2
DOI: 10.1002/asia.201100829 Ten Tips for Authors Editors see a lot of papers, more than many readers tend to imagine. For every paper that is eventually accepted, top journals will give full consideration to perhaps three or four papers that will unfortunately be rejected. It is not uncom- mon these days for a journal to receive several hundred manuscripts each month, and a single editor may handle thousands of papers within a year. So how can an author be sure that his or her paper does not get lost in the numbers? Here Ive put together some of the issues that tend to play a role in the process of publishing that are not always covered in author guidelines, all described from the perspective of the editors desk. [1] Considering your audience : As you well know, scientists have access to an overwhelming amount of data but have increasingly limited time available in their schedule. Thus, I always ask authors to consider the reader in every phase of organizing an article. Can your reader easily find out what is important in the work? Can your reader easily find the necessary data (for example, in clearly la- beled tables and schemes)? What potential use might your work have directly in your readers laboratory? If referees can quickly find the answers to these questions, they will also be more likely to give a positive assessment of the paper. Using templates : Some authors see the submission template as a benefit only for the editor, but it is really helpful for the authors chances for acceptance. When referees receive a manuscript that is already in the template, they are much more willing to review the article. Plus, they can already “envision” your work as a formal scientific document and are often more open to thinking through its contents. Cover letter : A good cover letter is more valuable than many authors believe. First, it gives the editor a good over- view of why he or she should consider your article. Remem- ber that the editor sees many more manuscripts than can be accepted, and an editor is often immediately less convinced by an article if the author cannot explain its importance con- cisely. Suggesting potential referees : This practice is completely optional for most journals, and editors are not obligated to contact the suggested referees. However, a good list of sug- gestions will always be taken into serious consideration by the editor. But use caution here: Suggesting ones academic “buddies” (co-workers, close collaborators) can be seen as unethical, and a good editor knows when authors are sug- gesting only their buddies. Such a practice can also leave an unfavorable impression on the editor. Conflicts of interest : Editors will generally honor requests that certain referees be excluded from the peer review of your paper. In addition, authors are required by ethical guidelines to declare any conflicts of interest that may create a positive bias during peer review, especially regard- ing funding of the work. Following correct format : Authors gain a tangible benefit from delivering manuscripts that follow the journals guide- lines closely, even during peer review before a decision has been reached. I have seen from many referee reports that the extra care that authors give to the quality of their manu- scripts makes the refereesjob easier. And as referees also have limited time, this attention to detail almost certainly in- fluences their overall assessments positively. Keep up the good work! Simple English : I have seen countless referee reports in which it was clear that the referee became frustrated by the difficulty in reading the English, and this frustration led to impatience and (sometimes unfairly) negative assessments. For publishing in international journals, clear communica- tion is the key, and I always suggest using simple sentence structures, even for native speakers. English language serv- ices and language polishers spend more of their effort in simplifying overly complex sentences than they do on rou- tine grammar and spelling. If authors can simply adopt a simple sentence structure from the beginning, their paper will run more smoothly through every phase of the publish- ing process. Conclusion section : I have once read a Full Paper in which the conclusion section consisted of about five paragraphs and covered nearly one whole page. In the middle of read- ing this section, I realized that the author was not really sure what exactly was learned from the work or perhaps not even why it was carried out. Many referees and readers in general give high priority to a good conclusion section that concisely tells the reader what was gained from the study and data. Furthermore, a promise in this section of “poten- tial applications” is strongest if it is concrete and realistic. Cover suggestions : Submitting a cover suggestion does not affect the peer review process, but it is an excellent way to highlight your work. Readers enjoy visually attractive sci- ence and are often drawn into an article that they otherwise Chem. Asian J. 2011, 6, 2859 – 2860 # 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH&Co. KGaA, Weinheim 2859

Ten Tips for Authors

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Ten Tips for Authors

DOI: 10.1002/asia.201100829

Ten Tips for Authors

Editors see a lot of papers, more than many readers tendto imagine. For every paper that is eventually accepted, topjournals will give full consideration to perhaps three or fourpapers that will unfortunately be rejected. It is not uncom-mon these days for a journal to receive several hundredmanuscripts each month, and a single editor may handlethousands of papers within a year. So how can an author besure that his or her paper does not get lost in the numbers?Here I’ve put together some of the issues that tend to play arole in the process of publishing that are not always coveredin author guidelines, all described from the perspective ofthe editor’s desk.[1]

Considering your audience : As you well know, scientistshave access to an overwhelming amount of data but haveincreasingly limited time available in their schedule.Thus, I always ask authors to consider the reader in everyphase of organizing an article. Can your reader easilyfind out what is important in the work? Can your readereasily find the necessary data (for example, in clearly la-beled tables and schemes)? What potential use might yourwork have directly in your reader’s laboratory? If refereescan quickly find the answers to these questions, they willalso be more likely to give a positive assessment of thepaper.

Using templates : Some authors see the submission templateas a benefit only for the editor, but it is really helpful forthe author’s chances for acceptance. When referees receivea manuscript that is already in the template, they are muchmore willing to review the article. Plus, they can already“envision” your work as a formal scientific document andare often more open to thinking through its contents.

Cover letter : A good cover letter is more valuable thanmany authors believe. First, it gives the editor a good over-view of why he or she should consider your article. Remem-ber that the editor sees many more manuscripts than can beaccepted, and an editor is often immediately less convincedby an article if the author cannot explain its importance con-cisely.

Suggesting potential referees : This practice is completelyoptional for most journals, and editors are not obligated tocontact the suggested referees. However, a good list of sug-gestions will always be taken into serious consideration bythe editor. But use caution here: Suggesting one’s academic“buddies” (co-workers, close collaborators) can be seen asunethical, and a good editor knows when authors are sug-

gesting only their buddies. Such a practice can also leave anunfavorable impression on the editor.

Conflicts of interest : Editors will generally honor requeststhat certain referees be excluded from the peer review ofyour paper. In addition, authors are required by ethicalguidelines to declare any conflicts of interest that maycreate a positive bias during peer review, especially regard-ing funding of the work.

Following correct format : Authors gain a tangible benefitfrom delivering manuscripts that follow the journal’s guide-lines closely, even during peer review before a decision hasbeen reached. I have seen from many referee reports thatthe extra care that authors give to the quality of their manu-scripts makes the referees’ job easier. And as referees alsohave limited time, this attention to detail almost certainly in-fluences their overall assessments positively. Keep up thegood work!

Simple English : I have seen countless referee reports inwhich it was clear that the referee became frustrated by thedifficulty in reading the English, and this frustration led toimpatience and (sometimes unfairly) negative assessments.For publishing in international journals, clear communica-tion is the key, and I always suggest using simple sentencestructures, even for native speakers. English language serv-ices and language polishers spend more of their effort insimplifying overly complex sentences than they do on rou-tine grammar and spelling. If authors can simply adopt asimple sentence structure from the beginning, their paperwill run more smoothly through every phase of the publish-ing process.

Conclusion section : I have once read a Full Paper in whichthe conclusion section consisted of about five paragraphsand covered nearly one whole page. In the middle of read-ing this section, I realized that the author was not reallysure what exactly was learned from the work or perhaps noteven why it was carried out. Many referees and readers ingeneral give high priority to a good conclusion section thatconcisely tells the reader what was gained from the studyand data. Furthermore, a promise in this section of “poten-tial applications” is strongest if it is concrete and realistic.

Cover suggestions : Submitting a cover suggestion does notaffect the peer review process, but it is an excellent way tohighlight your work. Readers enjoy visually attractive sci-ence and are often drawn into an article that they otherwise

Chem. Asian J. 2011, 6, 2859 – 2860 � 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 2859

Page 2: Ten Tips for Authors

might have skipped. For cover suggestions that are notchosen to adorn the cover, many journals offer other greatways to feature your artwork: for example, through insidecovers, back covers, or frontispieces.

Choice of journal : Choosing a journal for your work comesdown to which readership you wish to reach. Many authorsask what we editors mean when we direct work from a jour-nal with a heterogeneous readership to a more specializedjournal. A simplified way to look at this is: If a reader seesa manuscript that covers a topic that is far removed from hisexpertise, will he appreciate the paper’s significance? If thisis likely not the case for a particular manuscript, the manu-script is often recommended to a more specialized journal.But this type of redirecting is not a bad thing at all. ABoard member in our group of journals has recently empha-sized that young scientists build their reputation bestthrough good Full Papers in specialized journals.

In the age of electronic publishing, the overall visibility ofyour work is vital, and choosing good international journalsobviously helps you gain a wider readership. Your choice ofjournal can have other consequences as well, such as thepositive effects of publishing with a society journal. For ex-ample, the Chemical Society of Japan has an outstandingfamily of international chemistry journals: Chemistry Letters,Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, The ChemicalRecord, and Chemistry–An Asian Journal. Furthermore, theChinese Chemical Society is behind both the Chinese Jour-nal of Chemistry and Chemistry–An Asian Journal. In total,Chemistry–An Asian Journal itself is co-owned by 13 majorchemical societies throughout Asia and the Pacific; these 13societies collectively comprise the Asian Editorial Chemical

Society (ACES). The papers that you publish in these andmany other society journals are not only disseminatedworldwide, but they also go a long way in supporting the ac-tivities of the societies and in representing the excellence ofthe chemistry communities that they serve.

It is my hope that the tips above may prove to be helpful toreaders of this journal during the publishing process. In theend, good papers are nearly always the product of two basicthings: good science and clear communication. If good sci-ence is communicated clearly in a paper, then the paper willalways find a home in an excellent journal.

Brian JohnsonEditor-in-Chief,Chemistry–An Asian Journal

[1] Two previous versions of this Editorial have appeared online:a) Wiley Science Caf�: http://www.wiley.co.jp/blog/pse/?p =459 (inJapanese and English; this link is the first part of three, with theother two parts available by further links); b) WileyChina.com “Re-sources for Researchers” page: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-403901.html (in Chinese).

2860 www.chemasianj.org � 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Asian J. 2011, 6, 2859 – 2860

EDITORIAL