Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© 2015
Welcome
Dr. John UhlrichEditor
© 2015
1) About Wiley-VCH
2) The psychology of editors and reviewers and demystifying the publication process
3) Writing for scientific success
4) Q & A
Today’s Talk
© 2015
• PhD students?• Post-Docs or beyond?
• Who has already published something?• Have you had the opportunity to act as a
peer reviewer for a submitted research manuscript?
• Who can imagine a career in publishing?
Who are you?
© 2015
Who am I? • Chemical Engineering, PhD University of
Wisconsin, USA• Interface Chemistry of Hybrid Photovoltaic
Materials/Devices• Postdoc 2009-2011: Fritz Haber Institute,
BerlinDepartment of Chemical Physics (H.J. Freund)• Surface Science for Model Catalysis
• 2011– 2012:– Editor, Advanced Materials, Advanced Functional
Materials• 2012-present:
– Editor, Energy Technology
© 2015
Who am I? • Chemical Engineering, PhD University of
Wisconsin, USA• Interface Chemistry of Hybrid Photovoltaic
Materials/Devices• Postdoc 2009-2011: Fritz Haber Institute,
BerlinDepartment of Chemical Physics (H.J. Freund)• Surface Science for Model Catalysis
• 2011– 2012:– Editor, Advanced Materials, Advanced Functional
Materials• 2012-present:
– Editor, Energy Technology
© 2015
John Wiley & Sons
South Korea
Founded in 1807 in New York City by John WileyTo this day family-owned in the 6th generationApprox. 5,000 staff worldwideWiley Online Library has 130 million users1,500 journals, 1200 society partnersCompany headquarters are in Hoboken (New Jersey)Wiley-VCH (Germany) has been part of Wiley since 1996
© 2015
© 2015
Weinheim office
where John lives
you are here:
© 2015
• Wiley-VCH, Wiley-Blackwell, Ernst & Sohn, GIT• Weinheim, Berlin, Zürich• 530 employees (450/ 70/ 14)
– With a PhD: 20% - University degree: 30%– ~ 70% female - 30% male– Average age ~ 42 years– Average time with Wiley-VCH ~ 10 years– Foreign employees 40%
from 24 different nations• Primarily chemists, followed by materials scientists, physicists, biologists,
mathematicians
Wiley in Germany
© 2015
Wiley-VCH Journal Genealogy
© 2015
Wiley-VCH Journal Genealogy
© 2015
Wiley-VCH Journal Genealogy
© 2015
Wiley-VCH Journal Genealogy
© 2015
Wiley-VCH Journal Genealogy
© 2015
Wiley-VCH Journal Genealogy
© 2015
1500 journals, books
And More...
© 2015
• Honestly assess the importance/impact and scope of your work
• Journal Impact Factor is not everything!
• What are the implications of your research?
• How important will others find your research?– In your field?– In related fields?
• Publication fees? Open access?
• Speed of publication?• What is the scope of your
candidate journal?• Who reads your candidate
journal?
Selecting the Journal
© 2015
Number of source items published in 2013 and 2012_________________________________
Impact Factor2014 =
Number of citations in 2014 to articles published in 2013 and 2012
Example
Journal of … publishes 75 articles in 2012 and 83 articles in 2013.
In 2014 it receives a total of 344 citations to these articles in all the other published journals.
The journal’s Impact Factor for 2014 is 344 (75 + 83) = 2.18
2015
2012
2011
2010
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Citedwindow
Citingwindow
2014
2013
2014
Impact Factor (IF)
The 2014 Impact Factor first appears in 2015.
© 2015
“...originally appeared in a postscript of my previous Editorial, and then it was just to note that I did not wish to write about it because it has become a plague. ”
© 2015
1) Statistically (= scientifically!) poor methods
2) Arbitrary 2-year window, citation practices depend upon the field and on the
specific work
3) Overinterpretation and misuse of the Impact Factor values
4) Incentives for poor research practice & unethical behavior (on the parts of
both publishers and authors)
Problems with IF-based Assessment
© 2015
It is an average in an arbitrary two-year window
Should funding bodies reject proposals from
authors whose previous papers are here?
Should editors reject all papers from
authors whose previous papers are not
here?
highly cited
fewer citations than
average (even zero!)
Statistical problems with the IF
© 2015
What are the alternatives?
http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2014/08/14/four-ways-of-measuring-influence
© 2015
What are the alternatives?
http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2014/08/14/four-ways-of-measuring-influence
© 2015
•Covering the technical aspects of applied energy research
–Generation–Conversion–Storage–Distribution
•Companion journal of other related Wiley titles (Advanced Energy Materials, ChemSusChem, etc.)
•Already listed in important databases (ISI, Web of Knowledge)
•Inaugural partial Impact Factor (2014): 2.824•Online publication (no color fees)
Launched in 2013
Deputy EditorDr. John Uhlrich
© 2015
•Covering the technical aspects of applied energy research
–Generation–Conversion–Storage–Distribution
•Companion journal of other related Wiley titles (Advanced Energy Materials, ChemSusChem, etc.)
•Already listed in important databases (ISI, Web of Knowledge)
•Inaugural partial Impact Factor (2014): 2.824•Online publication (no color fees)
Launched in 2013
Deputy EditorDr. John Uhlrich
Issue 4, 2015Special Issue: Printed Energy TechnologiesGuest Editor: Frederik Krebs, DTU
© 2015
“If your research does not generate papers, it might just as well not have been done. ‘Interesting and unpublished‘ is equivalent to non-existant.“
“Realize that your objective in research is to formulate and test hypotheses, to draw conclusions from these tests, and to teach these conclusions to others. Your objective is not to ‘collect data‘.“
George Whitesides, “Whitesides‘ Group: Writing a Paper“, Essay in Advanced Materials, 2004, 16, 1375 .
Why publish at all?
© 2015
Don't underestimate how hard it is or
how long it takes to write a good paper.
© 2015
• Paper fits within the journal scope
• Novelty and quality
• Concise and well-written papers
• Of high interest to the readership of the journal
What Editors Want
© 2015
While reading new manuscripts, editors will especially look at:
Cover letter
Where will the Editor look?
© 2015
Cover Letter: The Worst Type
© 2015
Dear Editor,
Yours
Sincerely
A. Author
We would like to submit our paper
“Fantastic Synthesis of Really
Interesting Compounds” to your journal.
We hope you will find it acceptable for
publication.
Cover Letter: Not Much Better
© 2015
Dear Editor
Compound X is a potent anticancer agent and
was synthesised in 99 % yield…
Reactions catalyzed by A are ten times
faster than those catalyzed by B because…
Our method for protein isolation gives 50 %
higher yields than previous ones because…
My suggestions for referees are:
Cover Letter: Attention Editor!
© 2015
• 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 submitting to this journal?• Why will this journal’s readers read it?• Provide reviewer suggestions
Together with the conclusions section of your paper, the cover letter is one of the first things the editor will see, so make it count!
Tip: Keep the letter as concise as possible – the longer it is, the easier it becomes to overlook something important.
Maximizing Success: Writing the Cover Letter
© 2015
• 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 submitting to this journal?• Why will this journal’s readers read it?• Provide reviewer suggestions
Together with the conclusions section of your paper, the cover letter is one of the first things the editor will see, so make it count!
Tip: Keep the letter as concise as possible – the longer it is, the easier it becomes to overlook something important.
Maximizing Success: Writing the Cover Letter
Solar Cell Example:We have fabricated a solar cell with high efficiency and stability, using earth-abundant materials, by using a simple synthetic method, nontoxic precursors, using a scaleable fabrication procedure, with a unique combination materials that increase our fundamental understanding of photovoltaic devices.
© 2015
Is the novelty high enough?
Difference to prior work?
Important to the whole readership?
Important to researchers in this field?
After the initial check for scope and length is done, the manuscript is examined more closely:
the most important
hurdle!
„Publishing space islimited – choose a journal whose readership will be keen to see your results!“
What Editors Look For (Manuscript Suitability)
© 2015
Conclusions section of manuscript
While reading new manuscripts, editors will especially look at:
Cover letter “If I‘m interested, my readers will be, too!ˮ
KeywordsLiterature references
Visual information
Abstract
Where will the Editor look?
© 2015
Manuscript rejected on reports
Manuscript submitted
Peer review editors examine& make initial decision
Manuscript sent outfor peer review
Editor makes decisionbased on reports
Manuscript is accepted asis or with minor revisions
Manuscript transferredto the publication workflow
Manuscript rejected on reports but reinvited if
major revisions promising
Manuscript rejected on topic
Revisions requestedif possible in short time
Manuscript rejected on format but reinvited (e.g., shorten)
Peer Review Editorial Workflow
© 2015
• Present data honestly and accurately, not fabricate or falsify data
• Reference and cite properly, not plagiarize or ignore related work
• Avoid fragmentation and redundant publication
• Inform the editor of related manuscripts under consideration or in press
• Submit to only one journal at a time• Disclose conflicts of interest
Author Responsibilities
© 2015
• Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript processing• Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts• Make the final decision for accepting or rejecting• Base decision to accept or reject only on the merits of
the manuscript• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for
their own research• Ensure fair selection of referees, including those
suggested or requested for exclusion by author• Respond to suggestions of scientific misconduct• Deal fairly with author appeals
Editor Responsibilities
© 2015
• Constructive criticism
• Identify strengths & weaknesses
• Be specific
• Check references & supporting info
Actual referee report received by EurJOC
To: EurJOCSubject: Referee report
Save a tree, don’t print.
Writing a Referee Report
© 2015
• Treat it as a discussion of your paper from one of the top experts in your field.
• Don’t take it personally – it is not an attack on you!
• Be thorough and a little self-critical; remember that the referee is trying to help you improve your work and its presentation.
• Remember that everyone is human! Take every criticism as an opportunity for improvement; this is a “trial run“ for how your work may be perceived after publication.
How to Read a Referee Report
Credit: Nick Kim (www.nearingzero.net)
© 2015
Article published online on EarlyView & news spread
Issue printed (for those journals that still do) &dispatched to print customers
Electronic files received
Article edited and typeset
Proofs checked (by author)
Corrections made & checked
Article ready for publication
Print issue compiled
Issue published online
Post-Acceptance Workflow
© 2015
http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/09/23/10-easy-ways-to-make-sure-your-article-gets-read/
Search-engine optimization
Your institutional library and press office
Departmental webpage
Personal webpage
Videos & blogs
Social media
Promoting Your Published Work
© 2015
1. Have something to say.
2. Say it.
3. Stop as soon as you have said it!
4. Give the paper a proper title!
Source: John S. Billings: An Address on our Medical Literature.Br Med J (1881) 2:262-268.
The Four Basic Rules
© 2015
Titles and abstracts are searchable separately from the main paper in databases and online
Therefore to increase your paper’s “discoverability”:
give it a specific and concise title
include many appropriate keywords
“search-engine optimization”
Title & Abstract
© 2015
What effect?
Which metal(s)?
What type of coupling reaction(s)?
Which aryl alcohols?
Specific
Concise
Contains many keywords
Effect of Metal Catalyst on the
Outcome of Coupling Reactions
with Aryl Alcohols
Ruthenium Trichloride:
The Most Effective Catalyst for
C-H Activation with 2,4-
Disubstituted Aryl Alcohols
Targeting Your Title
© 2015
Results
Introduction
Methods
Abstract
And Discussion
The IMRAD structure began to be used for scientific papers in the 1940s. Common in life sciences journals.
Consult Guide to Authors for style of journal you are writing for.
IMRAD
© 2015
Conclusion
Introduction
ResultsAnd
Discussion
Abstract
Experimental Section
Energy Technology
© 2015
• Provides the background to the study
• Describes why the work was carried out and what the aim of the study was
• Details the results from other relevant studies
• Explains what is still unknown
• Enables a non-expert to understand the rationale
General
Specific
Manuscript Progression
The Introduction
© 2015
• Highlight and review important findings- But be selective- Present the experiments performed in a logical and clear
manner- Clearly indicate significant data
• Illustrate with clear graphical material• Provide explanations for the findings – supported
by references• Conclusions must be supported by the data• Detail any limitations of the study
Results and Discussion
© 2015
• VERY important• Summarize succintly most important
findings (but not just a summary!)• Describe implications of the study• Provide recommendations for the future
Conclusions
© 2015
Tips: Be precise about the
reagents used (name suppliers, vectors, provide references)
If a new method provide all detail
If standard provide citation only
• Should provide sufficient information to enable the reader to evaluate (and repeat!) the results
• Check Guide for Authors AND common practices of community
• Establishes credibility for the results!
• To save space non-essential but important parts can be submitted as supporting information.
Experimental Section
© 2015
•The references must comply to house style of the journal!
•Ensure that they are cited in numerical order and that every reference is cited (with each reference appearing in the bibliography only once...)
•The work cited should be fair and balanced
•Not only your own references!
•Up to date!
•Ensure that credit is given to the original discoveries.
References
© 2015
• This/It– Not: This is a fast reaction. This leads us to conclude...– Instead: This reaction is fast. This observation leads us to conclude.
• Avoid being overly wordy– “This leads us to point out the fact that our previous conclusion was incorrect...“
• Active Voice– Not: It was observed that the solution turned red.– Instead: The solution turned red. or We observed that the solution turned red.
• Could, would– Not: “The sample could be observed to degrade over time.“ – Instead: “The sample degraded over time.“
• “approximately“ (as well as “around“ and ~...)• “novel“
– Should be avoided (especially in titles)• Holy Grail
Tips (and Pet Peeves…)
© 2015
Holy Grails…
© 2015
“During prescreening I look for an up-to-date and relevant bibliography and a clear comparison of the results with those of previous studies—it is difficult to assess the significance of the findings if they are not presented in an appropriate context. I routinely read the literature cited and conduct my own literature search to check if important papers have been omitted that may detract from the novelty of the work. I also appreciate honest reporting. While your work may represent an advance, there will certainly be shortcomings and room for improvement. This should be discussed but is too often neglected. A final piece of advice is that as a reader and reviewer of our journals, you should self-assess your manuscript and submit accordingly to the most appropriate journal, rather than the one with the highest Impact Factor. This will ensure swifter publication of your work.” Dr. Adam Brotchie
© 2015
“Compared to Advanced Materials, Advanced Functional Materials adopts the same criteria in terms of scientific novelty and importance. If the manuscript has been previously rejected by Advanced Materials, only a superficial change in the format (Communication to Full Paper) may still result in a direct rejection.
Paper evaluation is not a "gambling game", and it is inappropriate to ignore the previous comments with the belief that a new group of editors/reviewers might generate a new result.”
Dr. Yan Li
© 2015
“Think of the reader: Compare your results to the work of others wherever possible (a good table/figure helps the reader a lot). And use the most widely accepted units! If not possible, give reasons why. Mention and discuss differences (because that’s what scientific publishing is about after all… ).”
Dr. Till Graberg
© 2015
Advanced Materials Interfaces
60
“Novelty and state-of-the-art of the presented results must be ensured. Incremental results or simple extensions of published work are not desired, neither are specialized topics. The title, abstract, and conclusions, as well as the figures should be appealing and motivating, and concisely explain the key findings. The writing should be easy-to-read and the English should be good.”
Dr. Ingeborg Stass
© 2015
www.ChemistryViews.org
Getting Help: Resources
Have a friend/colleague read your manuscript; read your work again after setting it aside fora couple of days; have a native speaker proofread for language, if available.
© 2015
http://wileyeditingservices.com/en/
Getting Help: Editing Services
© 2015
1) Unpublished work is lost and properly communicating science
takes effort
2) A simple writing style is best!
3) Optimize your content for internet use
4) Peer review isn’t perfect but it is the best we have
5) Competition is hard, so make your work stand out
6) Take an active role in promoting your work
Conclusions
© 2015
@EnergyTechnol
Questions?
• Contact me:– John Uhlrich
Energy [email protected]:www.editorialmanager.com/ente/
