Section 7 - edanzediting.co.jpCWTS, Leiden Uni) Eigenfactor* & SJR* ... 1. Novelty/originality ... Review/reviewer quality, Society-owned? Topic area, Audience type

Select the best journal

Section 7

Journal selection Choose your journal early!

Author guidelines • Manuscript structure • Word limits, References • Procedures, Copyright

Aims and scope • Topics • Readership • Be sure to emphasize

• Learn writing style • Check relevant references • Check originality, importance & usefulness!

Journal selection Evaluating impact

How new/important are your findings? How strong is the evidence?

Incremental or large advance? Low or high impact journal

Novelty

Assess your findings honestly & objectively

New algorithm for predicting profits of crop production Medium to high impact factor journal Improve the accuracy of an existing algorithm • Low to medium impact factor journal

Journal selection Evaluating impact

How broadly relevant are your findings? International or regional journal

General or specialized journal

Relevance/Application

Aims & scope, Readership

Assess your findings honestly & objectively

Journal selection Evaluating journals

Journal indicators

IPP* (CWTS, Leiden Uni)

SNIP* (CWTS, Leiden Uni)

Eigenfactor* & SJR* (SCImago)

Eigenfactor (Eigenfactor.org) and SCImago journal rank adjust IF for citing journals

Source-normalized impact per paper = IPP corrected for discipline

Impact per publication = No. of citations to articles in past 3 years ÷ No. of articles

Hirsch (h-) index h = No. of articles with at least that No. of

citations

IF (Thomson Reuters)

Impact factor = No. of citations to “items” published in past 2 years ÷ No. of “articles”

*Uses SCOPUS index; IF uses WoS; h-index can use WoS, SCOPUS, or Google Scholar

Journal selection Evaluating articles

Article/researcher indicators

Almetric (Altmetric.com)

Quartile scores

Post-publication peer review

e.g., F1000Prime recommendations; UK institution-level assessment

e.g., Q1/2/3/4 proportions for rank of target journal in different disciplines

How often articles are viewed/saved/ cited/discussed/recommended

Impact case studies e.g., institution-level: 2014 UK Research

Excellence Framework

Hirsch (h-) index h = No. of articles with at least that No. of

citations (depends on database)

Moving away from IF: Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)

Journal selection Evaluating your study

1. Novelty/originality?

2. Real-world significance and importance/interest?

3. How soon can the findings be applied?

4. Is the study discussed in the context of what is known?

5. Potential for changing international practice/policy?

6. Potential for changing thinking in the field?

7. Potential for changing thinking in other fields?

8. Are implications both short term and long term?

9. Methodological quality (study design type, analyses)?

10. Study quality (sample/controls, size, duration, variables)?

11. Are biases minimized so as not to affect validity/reliability?

12. Compliance with…(a) research, trial, publishing ethics?

13. …(b) relevant reporting and data accessibility guidelines?

14. Writing is high quality and suitable for non-specialists?

1 2 3 4

…Be clear on topic/focus, report type, readers, urgency, reach, publishing cost

Journal selection Choosing a journal

v

Which factor is most important to you?

Aims & scope, Readership

Publication speed/frequency

Print/Online, Open access

Indexing, Rank, Impact factor

Acceptance rate/ criteria (novelty?)

Article type/length, evidence level

“Luxury” / Traditional / Megajournal

Circulation/reach, Cost, Production quality, Copyright, Services

Review quality, Cascading review, Fast track

Reputation, Review/reviewer quality,

Society-owned?

Topic area, Audience type and location, Relevance

(cited in your manuscript?)

Theory versus practice, Laboratory versus field

Journal selection Publication models

Subscription-based

• Mostly free for the author • Reader has to pay

Open access • Free for the reader • Author usually has to pay

Hybrid • Subscription-based journal • Has open access options

Journal selection Open access models

Green (subscription journals)

• Can self-archive accepted version in personal, university, or repository website

• May allow final version to be archived

• May have embargo period before self-archiving is allowed

Gold (author/institution pays)

• Free for public on publication • Author might keep © but may

pay (e.g., US$1000–5000)

Journal selection Open access myths

Open access (OA) is expensive and low quality

• Not all OA journals charge a fee

• Many research grants and universities pay for OA fees

• Journals may offer waiver for authors who cannot afford it

• OA journals are peer reviewed

• Impact factors may be lower partly because they are newer

Journal selection Predatory journals

Some Open Access journals are not good

Easy way to get money from authors

• Promise quick and easy publication • Often ask for a low “submission/handling” fee • May copy name or website of real journal; false IF • May not exist, or may be of low quality; may charge fee to

claim back your article if not yet accepted • Beware of spam e-mails soliciting authors/reviewers/editors!

If you are ever unsure, please check Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers

http://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/

Also check DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals

Journal selection

Reputable publisher Elsevier, Wiley, PLOS, etc.

Clear contact details

Editorial board International and familiar

Indexed Indexed by common databases

Authors Do you recognize the authors?

Fees Paid only after acceptance; clearly

stated in website

Trustworthy journals

Journal selection

THINK Trusted and appropriate?

SUBMIT Only if OK

thinkchecksubmit.org

CHECK Do you know the journal?

Trustworthy journals

Journal selection Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

Insert your proposed abstract or keywords

Journal selection

Filter/sort by: • Field of study • Impact factor • Indexed in SCI • Open access • Publishing frequency

Journal’s aims & scope, IF, and publication frequency

• Author guidelines • Journal website

Similar abstracts?

Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

Please see Activity 6 in your Workbook

Activity 6

Making a good first impression with your

cover letter

Section 8

Coverage and Staffing Plan

Communicating with journals

First impression for journal editors

Timeliness, Uniqueness, Relevance

Writing style Interesting to their readers?

Why your work is important!

Cover letters



Dear Dr Struman,

Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Evaluation of ICT in Glasgow prognostic scoring in patients undergoing curative

resection for liver metastases,” which we would like to submit for publication as an Original Article in the International Medical

ICT Journal.

The Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) is of value for a variety of tumours. Several studies have investigated the prognostic value of the GPS in patients with metastatic breast cancer, but few studies have performed such an investigation for patients undergoing liver resection for liver metastases. Furthermore, there are currently no studies that have examined the prognostic value of the modified GPS (mGPS) using an ICT platform in these patients. The present study evaluated the mGPS using ICT in terms of its prognostic value for postoperative death in patients undergoing liver resection for breast cancer liver metastases.

A total of 318 patients with breast cancer liver metastases who underwent hepatectomy over a 15-year period were included in this study. The mGPS was calculated using ICT based on the levels of C-reactive protein and albumin, and the disease-free survival and cancer-specific survival rates were evaluated in relation to the mGPS. Prognostic significance was retrospectively analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Overall, the results showed a significant association between cancer-specific survival and the mGPS and carcinoembryonic antigen level, and a higher mGPS was associated with increased aggressiveness of liver recurrence and poorer survival in these patients. This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mGPS via a simple ICT tool is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons as well as hospital information and patient record systems and health care protocol developers. As a premier journal covering ICT in health care, we believe that the International Medical ICT Journal is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with ICT use in cancer management.

Give the background to the research

What was done and what was found

Interest to journal’s readers

Cover letter to the editor

Editor’s name Manuscript title

Article type

Declarations on publication ethics Suggested reviewers Contact information


Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor

However, …an alternative approach… …presents a new challenge …a need for clarification… …a problem/weakness with… …has not been dealt with… …remains unstudied …requires clarification …is not sufficiently (+ adjective) …is ineffective/inaccurate/inadequate/inconclusive/incorrect/unclear Few studies have… There is an urgent need to… There is growing concern that… Little evidence is available on… It is necessary to… Little work has been done on…

Key phrases: Problem statement (para 2)



Highlight recent issues in the media

“Given the considerable attention climate change has received worldwide, it will be important to…”

Highlight recent policy changes

“Recently, the Japanese government has implemented new incentives to promote entrepreneurship …”

Highlight recently published articles in

their journal

“It has recently been theorized in your journal that labor movement promotes international trade. However, it still remains unclear…”

Highlight current controversies

“Currently, there is disagreement on the role of contemporary art in public spaces. Our study aims to address this controversy…”



This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mGPS via a simple online social media tool is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons as well as hospital information and patient record systems and health care protocol developers. As a premier journal covering ICT in health care, the International Medical ICT Journal is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with ICT use in cancer management.

Why interesting to the journal’s readership (para 4)

Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and Scope

Conclusion

Relevance



We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with submission to the International Medical ICT Journal. This study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Must include:

Declarations related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest

Ethics

Funding

Conflicts of interest



Recommending reviewers

Where to find them?

From your reading/references, networking at conferences

How senior? Aim for mid-level researchers

Who to avoid? Collaborators (past 5 years),

researchers from your university

International list: 1 or 2 from Asia, 1 or 2 from Europe, and 1 or 2 from North America

Choose reviewers who have published in your target journal



Be careful who you recommend!


Activity 7

Navigating peer review

Section 9

Customer Service Peer review The submission process

Accepted—publication!

Editor Author

Peer review

Reject

Results novel? Topic relevant? Clear English? Properly formatted?

Revision • New experiments • Improve readability • Add information • Revise figures

Customer Service Peer review Peer review process

Submission Peer review Revision…& acceptance

Publication

~1 week 4–6 weeks 0–8 weeks ?

How can I make the process quicker?

3–12 months

• Follow author guidelines • Prepare a cover letter • Recommend reviewers

• Fully revise manuscript • Respond to all comments • Adhere to deadlines; ask

for extensions in advance

• Evaluation • Finding

reviewers

Customer Service Peer review Peer review models

Blinded/ masked?

• Single-blind: Reviewers’ names not revealed to authors

• Double-/Triple-blind: Anonymous • Open: All names revealed • Transparent: Reviews published

with paper • Fast Track: Expedited if public

emergency

Customer Service Peer review Peer review models

Other models

• Transferable/Cascading: Manuscript & reviews passed to another journal of publisher

• Portable: Manuscript & reviews passed along to another journal

• Collaborative: Reviewers (& authors) engage with each other

• Post-publication: Peer or public review after publication

• Pre-submission (“portable”): Reviews passed to editor at submission

Customer Service Peer review What reviewers are looking for

The science

The manuscript

Relevant hypothesis Good experimental design Appropriate methodology Good data analysis Valid conclusions

Logical flow of information Manuscript structure and formatting Appropriate references High readability ……Peer review is a positive process!

Customer Service Peer review Decision letter

Ideas are not logically organized; Poor presentation

Purpose and relevance are unclear

Introduction lacks focus and does not justify approach

Methods are unclear (variables, missing data)

Not discussed: Negative results, limitations, implications

Discussion has repeated results; Conclusions too general

Cited studies are not up-to-date

Common reviewer complaints

Customer Service Peer review Decision letter

“Slush pile” desk review: Rejection (not novel, no focus or rationale, wrong scope or format) / Resubmit (after edit)

Peer review: Accept / Accept with minor or language revisions / Revise & resubmit / “Reject”

Hard rejection (“decline the manuscript for publication”) • Flaw in design or methods • Major misinterpretation, lack of evidence

Soft rejection (“cannot consider it further at this point”) • Incomplete reporting or overgeneralization • Additional analyses needed • Presentation problem

Interpret the decision letter carefully (& after a break)

Customer Service Peer review Decision letter 1

10 January 2015

Dear Dr. Jackson,

Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Self-consciousness of affluence predicts age of entry into labor market.”

Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we regret to inform you that based on our Expert reviewers’ comments, it is not possible to further consider your manuscript in its current form for the Applied Psychosocial Economics: An International Journal.

Although the reviews are not entirely negative, it is evident from the extensive comments and concerns that the manuscript, in its current form, does not meet the criteria expected of papers in our Journal. The results appear to be too preliminary and incomplete for publication at the present time.

The reviewer comments are included at the bottom of this letter. I hope the information provided by the reviewers will be helpful to revise your manuscript in future. Thank you for your interest in the journal.

Decision

Reason

Comments

Customer Service Peer review

The Reviewer comments are not entirely negative.

It is not possible to consider your manuscript in its current form.

I hope the information provided will be helpful to revise your manuscript in the future.

I regret that the outcome has not been favorable at this time.

Editor may be interested in your work


We cannot publish your manuscript

Your study does not contain novel results that merit publication in our journal.

We appreciate your interest in our journal. However, we will not further consider your manuscript for publication.

We wish you luck in publishing your results elsewhere.

Editor is not interested in your work


10 January 2015

Dear Dr. Jackson,

Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Self-consciousness of affluence predicts age of entry into labor market.”

Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we believe that after revision your manuscript may become suitable for publication in our Journal . The reviewer concerns are included at the bottom of this letter.

You can submit a revised manuscript that takes into consideration these comments. You will also need to include a detailed commentary of the changes made. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission may be subject to re-review by the reviewers before a decision is made.

To revise your manuscript, log into https://www.editorialmanager.com/APE/ and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

…

Decision

How to re-submit


…You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using bold or colored text. Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center.

When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to our Journal, your revised manuscript should be uploaded by 10 May. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Applied Psychosocial Economics: An International Journal and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

How to respond

Due date for resubmission

Customer Service Peer review Reviewer response letter

Respond to every reviewer comment

Easy for editor & reviewers to

see changes

• Revise and keep to the deadline; be polite • Restate reviewer’s comment • Refer to line and page numbers

Use a different color font

Highlight the text

Strikethrough font for deletions

Customer Service Peer review Reviewer response letter

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: We agree with the Reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).

Agreement

Revisions Location

Why agree


Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare with previous results.

Response: It’s very clear that you’re not familiar with the current analytical methods in the field. I recommend that you identify a more suitable reviewer for my manuscript now!!!

Reviewer response letter


Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare with previous results.

Response: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the “Pack model” [Pack et al., 2015]. Hence, we have explained the use of this function and the Pack model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6).

Disagree with evidence

Revisions

Location

Reviewer response letter


Activity 8

Promote your research after publication

Section 10


Publicize your work

Presenting after you publish

Advantages

Actively promote your article

Advice on future directions

Networking with researchers/media

Networking with journal editors


Publicize your work Publicizing your article

Increase the impact of your research after publication

• Presentations • Web, email • Social media • Press releases • Newsletters • Open days

Respect news embargo

Report clearly and accurately

Respect copyright / CC licenses CC-BY

Respect journal publication policy

Check conference guidelines


Publicize your work Your multiple audiences

Everyone evaluates your study…and you

Pre- and post-publication impact

• Journal editors & reviewers • Readers, opinion/policy makers, practitioners, professionals • Students, researchers, industry, businesses, organizations • Employers, schools, interest groups, service users, consumers • (Science) Media, public, politicians • Conference/journal panels • Review boards, funders, donors

Quality, Impact & Relevance

Why your work is important!


Publicize your work Match your audience

Pre- and post-publication impact

IMRaD research article

(Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion)

(journals, posters, slides)

Hard news

(conclusion as “lede”)

(press

releases)

Hard news, delayed

lede

(implication at start)

Soft news/

Feature story

(news-letters)

Hard news, delayed lede + kicker

(implication at start &

end)

Only after journal publication!



Writing for the public

Hard news

Newsworthiness: why care? PITCH

• Proximity • Impact • Timeliness • Conflict • Human interest (e.g., unexpectedness)




Hard news

Heading

• Can say “new”; can use subheading • Name the source/people

Conclusion first (lede/top line) • Name the source/people • Implications or importance as a quote

Results before Methods; use bullets Background last End with a quote




Hard news

6WHs

• Who? • What? • Where? • Why? • When? • How?

Keep the lede short (15-20 words) 300-400 words; short paragraphs Background info in Notes



Elements of a press release

Hard news

Use letterhead FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (or Embargo date) Dateline, city name Quotes on insights, from named experts; no

repetition! Include keywords Include full citation; name journal / evidence

level in the text Contact info in Notes End with END or ENDS or ### or -30-



Tips

Hard news

Give only important details Include definitions, and synonyms, in

introductory or incidental phrases/clauses (“Confirmation bias, or favoring evidence that supports your view,…”)

Check all data, details, and names Write for the layperson; use analogies Avoid jargon and technical language Be concise! Short paragraphs Be interesting! What is different/new? End with Call to action, or a quotation



Who to target

Hard news

International media (traditional, online) International news agencies National media Local media (for local community) Specialist news agency/hub (e.g., EurekAlert) Specialist media (practitioners) Consumer media (popular magazines) Institution / academic society Interest groups (social media / blogs)



Writing for different audiences

Hard news

Show what you’ve done

Show how you’ve spent (public) funds

Apply for more funding (executive summary)

Share knowledge, educate public

Affect policy/practice

Raise reputation


Publicize your work Social media

Useful link…http://connectedresearchers.com/online-tools-for-researchers/


Activity 9

S

Be an effective communicator

Your goal is not only to publish, but also to be widely read and cited

Develop your writing skills Choose the right journal Promote your research to the journal editor and reviewers Promote your research to others

Thank you!

Any questions?

Follow us on Twitter

@EdanzEditing

Like us on Facebook

facebook.com/EdanzEditing

Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/apu1612

Trevor Lane: [email protected] Ruth Tunn: [email protected] Lilly Gray: [email protected]

Documents

Section 7 - edanzediting.co.jpCWTS, Leiden Uni) Eigenfactor* & SJR* ... 1. Novelty/originality ... Review/reviewer quality, Society-owned? Topic area, Audience type