Publishing  in  Wiley  Materials  Science  Journals  

Dr.  José  Oliveira  Wiley  

(By  Taking  A  Closer  Look  at  Editorial  Processes  and  Decisions)  

Hong  Kong  February  2015  

How  to  Maximise  Your  Success  

Outline  

Wiley  –  An  Overview  Journals:  The  Editorial  Process  Conclusions  &  Discussion  

The  Role  of  ScienOfic  Journals  

RegistraOon  Recording  author  precedence  and  merit  

DisseminaOon  Sharing  results  and  methods  

Peer  Review  Quality  control  and  improvement  

Archiving  Maintaining  records  of  publica:on  

+  Search*  &  NavigaOon  In  the  Internet  Age                      Raising  the  discoverability  

Journals  tradiOonally  fulfill  4  criOcal  funcOons:  

Other  systems  of  publicaOon  do  not  necessarily  offer  all  four  funcOons  (e.g.,  open  archives)  

Increasingly  important:  

*)  Actually,  people  don't  want  to  search,  they  want  to  find.  

Organisers  

• Correspondence  • Queries  • Administra:on  • System  Maintenance  • Repor:ng  • Support  Func:ons  

Editor-­‐in-­‐Chief  (Peer  Review  Editors)  

• Manuscript  Assessment  • Review  Solicita:on  • Decisionmaking  • Journal  Strategy  • Acquisi:on  • Scien:fic  Community  Interac:on  

• Scien:fic  Ethics  • News  &  Portals  

Technical  Editors  

• Technical  Management  (Workflows)  

• Manuscript  Handling  • Copyedi:ng  &  Language  Polishing  

• TypeseUng  Coordina:on  • Proofs  &  Revisions  • Liaison  with  Content  Management  

• News  &  Portals  

Content  Management  

• Service  Provider  Management  

• Electronic  Publica:on  • Print  Publica:on  

Editorial  Office   ProducOon    

'Internal'  Editorial  Office  Structure  

Publisher  

'External'  Editorial  Office  Structure  

Organisers  

• Correspondence  • Administra:on  • System  Maintenance  • Repor:ng  • Support  Func:ons  

Managing  Editor  

• Chief  Administrator  • Sets  Managerial  Policy  Only  • Does  NOT  Decide    on  Manuscripts  • Liaises  with  External  Editor-­‐in-­‐Chief  

Technical  Editors  • Technical  Management  (Workflows)  • Manuscript  Handling  • Copyedi:ng  &  LP  • Proofs  &  Revisions  Author  Liaison)  • Liaison  with  Content  Management  • News  &  Portals  

Content  Management  

• Supplier  &  Provider  Management  • Electronic  Publica:on  • Print  Publica:on  

Editor-­‐in-­‐Chief  (possibly  several  regional  or  topical  editors)  

Editorial  Office   ProducOon    

Publisher  

Professors,  Experts,  

Specialists  

What  Editors  Look  For  (Suitability)    

Stage  1:  iniOal  screening  

Might  be^er  fit  a  sister  journal  ...   Too  long  –  should  this  be  a  

Full  Paper  instead?  

Scope?  Does  the  topic  fit  my  journal?  

Format?  CommunicaOon,  Full  Paper,  Review,  ...?  

“Make  sure  the  journal  of  your  choice  publishes  the  arOcle  type  of  your  paper!”  

Is  the  novelty  high  enough?  

What  Editors  Look  For  (Manuscript  Suitability)  

Difference  to  prior  work?  

Important  to  the  whole  readership?  

Important  to  researchers  in  this  field?  

Ader  the  iniOal  check  for  scope  and  length  is  done,  the  manuscript  is  examined  more  closely:  

the  most  important  hurdle!  

„Publishing  space  is  limited  –  choose  a  journal  whose  readership  will  be  keen  to  see  your  results!“  

Where  Will  The  Editor  Look?  While  reading  new  manuscripts,  editors  will  especially  look  at:  

             Cover  le^er  

•  Why  is  this  topic  important?  •  Why  are  these  results  significant?  •  What  is  the  key  result?  (breakthrough!)  •  Why  is  it  an  advance  on  previous  work?  •  Why  are  you  submiUng  to  this  journal?  •  Why  will  this  journal’s  readers  read  it?  •  Provide  reviewer  sugges:ons  

Maximising  Success:  WriOng  the  Cover  Le^er  

Together  with  the  conclusions  secOon  of  your  paper,  the  cover  le^er  is  one  of  the  first  things  the  editor  will  see,  so  make  it  count!  

Tip:  Keep  the  le^er  as  short  as  possible  –  the  longer  it  is,  the  easier  it  becomes  to  overlook  something  important.    

             Conclusions  secOon  of  manuscript  

Where  Will  The  Editor  Look?  While  reading  new  manuscripts,  editors  will  especially  look  at:  

             Cover  le^er   “If  I‘m  interested,  my  

readers  will  be,  too!ˮ  

       Keywords  

     Literature  references  

         Visual  informaOon  

     Abstract  

Double  Blind    -­‐  Author  iden:ty  concealed  -­‐  Referee  iden:ty  concealed  

-­‐  Advantage:  No  bias  towards  or  against  authors  (but  iden:ty  o^en  obvious)  

-­‐  Disadvantage:    Referees  cannot  check  publica:on  history  of  author  

Types  of  Peer  Review  

Single  Blind    -­‐  Author  iden:ty  revealed  -­‐  Referee  iden:ty  concealed  

-­‐  Advantage:  Referees  can  be  honest  without  fear  of  reper-­‐  cussions  

-­‐  Disadvantage:    Referees  can  hide  personal  agenda  behind  anonymity  

Non-­‐Blind    -­‐  Author  and  referee  iden:ty  revealed  

-­‐  Advantage:  Transparent  and  authors  are  aware  if  there  is  a  conflict  of  interest  

-­‐  Disadvantage:    Referees  may  not  be  totally  honest,  concerns  about  conflict  and  retalia:on  

Open    -­‐  Paper  open  to  public  refereeing  

-­‐  Advantage:  Transparency  and  community  involvement  

-­‐  Disadvantage:    Open  to  abuse,  comments  by  non-­‐specialists,  true  specialists  may  choose  not  to  comment.  

 

SuggesOons  from  authors    Very  helpful!  Not  just  the  biggest  names  please  –  others  as  well  List  people  with  conflicts  of  interest  who  should  not  be  asked  to  review    

SelecOng  Reviewers  Quality  of  peer  review  depends  on  good  reviewer  choices  

Our  reviewer  database    >  30,000  ac:ve  reviewers    Are  found  via  keywords,  interests,  own  publica:on  history,  or  reviewing  history   “You  can  help  keep  decision  Omes  short  

with  good  keywords  and  reviewer  suggesOons!ˮ  

SuggesOons  from  our  Advisory  Board  Members    Especially  in  difficult  cases,  appeals  or  disputes  we  are  supported  by  our  board  members  

SuggesOons  from  other  reviewers    Can  provide  leads  to  further  candidates  

Editor‘s  own  knowledge  of  the  community    Contacts  from  conferences,  prominent  scien:sts,  regular  authors,  etc.  

Is  the  moOvaOon  important?  

What  We  Ask  Our  Reviewers  To  Look  For  Quality  of  peer  review  depends  also  on  clear  reviewer  reports  

Is  the  moOvaOon  clear?  

“Besides  your  general  opinion,  please  give  clear  reasons  for  rejecOon  or  acceptance!ˮ  

Is  the  work  novel  and  original?  

Are  the  conclusions  supported  by  the  data?  

Are  the  results  important?  (are  they  interesOng?)  

Are  there  any  ethical  quesOons?  

Is  the  presentaOon  clear?  

Were  any  flaws  or  mistakes  found?  

Should  anything  be  added  or  removed?  

•  Falsifying  data  •  Fabrica:ng  data  •  Plagiarism  •  Mul:ple  concurrent  submissions  •  Image  manipula:on  •  Authorship  misrepresenta:on  •  Duplicate  publica:on  

Ethical  Misconduct  

Examples  of  ethical  misconduct  that  must  not  be  tolerated:  

All  of  the  above  can  have  serious  consequences  for  the  author,  ranging  from  a  le^er  of  reprimand  all  the  way  up  to  criminal  proceedings  (e.g.,  Jan  Hendrik  Schön,  Woo  Suk  Hwang)  

Plagiarism  DetecOon  

Text  Overlap:  What  Is  Acceptable  and  What  Isn't  

Journal  Impact  Factor  isn‘t  everything!  What  are  the  implicaOons  of  your  research?  How  important  will  others  find  your  research?  In  your  field?  In  related  fields?  

Where  do  you  read  papers  related  to  your  research?  Which  journal  does  your  community  like  the  most?  What  is  the  scope  and  format  of  your  candidate  journal?  Whose  a^enOon  and  interest    will  your  work  have  to  win?  Where  were  your  literature  references  published?  

Whom  do  you  want  to  reach  with  this  publicaOon?  Where  did  you  publish  your  earlier  work  on  this  topic?    

Finding  the  Right  Journal  

Ask  yourself  quesOons  ...  

8  potenOal  journals  for  a  polymer  paper  

2008  IF  

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Carefully  consider  reviewer  comments  Not  all  changes  that  the  reviewers  want  have  to  be  made…  

Prepare  revision  Revise  manuscript  Highlight  changes  in  manuscript!  

Point-­‐by-­‐point  response  to  all  reviewer  issues  Changes  made  and  why  which  changes  were  not  made!  

Response  will  likely  go  back  to  reviewers!  

Revisions  Requested:  How  Should  I  Revise?  

…but  you  need  convincing  arguments  for  changes  not  made  

Need  to  convince  editor  and  reviewers!  

Usually,  no  Risk  of  long  :me  to  publica:on  

Good  papers  are  no:ced  and  cited  no  maier  where  they  are  published  

Editors  and  referees  know  journal  

Cri:cism  may  be  valid!  

Occasionally,  yes  Importance,  impact  or  novelty  missed  by  the  editor  /  referees  (Need  for  a  good  cover  leier!)  

Factual  errors  in  referee  reports  that  led  to  rejec:on  

Decisions:  Should  I  Appeal?  

Press  releases,  reprints,  cover  posters    Please  contact  us  if  you  would  like  our  support  for  drawing  up  a  press  release,  ar:cle  reprints  or  your  cover  as  a  60×40  or  85×60  cm  size  poster      

When  Your  Manuscript  is  Accepted  

Please  carry  out  quickly  any  revisions  requested!    The  earlier  we  receive  your  final  version,  the  faster  we  can  publish  your  paper!  

“CongratulaOons  on  your  results!  Please  send  us  more  of  your  excellent  work! ˮ  

HighlighOng  on    our  online  news    service    All  Advances  in  Advance  and  Very  Important  Papers  as  well  as  further  papers  selected  by  the  editors  are    highlighted  on    MaterialsViews.com  for  beier  discoverability    

See  also  www.twitter.com /materialsviews for  announcements  of  ar:cles  published  &  more  

MaterialsViews.com  

   

Your  place  for  the  latest  materials  science  news  and  opinion:      -  Breaking  news  and  research  highlights  

from  across  the  field  

-  Opinion  arOcles  from  figures  in  research  and  industry  

-  Jobs  and  careers  informa:on  from  Wiley  Job  Network  

-  Book  reviews,  conference  updates,  and  product  informa:on  

-  Weekly  updates  via  email  

•  Structure  your  research  with  future  papers  already  in  mind!  

•  Unpublished  work  is  lost!  •  Scien:fic  output  is  growing  fast,  crea:ng  more  publica:ons  

and  more  compe::on  for  journal  space  

•  Wiley  puts  great  effort  into  making  its  content  stand  out  visibly  in  the  growing  „crowd“  

•  Reader  interest  and  discoverability  are  the  keys  to  manuscript  dissemina:on  and  consequently,  cita:on  

•  The  USA  and  Europe  are  s:ll  very  strong,  but  Asian  countries  are  growing  fast  and  have  caught  up  impressively  

•  CompeOOon  is  tough,  so  make  your  work  stand  out!  

Conclusions  

谢谢!

Thank  You!  

QuesOons?  问题?