(How to) Get Published...Get Published: Your How To Guide •Keywords up front, and optimised (N.B. Google et al.) •State a key finding, or frame a question •Short – typically

Get Published: Your How To Guide

(How to) Get Published

Peter Rosenbaum and Bernard DanEACD 2018


What to publish?

What DEFINITELY to publish:• Original and significant results or methods

• Reviews or summaries of a particular subject, particularly synthetic

• Basically: work that advances the knowledge and understanding in a certain scientific field, or provides a valuable resource

What NOT to publish:• Reports of little scientific interest (but see below)• Out of date work• Duplications or part-duplications of previously published work

What to THINK CAREFULLY about publishing:• Preliminary results (are they useful, or are they too inconclusive?)

• Replication of results but in a different system

• Ask yourself: where could I best publish these?


Basically, a “good story”, which - in more scientific terms - is:

•Scientifically sound, significant results that also represent a significant contribution (to the literature) in an area of research, and that would be of substantial interest and relevance to a large proportion of the journal’s readership.

•A scientific narrative that structures and binds the results together into an integrative picture that presents something new, be it an empirical observation, a proof, or an explicit hypothesis/model of predictive value.

What does the editor want to publish?


Knowing whether you have a “good story”

Easy:

•Your PI says “I think we’ve got a good story here…” :-)

•You have solved a discrete and important “puzzle”, e.g. X-ray crystal structure of a protein; organic synthesis pathway; formal proof of a theorem…

•Discovery of something completely novel and discrete, e.g. a new species

Hard:

•Incremental progress towards understanding a complex system (very common in biology): is the work useful to know about?

•Circumstantial “evidence” in support of a hypothesis

Bottom line:

If in doubt, start writing immediately!


Which type of manuscript?

PROS CONSConference Paper:

Typically follow a template e.g. 5-10 pages, 3 figures, 15

references

Excellent for sharing early or in progress research findings; normally

get a quick answer

"yes" or "no” response

Letter or Rapid/Short Communication:

Much shorter than full articles (check limitations)

Early communication of significant and original advances; normally get

a quick answer

"yes" or "no” response

Full original article (Journal paper):

a substantial and significant completed piece of research

Reviewers' feedback helps you to improve your paper

Can be a longer process

Review paper: summarize developments on a

specific topic. Highlight important previously reported points. Not the

place to introduce new information…

Reviewers' feedback helps you to improve your paper

Can be a longer process; often by invitation- always consult with editor

before submission


Selecting the right journal

Look at your references – these will help you narrow your choices and come up with a shortlist.

Review recent publications in each candidate journal. Find out the hot topics, the accepted types of articles, etc.

Ask yourself the following questions: Who is this journal’s audience? What is the average time to publication? What is the journal’s standing in the research

community in question? Are there publication charges?

Decide on one journal. DO NOT submit to multiple journals.


Identify the right audience for your paper

Core of your Field

Very important for peer recognition and

citation.

Community somewhat outside

Broadening

recognition of your

research and research

area.

Communities at interfaces

…between your discipline and other disciplines (could initiate interesting trans-disciplinary collaboration!).


What?So What?What now?


Two important principles

• Clear, concise messages in statement form or question form are the key to successful communication.

• Principles should be emphasized without interweaving of qualifying details: detail obscures the message!


A little “Titleology”


The involvement of X in Y

X does Z in Y

A basic rule for titles

Effect of…

Involvement of…

Evidence of…

Role of…

Insights into…

Implications of…

✘ ✘ ✔


An explicit title can help get you citations because of the way in

which scientists look for relevant literature to cite

“Read before you cite!” in ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/condmat/0212043

Titleology


• Keywords up front, and optimised (N.B. Google et al.)

• State a key finding, or frame a question

• Short – typically up to 15 words

• Punctuation to split into main message/concept and qualifier

• Cephalopod origin and evolution: A congruent picture emerging from fossils, development and molecules

• Consider a subtitle, if permitted (included in search engine output!)

For editorial “What’s in a title” see: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201190063/full

Specific guidelines for good titles

Titleology


When writing or optimizing titles, think of how your paper will be found, once

published…


• Apply titleology to the section-headings and sections in your paper to help create a scientific story in statement- or question-form that leads readers through the ideas logically.

• Introduce sections with a summary of what the section communicates.

• End sections with another very brief summary, this time adding implications.

Basic scientific narrative


A little “Abstractology”


Deese and Kaufman (1957) Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material , J Exp Psychol. 1957 Sep; 54(3):180-187Murdock, B.B., Jr. (1962) The Serial Position Effect of Free Recall, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482-488

Serial position effect

recall

primacy recencyt

Structure and brevity


• Put something important and new at the beginning.

• Put something important and new at the end.

• Don’t make the middle part longer than necessary as background information for your intended readership.

Therefore, in an abstract:


Keep your lowest level sections below 600 words; better 300, if possible

MAIN BODY - Apply the principle of “chunking” throughout your manuscript…

Section headingSection headingSub-heading

Sub-heading

Sub-heading

On the left:this is hard to digest

and remember …

On the right:this is easier to

digest and remember


A little ‘Googleology’


Make sure the terms you use are consistent:e.g. which one: “dorsoventral”, “dorso-ventral”, “dorsal-ventral”? Which is more used in the literature?

Choose and place keywords wisely

Headings and body text: Consistent use of keywords

Abstract: Repeat core keywords / key-phrases 2 – 3 times, and add other field-related ones

Title: Core keywords / key-phrases


… and use tables and information boxes to organise important details when possible

Box 1abc abc abc

xyz

xyz

xyz

xyz


…. In your body text, write in short sentences

Although it has been demonstrated that exaggerated traits can have detrimental effects on locomotion and predation rates [26,27], and their growth may occasionally stunt allocation to other structures [28,29], there is growing evidence that many signal traits – even exaggerated traits – are not especially costly, and handicaps may not be necessary to maintain honest signals [27,30]. (52 words)

Exaggerated traits can have detrimental effects on locomotion and predation rates [26,27]: indeed, their growth may occasionally stunt allocation to other structures [28,29]. However, there is growing evidence that many signal traits – even exaggerated traits – are not especially costly, and handicaps may not be necessary to maintain honest signals [27,30].


Originality, significance andscientific rigour- the hallmarks of a good journal article


After Ellison (2002): what do we look for in a journal article ?q : the inherent interest and importance of a manuscript; its originality and significancer : the rigour of the work High

LowLow High

qthe inherent interest

and importance of a manuscript

rthe rigour of the work

Probability of getting published

High

Low

The hallmarks of a good journal article


q : the inherent interest and importance of a manuscript; its originality and significance

You’re convinced you have a good story (see above); make sure that you say what that story is

Introduction:• Clear aims and objectives• Say why yours is a good story (why it is original and signficant)• Justify this with reference to the literature

Discussion/Conclusion• Say what your story is on the basis of the results• Compare this with the literature• Show what it is you have found



r : the rigour of the work

MethodologyA complete (reproducible) account of what has been doneDemonstrate the correct application of methods and analysisProvide a fully justified account of your methods (use literature)Be explicit about assumptions made

Complete, Correct, Justified, Explicit

ResultsInclude only your resultsInclude only results supported by your methodsSave comparison of your results with those of others to the Discussion



The Peer Review Process


Peer review processAuthor submits article

RejectedArticle

assessed by editor

Sent to reviewers

Author submits revised paper

Revision required

Further review

needed?Reviews

assessed by editor

RejectedAccepted

PublicationProduction


What is a review for ?

To evaluate the q and the r, with reference to the wider research field, notably QIt is (and should be) a hurdle, but a fair one

The process ?

What is reviewing all about? (for an author)

Reject and ResubmitReject and Resubmit

Reject

Pre-screening

Preliminary assessment

ReviewEvaluation of

reviewsFirst

decision

Time to first decision in weeksHow long should it take?


What is reviewing all about? (for an author)

Accept

Minor revision

Moderate revision

Major revision

Reject and resubmit

First (and later) decisions


Common mistakes or why be rejected without or with review?

1. The language is not comprehensible (seek advice)

2. I have not referred to sufficient relevant literature (‘blind’ literature search)

3. My methodology is not reproducible by someone else, without them getting in contact with me (every step should be detailed; but note Supplementary On-line Only material)

4. I have not followed the author guidelines (every journal has these)


Common mistakes or why be rejected without or with review?

1. The draft submitted still needs considerable work

but as the reviewers will almost certainly ask for

changes, I’ll submit it now and finish it after reviewa. no first submission is perfect, but it must be as good as you can dob. but note that diminishing returns may set in

2. I need to squeeze as many papers out of my

research as possible - two risksa. redundant publishing (serious)b. salami slicing


How should I respond to a review?

1. By changing the manuscript in the ways

requested

2. By recording explicitly and in detail the

changes made

3. By rebuttal – reviewers do make

mistakes and Editors don’t (can’t)

always spot them

4. Seek editorial clarification if need be


How should I response to a review?

Golden rule: it is the perspective of the reader (at the stage your reviewers and the Editors) that matters, not you as authors


Ethical Issues


The submission of a manuscript to a journal is both an ethical and a legal undertaking. All journals require authors to make certain declarations at submission (and if you don’t understand these,

approach the Managing Editor before you submit).A failure to meet any legal undertaking is serious and an ethical breach.Most journals have clear guidelines to help and many use the Committee on Publication Ethics system of

advice (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/)

Ethical Issues


1. Intellectual Copyright

2. Plagiarism

3. Redundant publishing

4. Data fabrication, falsification, obfuscation

5. Misappropriation of information

6. Resubmitting rejected work

Ethical Issues


Questions?

Documents

(How to) Get Published...Get Published: Your How To Guide •Keywords up front, and optimised (N.B. Google et al.) •State a key finding, or frame a question •Short – typically