How to write a great research paper and get published

How to write a great research paper and get published

Valerie Teng-Broug - Sr. Publisher Biochemistry [email protected] Malaysia, February 2017

Overview • •

Publishing Country, Institute

How to get published •

• • •

Before you begin Bibliometrics Writing your paper The review process

Responsibilities of the author (and what not to do)

| 3

Origins of Scholarly Publishing 1439

1580

Gutenberg and Founding moveable type of the House of Elzevir

Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677) Founding Editor and Commercial Publisher of the first scientific journal

March 6,1665 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society First true scholarly journal

| 4

Scholarly Publishing Today Scientific,Technical and Medical communities around the world are united through STM Publishing

5

6

Role of scientific publications Registration

The timestamp to officially note who submitted scientific results first

Certification

Perform peer-review to ensure the validity and integrity of submissions

Dissemination

Provide a medium for discoveries and findings to be shared

Preservation

Preserving the minutes and record of science for posterity

Use

Promoting and facilitating the use of scholarly information

7

Who we serve Publishers support the greater scientific and health communities Researchers

Health Practitioners Faculty & Students

Pharma Companies

Elsevier’s Global Publishing Network 7,000 Editors

Librarians

70,000 Editorial Board Members

Societies

570,000+ Referees

Engineers

650,000+ Authors

Professionals General Public

| 10

Journal publishing models Traditional publishing  Authors publish free of charge  Institutions or individuals subscribe to journals

Open access publishing  Article is made freely available to all online  Some journals publish exclusively open 

access Other subscription journals offer open access options

Open access

 

Free and permanent access to scholarly research combined with clear guidelines (user licenses) for users to reuse the content.

Gold open access  After submission and peer

Green open access  After submission and peer review

review, an article publishing charge (APC) is payable



Upon publication everyone can immediately and permanently access the article online

in a subscription journal, the article is published online



Subscribers have immediate access and the article is made open access either through author self-archiving, publisher deposit or linking.

| 13

Funding Body Agreements

Green agreements  Facilitates sustainable green open access  Immediate internal posting on repositories  Public access to the author accepted manuscript after embargo

Mixed agreement combination of both green and gold

Gold agreements  Help establish automation of workflows to streamline author experience  Can include reporting to funding organisation on uptake  Compliance is higher when combined with clear funding for APCs.

Articles published in Malaysia

14

Research performance Malaysia

15

Research performance UPM

18

Collaboration – UPM

20

Overview • •



• • •



You want to make sure your article gets the attention it deserves 

The volume of research articles is growing at an accelerated pace 40M



For most researchers, it is a real challenge to keep up with the literature



Your job: make sure your article does not fall through the cracks!

0

1970

2013

7 hrs/week – average time spend on literature

22

Choose the right journal  

 

Aim to reach the intended audience for your work Choose only one journal, as simultaneous submissions are prohibited Supervisor and colleagues can provide good suggestions Shortlist a handful of candidate journals, and investigate them

• • • • •

Aims Scope Accepted types of articles Readership Current hot topics Articles in your reference list will usually lead you directly to the right journals

Journal Finder

24

Verify Authenticity of Journals

http://thinkchecksubmit.org/ 25

Share your knowledge Make your paper stand out from the crowd…

26

How do your peers find you online?

28

Bibliometric indicators Impact Factor

CiteScore

Eigenfactor

SJR

SNIP

H-Index

Types of Indicators

29

Impact Factor Ratio between citations and citable items published in a journal Year 2

Year 1

Citing Year

To all items (regardless of type)

Citations to nonsource items (editorials, letters, news items, book reviews, abstracts) may inflate the Impact Factor

Only source items (‘articles’ and ‘reviews’)

30

Impact Factor Citation rates to total journal impact 0 1 Multidisciplinary Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology Neuroscience Immunology & Microbiology Chemistry Pharmacology, Toxicology & Pharmaceutics Medicine Chemical Engineering Environmental Science Agricultural & Biological Sciences Psychology Earth & Planetary Science Materials Science Physics & Astronomy Nursing Health Professions Energy Computer Science Veterinary Engineering Mathematics Economics, Econometrics & Finance Social Sciences Business, Management & Accounting Arts & Humanities

2

3

4

5

6

Aggregate journal impact factors across 25 fields of research

31

CiteScore A

A

A CiteScore 2015 value = B B

   

Freely available at Journalmetrics.scopus.com Similar to Impact Factor, but considers 3 years All serial types are considered: journals, book series, conference proceedings (over 22,000 titles) CiteScore Tracker is updated monthly

Note: at launch, all titles in the May 2016 title list, and with some documents indexed in 2016, will have CiteScore metrics

32

The Eigenfactor Year 5

   

Year 4

Year 3

Year 2

Year 1

Citing Year

Freely available at eigenfactor.org; on the JCR Similar to Impact Factor, but considers 5 years Self-citations excluded Citations weighted by the EF of the citing journal

Similar calculating process to Google PageRank

33

The SCimago Journal Rank Year 3

   

Year 2

Year 1

Citing Year

Freely available at scimagojr.com; on Scopus Similar to Impact Factor, but considers 3 years Self-citations limited Citations weighted by the SJR of the citing journal

It is based on Scopus data

34

Source Normalized Impact per Paper Year 3

   

Year 2

Year 1

Citing Year

Freely available online via Scopus Similar to Impact Factor, but considers 3 years Measures contextual citation impact Citations weighted by the likelihood of citation in the subject field of source

Devised at the University of Leiden, currently the most sophisticated journal performance indicator

35

The H-Index Citations

Hirsch, J. (August 2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output h

h

   

Paper no.

Freely available online via Scimagojr.com Rates individuals based on career publications Incorporates both quantity and quality Productivity and age constraints 36

Metrics comparison H-Index

CiteScore

EigenFactor SJR

SNIP

H-Index

Started publication in:

Science 34.661

13.12

1.15367

1.127

7.478

915

1880

Nature

38.138

14.38

1.44256

21.936

8.377

948

1869

Cell

28.71

23.62

0.55509

28.188

5.062

616

1974

PLOS One

3.057

3.32

1.81369

1.395

1.044

181

2006

IF

37

Your personal reason for publishing Get funding?

PhD degree?

Get promoted?

....?????

However, editors, reviewers, and the research community do not consider these reasons when assessing your work. 38

Determine if you are ready to publish You should consider publishing if you have information that advances understanding in a certain scientific field This could be in the form of:  Presenting new, original results or methods  Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results  Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field If you are ready to publish, a strong manuscript is what is needed next

What is a strong manuscript? 

Has a novel, clear, useful, and exciting message



Presented and constructed in a logical manner



Reviewers and editors can grasp the scientific significance easily Editors and reviewers are all busy researchers – make things easy to save everyone’s time

Types of manuscripts Research Element

Letter or short communication

Full Article

Review 41

The importance of language

42

Why is language important? Save your editor and reviewers the trouble of guessing what you mean

Complaint from an editor: “[This] paper fell well below my threshold. I refuse to spend time trying to understand what the author is trying to say. Besides, I really want to send a message that they can't submit garbage to us and expect us to fix it. My rule of thumb is that if there are more than 6 grammatical errors in the abstract, then I don't waste my time carefully reading the rest.”

Do publishers correct language?

44

Manuscript language: Overview

45

Manuscript language: sentences

The average sentence in scientific writing is 14 words. 46

Use: “…we found that…” instead of “…it has been found that there had been…”

Manuscript language: grammar

Please also avoid using: “it’s”, “weren’t” and use “it is” and “were not” instead.

Examples: slowly, carefully, softly. “…due to the fact that…” – “…because…” “…in the case that…” – “…in case…:

47

Manuscript language - Tenses

Present: The average life of a honey bee is 6 weeks. Past: The average life span of bees in our contained environment was 8 weeks. 48

General structure of a research article    



  

Title Abstract Keywords Main text (IMRAD)  Introduction  Methods  Results  And  Discussions Conclusion Acknowledgment References Supplementary Data

Make them easy for indexing and searching! (informative, attractive, effective)

Make your article as concise as possible.

The Process of Writing – Building the Article

50

Title

Fewest possible words

Adequately describes content

Identifies main issue

Does not use rarely-used abbreviations

Effective manuscript titles

51

52

Abstract This is the advertisement of your article Make it interesting and understandable

Make it accurate and specific

A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your work is considered

Keep it as brief as possible

53

Example

Graphite intercalation compounds (GICs) of composition CxN(SO2CF3)2 · δF are prepared under ambient conditions in 48% hydrofluoric acid, using K2MnF6 as an oxidizing reagent. The stage 2 GIC product structures are determined using powder XRD and modeled by fitting one dimensional electron density profiles. A new digestion method followed by selective fluoride electrode elemental analyses allows the determination of free fluoride within products, and the compositional x and δ parameters are determined for reaction times from 0.25 to 500 h.

What has been done

What are the main findings

54

Keywords Are used by indexing and abstracting services Are the labels of the manuscript Use only established abbreviations (e.g. DNA) Article Title

Keywords

“An experimental study on evacuated tube solar collector using supercritical CO2”

Solar collector; supercritical CO2; solar energy; solar thermal utilization 55

Introduction Provide a brief context to the readers

Address the problem

Identify the solutions and limitations

What is hoped to be achieved

Consistent with the nature of the journal 56

Methods Describe how the problem was studied Include detailed information Do not describe previously published procedures Identify the equipment and describe materials used

57

Ethics committee approval Experiments on humans or animals must follow applicable ethics standards

Approval of the local ethics committee is required and should be specified in the manuscript, covering letter or the online submission system

Editors can make their own decisions on ethics

58

Results Be clear and easy to understand

Highlight the main findings Feature unexpected findings Provide statistical analysis

Include illustrations and figures

59

Results – illustrations and figures Uncrowded plots

Use color only when necessary

Avoid long tables

Text in photos and figures in English

60

Discussion What do the results mean?

Most important section

Make the discussion correspond to the results

You need to compare published results with your own

61

Conclusion Should be clear

Provide justification for the work

Advance the present state of knowledge

Provide suggested future experiments

62

Acknowledgements

Advisors

Financial Supporters & Funders

Proofreaders & Typists

Suppliers who may have donated materials

Acknowledgements

63

References Do not use too many references Always ensure you have fully absorbed material you are referencing Avoid excessive self-citations Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region or institute Conform strictly to the style given in the guide for authors

64

Cover Letter 

Submitted along with your manuscript



Your chance to speak to the editor directly



Mention what makes your manuscript special to the journal



Note special requirements (suggest reviewers, conflicts of interest)

Final approval from all authors

Explanation of importance of research

Suggested reviewers 66

Finally submitted….

67

The peer review process: an overview Author

Editor

Reviewer

START

Submit a paper

Basic requirements met? [Yes] Assign reviewers [No]

REJECT Revise the paper

Collect reviewers’ recommendations [Reject]

Make a decision

[Revision required] [Accept]

ACCEPT

Review and give recommendation

Types of editorial decisions

Accept

Reject

Minor revision

Major revision

Decisions

69

Overview • •



• • •



Publish AND Perish! – if you break ethical rules 

International scientific ethics have evolved over centuries and are commonly held throughout the world.



Scientific ethics are not considered to have national variants or characteristics – there is a single ethical standard for science.



Ethics problems with scientific articles are on the rise globally.

71

The most serious issues Fabrication Making up research data

Falsification Manipulation of existing research data

Plagiarism Previous work taken and passed off as one’s own

These are the 3 most common forms of ethical misconduct that the research community is challenged with

72

Types of plagiarism Work that can be plagiarised includes… Words (Language) Ideas Findings Writings Graphic Representations Computer Programs Diagrams

Graphs Illustrations Information Lectures Printed Material Electronic Material Any Other Original Work

Higher Education Academy, UK

73

Paraphrasing Paraphrasing is restating someone else's ideas while not copying their actual words verbatim

Unacceptable: Using exact phrases from the original source without enclosing them in quotation marks Emulating sentence structure even when using different words Emulating paragraph organization even when using different wording or sentence structure – Statement on Plagiarism Department of Biology, Davidson College. http://www.bio.davidson.edu/dept/plagiarism.html 74

Can you plagiarize your own work? “Text re-cycling/Self-plagiarism” A grey area, but best to err on the side of caution: always cite/quote even your own previous work

You publish a paper and in a later paper, copy your Introduction word-for word and perhaps a figure or two without citing the first paper Editors may conclude that you intentionally exaggerated your output

75

Correct citation is key Crediting the work of others (including your advisor’s or your own previous work) by citation is important for at least three reasons:

To place your own work in context

To acknowledge the findings of others on which you have built your research

To maintain the credibility and accuracy of the scientific literature

76

Conflicts of interest They can take many forms:  Direct Financial - employment, stock ownership, grants, patents  Indirect Financial - honoraria, consultancies, mutual fund ownership, expert testimony  Career & Intellectual - promotion, direct rival  Institutional  Personal Belief

The proper way to handle potential conflicts of interest is through transparency and disclosure. At the journal level, this means disclosure of the potential conflict in your cover letter to the Journal Editor

78

Authorship: order and abuses General principles for who is listed first: First Author: • conducts and/or supervises the data analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results • puts paper together and submits the paper to journal Co-Author(s): • makes intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contributes to data interpretation • reviews each paper draft • must be able to present the results, defend the implications and discuss study limitations Abuses to be avoided: Ghost Authors: leaving out authors who should be included Scientific Writers and Gift Authors: including authors when they did not contribute significantly

79

Submission A researcher is ready to submit her paper and decides to submit to Science, Nature and Cell at the same time.

A researcher has had his paper rejected by Science and decides to submit it to Nature. Failing that, he plans to submit it to Cell. Failing that, he plans to submit to each journal in his discipline until it is accepted. The first scenario is not acceptable to most research communities and journals The second scenario is acceptable but authors should heed the advice of referees and editors concerning improvements.

80

All Stakeholders

Authors

Institutions Companies Agencies Funding Bodies

Publishers/ Journal Editors

Who is really responsible for Ethics?

All Elsevier journals are members of:

81

The article of whose authors committed plagiarism: it won’t be removed from ScienceDirect. Everybody who downloads it will see the reason of retraction… 82

Consequences, or how it can end .....

83

What leads to acceptance ?  

       

Attention to details Check and double check your work Consider the reviewers’ comments English must be as good as possible Presentation is important Take your time with revision Acknowledge those who have helped you New, original and previously unpublished Critically evaluate your own manuscript Ethical rules must be obeyed – Nigel John Cook

Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews

84

References and Acknowledgements          

  

Guide for Authors of Elsevier journals. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/ http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/index.html Petey Young. Writing and Presenting in English. The Rosetta Stone of Science. Elsevier 2006 EDANZ Editing training materials. 2006 William A. Perrie, Editor-in-Chief Ocean Modelling Jullian Eastoe. Co-editor, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science Peter Thrower. Editor-in-chief, Carbon Roel Prins. Editor-in-chief, Journal of Catalysis Nigel Cook. Editor-in-chief, Ore Geology Reviews. Frans P. Nijkamp, Journal of Ethnopharmacology Wilfred CG Peh. Editor, Singapore Medical Journal Malcolm W. Kennedy. Professor, Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK

| 87

Download your personalized Certificate of Completion for this workshop now! • Go to www.publishingcampus.com and sign up to the Publishing Campus (enter your first and last name carefully as your certificate will be created using those details) or log in if you already have profile. • Go to www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/workshops • Enter the claim code: PXYVPL • Fill in the survey • You will be redirected to a page where you will be able to download your certificate. Need help? Send email to [email protected]

Thank you You can contact me at: [email protected] Visit Elsevier Publishing Campus www.publishingcampus.com For more information on publishing ethics

www.elsevier.com/ethics For writing/submission tips and author services www.elsevier.com/authors