View
226
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
1
WritingWritingFor ISI journalsFor ISI journals
Hamid R. JamaliHamid R. Jamalih.jamali@gmail.comh.jamali@gmail.com
An ISI article: Ingredients
motivation, the more the better enthusiasm, the more the better Something to say Patience, as much as required
Sections of article
Title Abstract Keywords Introduction Aims and objectives Literature review Methods Results Discussion and conclusion
5
Title
Keep it short and attractive Use as many keywords as possible Start with keyword if possible
Essential hypertension: The effect of Avoid using words like
“Studies on….” “Characterisation of ….” “Observations on….” “Investigations into….”
6
Title: declarative
Descriptive (neutral): Impact of open access on citations received by articles.
Question: Do open access articles receive more citations?
Declarative: Open access articles receive more citations.
7
Questions
Sometimes if there is no clear answer to question
For review articlesHow long is a giant sperm? (Nature)
8
Use verbs instead of abstract nouns
Treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome
How to treat . . . (this is more dynamic)
9
Avoid abbreviations in the title
OCs o-t-c? (editorial in Lancet, 1993) Maybe exception: Oral contraceptives
over-the-counter?
10
Abstract
Usually structuredBackground/aimsMethodResultsConclusion
Avoid abbreviation Make it informative
11
Introduction
New England Journal of Medicine (1975)
Most medical communications are
difficult to read. To determine why, contributions to three issues of the New England Journal of Medicine were studied and the prose analyzed.
12
example
Nose bleeds in adults are the commonest reason for emergency admission to an otolaryngology ward, but the cause of the condition remains unknown. Case reports suggest an association between nose bleeds and regular, high alcohol consumption.
We conducted a prospective case-control study to compare the alcohol habits of adults with nose bleeds with those of controls being treated for other otorhinolaryngological conditions.
13
Literature review
Show that you know the literatureUse the literature; Citation is not
enough Show your research will contribute
to knowledge in this field What is the gap you are trying to fill
Method
Provide the information a reader needs in order to understand (and replicate) your research
E.g., clear explanation of the sample, procedure
Others should be able to repeat your research
Results
Do the necessary, relevant analyses to test the research question, hypotheses
Make sure the analyses are appropriate
Do not discuss the results in results section
Discussion
Giving a summary of findings is not enough
Address the research question/s Integrate the relevant literature State your contribution Acknowledge limitations What’s the conclusion?
17
What tense, Past or present?
Use tense to show the status Summary and abstract: past Introduction: present Methods & Results: past Discussion: past & present For facts and generalization: present
18
Present perfect
For repeated observation…: present perfect
These drugs have been shown to produce significant elevations in blood
pressure.
19
Past
Use past tense to discuss results that cannot be generalized
Barber (1980) reported that 28% of the 396 wasps in his study showed signs of parasitism.
Use the past tense for unpublished results
In the study presented here, the drug killed 95% of the tuberculosis bacilli.
20
Present
Use the present tense to refer readers to your figures and tables
Antibodies occurred in 11% of our mice, as Table 1 indicates.
21
Abbreviation
Use the standard form Be consistent PhD or Ph.D Don’t overuse Use the full form the first time
23
Keep it short and simple
At this point in time use Now
Due to the fact that Because
High degree of accuracy Accurate
Employ, utilize Use
In the event that If
Make a decision Decide
Make a choice Choose
Formulate a plan Plan
Have a discussion Discuss
Implement Do
24
Avoid gender bias
Instead of: Each technician must be sure that s/he signs his/her time card.
Better but awkward: Each technician must be sure to sign his or her time card.
Better yet: Each technician must be sure to sign a time card.
25
American or British?
Just be consistent ..ization, ize (isation, ise) Favor, color (colour, favour) Center (centre)
26
Rules for simple writing
Use the active voice Use articles wherever possible Use simple verb tenses Use language and terminology
consistently Avoid lengthy compound words Use relatively short sentences
Collaboration
Try to co-author your first paper with an experienced author
Collaboration increases the quality and chance of acceptance
Always make the order of authors clear in the beginning
32
What to look for?
Where does your supervisor publish? Where do your colleagues publish? Which journals are you reading? Which journals do you cite? Check recent editorial notes for any
changes in direction
32
33
Factors to consider
Significance of your work, be realistic Target audience Journal scope statement Articles on a similar topic
33
34
Review and publication
Speed of review Speed of publication Cost of publication (e.g. color pages) Access policy (Open Access)
34
35
Journal Website
Find the websiteScope statementEditor and contact informationTime to publicationAuthor fees
Look for “Calls for Papers”
35
36
Final Decision
Discuss with your supervisor Discuss with your collaborators Select 1st and 2nd choice journals
36
37
Overshooting and Undershooting
Seek the advice of colleagues If you overshoot, be prepared for
rejection Don’t undershoot to guarantee
publication
37
54
Journal Immediacy Index
مقاله يك كه دفعاتي تعداد متوسطاستناد مورد خود انتشار سال در
. گيرد مي قرار The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an
article is cited in the year it is published. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly
articles in a journal are cited. The Immediacy Index is calculated by dividing the
number of citations to articles published in a given year by the number of articles published in that year.
Frequently issued journals may have higher II and vice versa
Useful for comparing journals in cutting-edge research
55
Journal Impact Factorدو ت منتشرشده مقاالت به ارجاعات عداد
ارزیابی مورد سال در مجله قبل سال IF is the average number of times articles from the
journal published in the past two years have been cited in the JCR year.
The Impact Factor is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the two previous years.
E.g. IF=2.5 means that, on average, the articles published one or two year ago have been cited two and a half times.
Citing articles may be from the same journal
56
Cites in 2007 to articles published
in: 2006 = 525
Number of articles published in: 2006 = 602
2005 = 753 2005 = 462
Sum: 1278 Sum: 1064
Calculation:
Cites to recent articles 1278 = 1.201
Number of recent articles 1064
Impact Factor 2007 Hydrobiologia
57
5-Year Journal Impact Factor
is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year. It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the five previous years.
It is available only in JCR 2007 and subsequent years.
58
Aggregate Impact Factor
The aggregate Impact Factor for a subject category is calculated the same way as the Impact Factor for a journal,
The Impact Factor mitigates the importance of absolute citation frequencies. It tends to discount the advantage of large journals over small journals because large journals produce a larger body of citable literature. For the same reason, it tends to discount the advantage of frequently issued journals over less frequently issued ones and of older journals over newer ones. Because the journal impact factor offsets the advantages of size and age, it is a valuable tool for journal evaluation.
61
Instructions for Authorsor Author guidelines
Locate on journal website Read carefully Instructions for preparing the
manuscript Ethical policies and standards
AuthorshipPre-publication
61
64
Submitting Your Manuscript
How to submit (usually electronically) Review process Time frame for review Forms needed for copyright and
permissions
64
65
Before You Submit Proofread the manuscript, tables and figures
one more time Accuracy Spelling/grammar (read on paper) Double-check the correctness of the
figures/tables vs. manuscript Double-check the references (20%) Have your colleagues read the paper scope, type of paper, word length, references
style, etc Cite relevant articles published in that journal.
65
66
Cover Letter Disclosures
Prior publication • Published in abstract form• Published as draft on web site (give
location)• Published another paper that is similar
(give citation)
Figure adjustments Reviewer suggestions or exclusions Thank the editor
66
67
Add the Additional Forms
Final version of manuscript Final versions of figures/tables Letter to editor (Cover letter) Correct forms (submission form,
copyright, conflict of interest, etc.) Payment (if applicable)
67
Review results
You have waited a few months and now you receive a decision letter from the editor
Accept, reject, conditional… Rejection is a fact of life, everybody
has got rejected once
73
Reviewers look for
Originality – what’s new about subject, treatment or results?
Relevance to and extension of existing knowledge Research methodology – are conclusions valid and
objective? Clarity, structure and quality of writing – does it
communicate well? Sound, logical progression of argument Theoretical and practical implications (the ‘so what?’
factors!) Recency and relevance of references Adherence to the editorial scope and objectives of
the journal
Referees
Their comments are not personal They are helping you for free Listen to their suggestions, unless you
really have a good reason not to do so
results
Pure accept
Revise minor problems and resubmit
Revise major problems and resubmit
Rejected but will entertain a resubmit
Rejected and dismissed
Rejected by editor
77
What if rejected?
Don’t get disappointed examine why make changes, find another target, or make significant change? Improve and submit somewhere else Maybe even to a better journal
The most common mistakes, as reported by reviewers This is the wrong journal for this manuscript This paper has no (or inadequate) theoretical
foundation Proof-reading errors The manuscript does not follow the style for this
journal the article is too long
Writing style: verbose, vague, unclear; too many ‘bullet points’; lack of justification of claims, generalisations;
The most common mistakes (cont.)
‘Key’ references are not cited References are cited but has the author actually
read them? The manuscript structure is illogical, difficult to
follow What is the author really trying to test? Inadequate argument leading to hypotheses I cannot understand or do not approve of the
research method The research analysis is inappropriate / inadequate The discussion misrepresents the findings So what? Does this paper make a contribution?
How to handle a ‘revise & re-submit’
Be polite (it’s a small world) Follow the recommendations as much
as possible (referees volunteer their time, they are trying to be helpful!)
Follow the editor’s advice, instructions Address each of the points made by
each referee Return the revised MS as soon as
possible
Recommended