GETTING PUBLISHED Open University ‘Developing as a Researcher – the next steps’ conference, 19 March 2014

GETTING PUBLISHEDOpen University ‘Developing as a Researcher – the next steps’ conference, 19 March 2014

Anna Sharman CC:BY-NC 2014 sharmanedit.co.uk

How papers

get publish

ed

How scientific publishin

g is changing

Choosing a journal

Writing the

abstract

Writing papers

About me

Scientist

PhD Postdoc

Journal editor

Freelance editor

Consultant


Journals expert


Entrepreneur


CofactorSmoothing the path from research to

publication Paper editing Paper quick check Journal selector tool Consultancy Workshops


How papers get published


hing Submission

Presubmissionenquiry

Manuscript preparation

Experiments

Copyediting

Print/online publication

Typesetting

Checking by author

Proofreading

Subscription/access

Reading

Initial filterPeer review

Decision

RejectionRevision

Acceptance

Authors

Editors

Production

Others

Journal publishing


Submission

Initial filter

Peer review

Decision

Copyediting


RejectionRevision

Acceptance

Typesetting

Checking by author

Proofreading


Subscription/access

Reading


Experiments

Presubmission enquiries


Cover letter and abstractSend to editor instead of submitting whole manuscript

Check if journal encourages them

Advantages of presubs


Useful for testing out selective journals

Can get a quick answerCan send in parallel

Is your submission complete? 1


Title Abstract Introduction Results Discussion Conclusions Methods References

Is your submission complete? 2


Author names and addresses Funding Acknowledgements Competing interests Author contributions Data availability Details of supplementary files Ethical approval Patient consent

Anna Sharman CC:BY 2013 sharmanedit.co.uk

Cover letter

Editors have little time for each paper

So…Make the advance clearBe briefGet journal name right!

Statements to include


“The manuscript is not under consideration

elsewhere”

“All authors have approved the manuscript”


Submission

Initial filter

Peer review

Decision

Copyediting


RejectionRevision

Acceptance

Typesetting

Checking by author

Proofreading


Subscription/access

Reading


Experiments

Peer review


Editor selects suitable reviewers

Editor or admin invitesReviewers say yes/noAdmin sends paper to 2/3Reviewers do reviewEditor makes decision

Standard single-blind review


Reviewers know author names

Reviewers anonymous except to editor

Reports seen by editor and authors, no-one else


Decision

Simple rejectionRejection, but might reconsider

Revisions invited (more analyses)

Minor revisions invitedAccept as is


Response to reviews

Be polite and reasonableConcise to editor, full details for reviewers

Quote each point, then respond

Editor makes final decision

Submission


Decision

Copyediting


RejectionRevision

Acceptance

Typesetting

Checking by author

Proofreading


Subscription/access

Reading


Experiments



The proofs

Make sure you’re available to check

Watch out for: corrupted symbols misaligned tables colour changes in figures

Copyright and licences


Copyright transfer orNon-exclusive licenceCreative Commons


Your copyright is valuable So…

Don’t give it away(at least without careful

thought)


Submission


Decision

Copyediting


RejectionRevision

Acceptance

Typesetting

Checking by author

Proofreading


Subscription/access

Reading


Experiments


Access

Personal subscriptionLibrary subscriptionOpen access


After publication

Email pdfProfilesLab websiteBlogSocial media

How scientific publishing is changing



Open access leads to…

Competition for authorsInnovative pricing‘Predatory’ journals

‘Predatory’ journals


Beall’s listOASPASpam calls for papersCheck out journal before submitting

Journal-independent peer review


Peer review outside journalJournals can take papers with reports

Saves timeLike submitting to many journals at once

Post-publication peer review


On journal websiteOn independent websiteOn PubMedOn social media

Your paper will get talked about – be prepared


Post-publication review sitesF1000 PrimePubPeerPubMed CommonsPLOS Open Evaluation


Conclusion

Things will keep changing You have more choice than ever Author has more power… … and more responsibility for

quality Getting into the right journal

isn’t everything


Choosing a journal

Why are you in science?


To find out cool thingsTo change the worldTo get a good careerTo be famous


Why do you want to publish?CareerTo be built onFor the worldWaste not toTo get feedbackTo prevent wasted work by others

So you want a journal that will…


Give a stamp of approval Show how exciting your work is Get your results out there for many

to read and share Not restrict reuse Encourage comments … and do all this quickly and

cheaply


What is a journal for?

Registration: establishing precedence

Dissemination: communicating the findings

Peer review: ensuring quality control Archiving: preserving Navigation: filtering and signposting

Choosing a journal 1

Impact


Journal impact metrics


Impact factor calculation

A = no of times articles published in journal in 2011 and 2012 were cited during 2013

B = total "citable items" that were published by journal in 2011 and 2012

2013 impact factor = A/B(released June 2014)

Problems with Impact Factor

1. Citations ≠ impact

2. 2 years after publication

3. Average (mean) -> can be skewed

4. Can be gamed

5. Proprietary methods

6. Errors unknown

7. New journals omittedAnna Sharman CC:BY-NC 2014 sharmanedit.co.uk

Journal metrics are useful for


Comparing journals for submission

Choosing whether to subscribe to a journal

Seeing how a journal has changed over time

… that’s it.

But


Don’t rely on just one metric

Don’t use journal metrics for assessing articles

or for assessing researchers

Article-level metrics


Pdf downloads Page views Social bookmarks Comments Reader ratings Tweets etc Media mentions Citations




Dissemination

Anna Sharman CC:BY 2013 sharmanedit.co.uk

Indexing


Web of Science Scopus PubMed GeoRef AGRICOLA Chemical Abstracts DOAJ (if open access)

Why indexing matters


Shows journal is reputable (not predatory)

Means people can find your paper Web of Science indexing is necessary

for impact factorNB Google Scholar indexes everything!

Open access


Read by anyone: Doctors, patients, independent

scholars… Journalists can cover it easily Readers mean impact Open means sharable Anywhere in the world

Citation advantage of open access

27 of 31 studies: OA increased citations

OA advantage of: –5% to 36% (biology) 170% to 580% (physics/astronomy)

(Swan, Alma (2010) The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/ )



Publicity

Minireviews/EditorialsPress releasesBlogTwitter, Facebook Awards

Altmetrics


Peer review


Types of peer review

Standard: single blind, closedComplete anonymityOpen: no anonymityOpen: comments publishedDiscussionPost publication For soundness only (megajournals)


Megajournals

Peer review only for soundness of science

Not for potential impact, significance, surprisingness, etc

Broad subject area Open access Potential to get very large eg PLOS ONE



Cascading peer review

Review by journal A

Not significant enough, but

sound science

Rejected

Offer to pass it to sister journal B

Journal B sees reports for journal A

Can accept without

further review


Speed



Speed

Submission

Sent for review

Reviews back

Decision

Resubmit

Sent for rereview

Reviews back

Acceptance

Publication

Submission to 1st decision time Acceptance to publication time

With editor With reviewers With authors With production

RevisionFirst review 2nd review

Production

Time

Journal speed


Example of metrics from Elsevier journal (International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology)


Issues and backlogs

Articles that are ready are compiled into issues

Some articles wait for the rest Limit on articles per issue

= longer wait Print publication is much slower Many publish continuously online

Discussion


In threesSimilar subject areas10 minutesWhat was new to you?How might this change how you choose a journal?


Writing the abstract


The structure of an abstract 1

European Association of Science Editors (EASE) guidelines: Background Objectives Methods Results Conclusions Implications


The structure of an abstract 2

Nature’s guideline: Basic introduction More detailed background General problem ‘Here we show’ Main result Results into context (optional) Broader perspective


Why is this question interesting?

“We discovered that Jcauses Q…”

But why should I care what causes

Q?


What problem?

“Others have done X. We did Y…”

But why did you do Y? What was

wrong with X?


Methodological detail

“We added 3.57 ml of Z to a 4.76 l solution of W and stirred for 15 minutes. The resulting precipitate was significantly better than the previous compound (p = 0.0087, CI = 1.45-2.67, Student’s t-test…”

Why is all that guff in the abstract?


Vague conclusion

“These results give insights into how A works…”What insights?

How does A work?


The structure of a paper


The structure of a paper

Usual structure: Title Abstract Introduction Results Discussion Conclusions Methods References

Results and Discussion


The Introduction

Only necessary backgroundNot full literature reviewEnd with brief summary of:

questions being addressed what you did what you found


Figures and legends

Don’t overload with panelsCheck journal guidelines/usual practice

Legends should describe what is shown


The Discussion

Summary of main result(s) How questions posed in

Introduction have been answered Discuss particular points Limitations Future work Conclusions (or separate)


Writing a paper


Writing style

Clarity, clarity, claritySay:

what you did what you found what it means


General principles

First person OKInfo where readers expectNo exact repetitionMake your/previous work clear

Tenses


Past: what you did what previous papers did

Perfect: looking back in the paper generalising about previous work

Present: what is known what you present in the paper

The three secrets of good writing


Read lotsWrite lotsRevise

Read


Read lots of papersNote down what makes a paper good or bad

Collect examples of good writing

Write


Write drafts early of thesis chapters of parts of papers

Write about anything and everything

Start a science blog?

Revise


Everyone’s first draft is terrible

Get feedback and act on itExpect many revisions per paper

If you need extra help


… get an editor.Editing companySfep directoryFriends and family

Keep in touch


[email protected]

@sharmanedit

Look out for Cofactor launch

Megajournals 1


Physical and biological sciences:

PLOS OneScientific ReportsSpringer PlusQScience ConnectThe Scientific World Journal

Physical sciences: AIP AdvancesIEEE AccessElementa

Social sciences: SAGE Open


Megajournals 2

Biological sciences and medicine:

Frontiers journalsThe BMC seriesISRN seriesPeerJF1000ResearchGigascience

Medicine: BMJ OpenSAGE Open MedicineCMAJ OpenCureus

Biological sciences: Biology OpenFEBS Open BioG3: Genes, Genomes, GeneticsEcosphere

Documents

GETTING PUBLISHED Open University ‘Developing as a Researcher – the next steps’ conference, 19 March 2014