View
215
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Author Workshop
Publishing and Evaluating ResearchPaul Trevorrow
Executive Journals Editor
Global Research
Wiley- Blackwell
The agenda
Submission
Editorial
Production
Publication
Why publish?
….why?
Why publish?
The common argument…
Why publish?
Role of the publisher
Publisher
Editorial & author services
Marketing, Dissemination and
Discoverability
Community outreachArchiving
Registration/ validation and
prestige
Why publish?
Provisions for:Copy editingTypesettingAuthor tools
Provision of electronic editorial offices
Funding of Receiving editors
Provides a searchable platform
A&I servicingArticle linking
Promotion/marketing
Event sponsorshipGrants and awards
Author/referee workshopsDevelopment of new
services/technologies to assist researchers
Ensures a version of record is available in perpetuity
Digitization of legacy material. Maintaining the
completeness of the academic record
Publication with a reputable publisher assumes:
Peer review
Editorial processes adhere to industry agreed ethical
standards
Among leaders within the field
Wiley’s Anywhere Article
Why publish?
FameRecognition by your peers
Motivation for publication
FortunePromotions, grant applications, research funding
ResponsibilityTo society, taxpayer-funded research, contribution to progress
Why publish?
BECAUSE MY BOSS TOLD
ME TO!
Probably the most common driver….
Submission
Editorial decision
Production
Publication
Part II – submitting an article
Submission
Choosing a journal
Submission
What am I trying to say and how can I express it effectively?
• Research article• Short communication• Letter to the editor• Perspective• Review/Mini review article• Historical
Submission
Which journals publish the type of article that I want to write?
Which audience is right for me?
• Where do you read papers related to your
research?
• Which journals do you like the most?
• Where were your references published?
• What do your peers suggest?
Submission
Where does your boss want you to publish?
Evaluating the target journal• Prestige• Speed• Audience• Aesthetics• Author service / experience• Cost• Likelihood of acceptance
Submission
I don’t know where to submit or I want to survey my options.
• Publisher website (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
• Abstract and Indexing (A&I) services (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed etc)
• Google/Google Scholar
Submission
Preparing and submitting your manuscript
Submission
Read the author instructions and format your article appropriately
Writing up my research – the important components of a research article
Title
Abstract
Author name and position
Submission
The abstract – one of the most important elements of your article
• Referee and editor assessment
• Abstract and indexing / search-ability
Submission
What makes a good abstract?State why the research is important to a broader non-scientific audience
Introduce the procedure simply
Describe the experiment in detail
Offer a brief overview of the results
Submission
Think “structured” abstract format
Submission
What makes a bad abstract?Why? What is the significance of this study? Why is Gardeniae Fructus important?
Straight into a shopping list of the results and characterized acids
Submission
• Introduction• Method• Results and Discusssion• Conclusion
Submission
Typical structure of a research article
• Use one standard/common font (preferably Arial)• Use one font size• Avoid use of shadows/glows/reflections
• Check the author instructions with regard to reproducing colour• For ChemDraw images use the object settings set by the journal
Artwork
Submission
wileyeditingservices.com
authorservices.wiley.com
authorservices.wiley.com
How to write resources
Journal articles
Whitesides‘ Group: Writing a PaperG. M. Whitesides
Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1375
A Brief Guide to Designing Effective Figures for the Scientific Paper
M. Rolandi, K. Cheng, S. Pérez-KrizAdv. Mater. 2011, 23, 4343
How to write a paper for Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry
Rapid Comm. Mass Spec. 2012, 26, 1725
Submission
Why is this topic important?Why are these results significant?
What is the key result? (breakthrough!)Why are you submitting to this journal?Why will this journal’s readers read it?
...so your article is written, format is good. Time to submit your article with your covering letterTogether with the abstract of your paper, the cover letter is one of the
first things the editor will see, so make it count!
Keep the letter as direct and short as possibleThe longer it is, the easier it is to overlook something important
Submission
Submitting the manuscript• Typically via an Electronic Editorial Office (EEO) such as
ScholarOne Manuscripts
• Occasionally direct to Editor
Submission
Article submitted!
Submission
Now it’s over to the journal Editors….
Editorial
Production
Publication
Part IIIThe editorial process
Editorial
The editorial workflowManuscript submitted
Manuscript rejected
Manuscript sent back to author foralteration before resubmission
Editors examine and make Initial editorial decision
largely based on:
• Language• Formatting / completeness• Scope • Is the article type correct• Significance• Readership • Impact
Editorial
Send to peer reviewEnsures that the article is in a suitable state for peer review
The editorial workflow
Manuscript sent outfor peer review
Editor makes decisionbased on reports
3 GENERAL OUTCOMES
Passed initial screening
Editorial
Accept
Editorial
Revise
Editorial
• Major revision• Minor revision
Editorial
Accept
?Editorial
Revise – major/minor
Carefully consider reviewer comments• Approach a revision decision as an opportunity to develop
your paper into the best it can be • Referee’s comments should not be seen as negative criticisms
but development points• Not all changes have to be made but require convincing
arguments for changes not made
Remember! Your response may go back to reviewers.
You may need to convince them and the editor!
Editorial
Rejection
Technical/scientific issues
Motivation unclear/unimportant
Novelty/originality
Conclusions do not support the data
Results less important
Results uninteresting
Ethical questions
Unclear presentation
Editorial
Should you appeal a reject decision?
Usually, no
Risk of longer time to publication
Editors and referees know journal
Criticisms may be valid
Occasionally, yes
Importance / impact / novelty missed by
editor/referees
Factual errors in referee reports that led to rejection
Editorial
Peer review
Editorial
What is peer review?
“Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers).
It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.”
- Wikipedia
Editorial
Why do we peer review?
Suitability for publication
True / credible?Reproducible?
Important, relevant?Communicated effectively?
Novelty?Plagiarism?
Verify & improve the research
Interpretation of resultsReasoning
PresentationCritical but constructive
feedbackNew / additional ideas
Editorial
What peer review doesn’t do• Peer review checks the likelihood of reproducibility, it does
not recreate the experiments to verify reproducibility.
Editorial
What peer reviewers are asked to do – the typical questionnaire
Editorial
NoveltyConciseComprehensiveAccuracyAbstractCitationsLanguage
Decision
Structure
What peer reviewers are asked to do – the referee report
• Is the motivation clear and is it important?• Is the work novel and original?• Are the conclusions supported by the data?• Are the results important? • Are there any ethical questions?• Were any flaws or mistakes found?• Should anything be added or removed?• Does the author demonstrate a knowledge of prior work in the
field?• How might the article be improved?• Will the community find the article useful?
Editorial
On what basis are peer reviewers chosen?
Journal’s reviewer databaseCurrent and past authors / referees, bibliographic searches, keyword, interests, publication history.
Suggestions from authorsNot just the biggest names please – others as wellAlso list people with conflicts of interest who should not be asked to review
Suggestions from other reviewers
Advisory Board MembersThemselves or nomated referees
Editor’s own knowledge of the communityContacts from conferences, prominent scientists, regular authors, etc.
Editorial
Why be a peer reviewer?• Access to latest research before it is published• Duty in keeping the peer review mechanism buoyant• To enhance ones gravitas as an expert• To glean recognition by the editors• Pedagogical altruism• Visa application
Questions then break (15 mins)
Editorial
Editorial
Top ten tips for navigating ethical challenges in scholarly publishing
1.Adopt journal policy and practice that supports ethical best practice
2.Support efficient, effective, ethical peer review
3.Be mindful of breaches of publication ethics
4.Disclose conflict of interest
5.Accurately list those who contributed to the work and how
6.Comply with discipline guidelines for reporting standards
7.Ensure that ethical and responsible research is published
8.Take action and alert journals to suspected malpractice
9.Correct errors where found
10.Protect intellectual property
Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
Editorial
There are ethical responsibilities for all actors in the publication process:
EditorsAuthorsRefereesPublisher
Editorial
• Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript processing
• Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
• Make the final decision on a submission
• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for their own research
• Ensure a fair selection of referees
• Act upon allegations of scientific misconduct
• Deal fairly with author appeals
Editor responsibilities
Editorial
• To gather and interpret data in an honest way• To give due recognition to published work relating to
their manuscript • To give due acknowledgement to all contributors• Notify the publisher of any errors• To avoid undue fragmentation of work into multiple
manuscripts (salami publishing)• To ensure that a manuscript is submitted to only one
journal at a time
Author responsibilitiesEditorial
• Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts and respect privileged information
• Not to withhold a referee report for personal advantage
• Return to editor without review if there is a conflict of interest
• Inform editor quickly if not qualified or unable to review
• Judge manuscript objectively and in timely fashion
• Explain and support recommendations with arguments and references where appropriate
• Inform editor if plagiarized or falsified data is suspected
Reviewer responsibilities
Editorial
Falsifying data
Fabricating data
Plagiarism
Multiple concurrent/dual submissions
Image manipulation
Authorship misrepresentation
Duplicate publication
Ethical misconductExamples of ethical misconduct that are not tolerated:
Editorial
PENALTIES CAN BE SEVERE!
WATCHOUT!!!
•A Publisher’s Perspective, Second Edition now available FREE at http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines
•Updated version of the first edition published by Wiley in 2006
•Provides guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, researchers and other audiences
•The uniquely multidisciplinary guidelines have been revised, updated, and reviewed by 30 editors and ethics experts
•Guidance added about whistle-blowers, animal research and clinical research – particularly around clinical trial registration
•Now also includes guidance on best practice for journals in human rights and confidentiality, and addresses how approaches differ between cultures
Ethics Resources
Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
Editorial
Ethics resources
publicationethics.org
Part IVProduction
Production
The life of an accepted article – the production process
Copyediting
Typesetting
Production
The life of an accepted article – the production process
Copyediting
Typesetting
Correction
Print product Online product
Production
Manuscript published!Publication
Market your article
Publication
Tracking the “impact” of your article
Publication
That old classic - citation tracking
“These cited references are authors’ acknowledgments of their debt to the published research findings of others”
Publication
Citation universes
Web of Science~11,500
Scopus~16,500
Publication
Publication
The Impact Factor1963 Impact Factor
Publication
Journal level evaluation - The impact factorArticles published
in 2011
Articles published in
2010
Papers published in
2012
Article types counted in the denominator [citeable item]
Primary research articles, Review articles, Case reports, Proceedings papers.
Articles not counted in the denominator [not citeable item*]
Editorials, Corrections, Bibliographies, Letters, Abstracts.
Divided by the number of citeable items in 2011 and 2010
Publication
Why is the impact factor based on two-year citations?
“The two year period was chosen because in the fields that were of greatest interest to the readers of Current Contents, and later of the SCI...
…the primary fields of interest were molecular biology and biochemistry.
… nothing prevents the user of JCR from calculating three year or five year impact factors. I have done even seven year and 15 year calculations.”
E. Garfield, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2003, Vol. 3, Nº 2, pp. 363-369
Publication
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Num
ber
of
cita
tions
The impact factor window
Publication
Subject categories and their aggregate Impact Factors
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
HIS
TO
RY
CU
LT
UR
AL
ST
UD
-IE
S
MA
TH
EM
AT
ICS
NU
RS
ING
EC
ON
OM
ICS
MU
LT
IDIS
CI-
PL
INA
RY
AG
RI-
CU
LT
UR
E
BU
SIN
ES
S
AC
OU
ST
ICS
FO
OD
SC
IEN
CE
A
ND
TE
CH
NO
LO
GY
SP
OR
TS
SC
IEN
CE
S
BIO
LO
GY
PO
LY
ME
R S
CIE
NC
E
TO
XIC
OL
OG
Y
PS
YC
HIA
TR
Y
BIO
CH
EM
IST
RY
A
ND
MO
LE
CU
LA
R
BIO
LO
GY
MU
LT
IDIS
CI-
PL
INA
RY
CH
EM
-IS
TR
Y
CE
LL
BIO
LO
GY M
UL
TID
ISC
I-P
LIN
AR
Y S
CIE
NC
ES
Ag
gre
ga
te im
pa
ct facto
r
Myth? Research published in a high impact factor journal is more valuable than research published in a low impact factor journal
Published in 2005 Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry – Impact Factor: 2.750
By comparisonScience– Impact Factor: 31.853
Publication
“Skewness”
Seglen P.O. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci, 1992, 49(9):628
Publication
Pros and cons of the Impact FactorPros
•It is fundamentally a sound premise•It is transparent•It is easy to explain•It is efficient•After 50 years of use it is established
Cons
•Target period (window) is not appropriate for all subject areas•Free citations to ‘non citable’ items•A citation is not necessarily a validation•Differences in referencing behaviour between subjects•Misused to judge author performance
The H-index
2005H-index
Publication
H – index
• Equation: An individual has an index of h, when they have published at least h papers, each of which has been cited at least h times
• The index was created in an attempt to move away from journal based measures such as the Impact Factor. An index which was applicable at the author level, accounting for the fact that the distribution of citations between articles can be tremendously skewed, even for the same author
• Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102(46), 16569-16572
Publication
Example 1
Article Citations
Article 1 3
Article 2 3
Article 3 4
Author A has published 3 articles3 of these articles have at least 3 citations = H
index of 3
Bibliographic record for author A
Publication
Example 2
Article Citations
Article 1 3
Article 2 4
Article 3 2
Article 4 9
Article 5 2
Article 6 1
Author B has published 6 articles3 of these articles have at least 3 citations = H
index of 3The author will gain a H index of 4 when a total of
4 articles achieve 4 or more citations each.
Bibliographic record for author B
Publication
Example 3
Article Citations
Article 1 1,000,001
Article 2 2,000,000
Author C has published 2 articles
Both articles have been cited over 1 million times
The author only has 2 papers so the maximum H index achievable is 2
The author will gain a H index of 3 when another article is published and it achieves 3 citations
Author C
Publication
H-index = 8!
Publication
Pros and Cons of the H-index
Pros•Elegant•Efficient•Transparent•Removes bias from individual highly cited articles•Can be mobilized to evaluate a number of criteria, not just the author (e.g. institute, country, region)
Cons•Longitudinal bias•No baseline•It cannot decrease•It may increase without an author publishing any new work•Seminal thinkers may not necessarily publish lots of articles•Citation index dependent – which database citation count is correct?
Altmetric
Publication
Ethical responsibilities for all•
Disclose conflict of interest •
Be mindful of breaches of publication ethics•
Correct errors where found •
Protect intellectual property
• Take action and alert journals to suspected malpractice
Recommended