABC method to deal with...”
•In Section 1
“We developed a new ABC approach which can ...”
Example 2: “Knowledge-based system” and “knowledge
base system”
49
Writing a quality manuscript
• Technical details
50
Layout
•Keep line spacing, font and font size consistent throughout
– double-spaced 12-point Times New Roman is preferred
•Use consistent heading styles throughout and no more
than three levels of heading
•Number the pages
•Order and title sections as instructed in the Guide for
Authors – Figure and Table sections are normally together
following References
51
Length
“…25-30 pages is the ideal length for a submitted
manuscript, including ESSENTIAL data only”
Julian Eastoe, Co-editor, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science
Consult the Guide for Authors for word and graphic limits
Letters or short communications have stricter limits on
the length. For example, 3000 words with no more than
five illustrations.
52
Abbreviations
• Define non-standard abbreviations on first use in both
the abstract and the main text
• Check the Guide for Authors for a list of standard
abbreviations that don’t need defining
• Don’t abbreviate terms used only once or twice in the
entire manuscript – spell these out in full
• Acronyms: capitals not required in the definition unless
a proper noun or start of a sentence
ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS)
NOT
Ubiquitin Proteasome System (UPS)
53
Cover letter
• This is your chance to speak to the editor directly
• Keep it brief, but convey the particular importance of
your manuscript to the journal
• Suggest potential reviewers (editor will decide to
use or not)
This is your opportunity to convince the journal editor
that they should consider your study, so it is worth
investing time at this stage
54
Cover letter
Include:
• Editor name – Address to journal editor, not generic
• First sentence – provide title, author list and journal name
• Briefly describe:
• your research area and track record
• the main findings of your research
• the significance of your research
• Confirm the originality of the submission
• Confirm that there are no competing financial interests
55
4. Revisions and
Response to Reviewers
•
•
•
•
•
First decision
Revision: a great learning opportunity
Response report
Rejection: not the end of the world
Post-referee revision
56
First decision
Accepted
Rejected
• Very rare
• Probability 80%...
• Do not despair
•
It happens to everybody
• Try to understand WHY
•
• Congratulations!
– Cake for the department
– Now wait for page proofs and then
for your article online and in print
Consider reviewers’ advice (they spent
time for you!)
• If you submit to another journal,
begin as if it were a new
manuscript
•
•
Take advantage of the reviewers’
comments. They may review your
(resubmitted) manuscript again!
Read the Guide for Authors of the new
journal, again and again.
57
First decision: “Major” or “Minor” Revisions
Major revision
– The manuscript may finally be published in the journal
– Significant deficiencies must be corrected before acceptance
– Usually involves (significant) textual modifications and/or
additional experiments
Minor revision
– Basically, the manuscript is worth to be published
– Some elements in the manuscript must be clarified, restructured,
shortened (often) or expanded (rarely)
– Textual adaptations
– “Minor revision” does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision!
• Often two reviewer reports, one minor and one major.
January 2012
58
Revision: a great learning opportunity!
• Value the opportunity to discuss your work directly with other
scientists in your community
• Prepare a detailed report of response
– Cut and paste each comment by the reviewer. Answer it directly
below. Do not miss any point.
– State specifically the changes (if any) you have made to the
manuscript. Identify the page and line number
• A typical problem – discussion is provided, but it is not clear
what changes have actually been made.
• Provide a scientific response to the comment you accept, or a
convincing, solid and polite rebuttal to the point you think the
reviewer is wrong.
• Write in a way that your responses can be forwarded by the editor to
the reviewer.
January 2012
59
A detailed report of response
•State specifically what changes you have made to address
the reviewers’ comments, mentioning the page and line
numbers where changes have been made
•Avoid repeating the same response over and over; if a
similar comment is made by multiple people explain your
position once and refer back to your earlier response in
responses to other reviewers or the editor
60
Rejection: not the end of the world
•Everyone has papers rejected--Accepting rejection
•Do not take it personally - I have yet to meat anyone how whose
manuscript had never been rejected, including Nobel prize
winners, editors,
•Don’t resubmit elsewhere without significant revisions addressing
the reasons for rejection and checking the new Guide for Authors
•Try to understand why the paper was rejected
•Note that you have received the benefit of the editors and
reviewers’ time! take their advice serious!
•Re-evaluate your work and decide whether it is appropriate to
submit the paper elsewhere.
If so, begin as if you are going to write a new article.
Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal, again and
again.
January 2012
61
Summary:
What gets you accepted?
Attention to details
Check and double check your work
Consider the reviews
English must be as good as possible
Presentation is important
Take your time with revision
Acknowledge those who have helped you
New, original and previously unpublished
Critically evaluate your own manuscript
Ethical rules must be obeyed
– Nigel John Cook, Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews
62
To be success!
[email protected]
Acknowledgement to Elsevier team
63