1. No category

28/09/2012
Wednesday, Sep 5, 14.15- 15.00
PUBLICATIONS
WORKSHOP
The British Mycological Society
Guillermo Quindós
Editor of R evista Iberoamericana de Micología
Universidad del País Vasco (UFI 11/25 UPV/EHU), Bilbao
Au thors: Alina Helsloot & Guillermo Quindós
M e et the Journal Editors- Question & Answer session, Senior
E d itors of the BMS Journals
How to Write a World Class Paper
1. Why do scientists publish?
2. Why is it important to submit a GOOD manuscript?
3. What is a good manuscript?
4. How to write a good manuscript
5. Revision and response to reviewers
6. Ethical Issues
7. Conclusion: what leads to ACCEPTANCE
2
1
28/09/2012
1. Why do scientists publish?
… to share with the scientific community something that
advances knowledge in a certain field:
Results and ideas not published, do not exist!
A research study is meaningful only if…
It is clear/ understood/ reproducible
→ it is used
Your paper is a passport to the
scientific community
3
2. Why is it important to submit a good manuscript?
Before submitting an article make sure it is as
good as you can make it. Because:
i t makes YOUR life easier
Your chances of acceptance will be increased.
… b ut also the life of the Editors and Reviewers
Editors and Reviewers are often overloaded. Incomplete manuscripts can create
great frustration.
4
2
28/09/2012
3. What is a good manuscript?
A good manuscript makes readers grasp the scientific significance EASILY
Important are both
…the CONTENT – useful and exciting
…and the PRESENTATION – clear, logical
5
4. How to write a good manuscript
Before starting:
Ask yourself WHY you want to publish your work
o Have you made a contribution or solved a problem in your
field?
o
o
Put your work into perspective with existing data
Know the latest results!
6
3
28/09/2012
Which kind of contribution?
Ask yourself in What FORM you want to submit your work
o Fu ll
/ Original articles
The most important papers; often substantial completed pieces of research that are
of significance.
o No t es / Cases / Rapid Communications / Short Communications / Letters
o Usually published for the quick and early communication of significant and original
advances; much shorter than full articles (usually strictly limited).
o R eview papers / Perspectives / Special articles / Opinion papers
o Summarize recent developments on a specific topic; highlight important points that
have been previously reported and introduce no new information; often submitted
on invitation.
o
7
Which journal should you chose?
A sk yourself to Which AUDIENCE you want to submit your work
o
Identify the sector of readership/community for which a paper is meant.
o
Identify the interest of your audience Which journals are read by your community?
o
Ch o ose the right journal!
o Aims and scope
o Accepted types of articles
o Readership/Community
o Current hot topics (go through the abstracts of recent publications)
o Prestige, impact, but not only Impact factor!
TIP: Articles in your references will
likely lead you to the right journal!
8
4
28/09/2012
Before typing, read the journal’s ‘Guide for Authors’
Apply the Guide for Authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft.
Check for length of manuscript, text layout, paper citation,
nomenclature, figures and tables, abbreviations etc.
It will save your time, and the editor’s!
11
The general structure of a full article
The writer of a scientific paper
has the advantage of a readymade scaffold on which to build.
o Main
o
o
o
An architect
designing a house
text : IMRAD
Introduction
Methods
Results
And
o Discussion (Conclusions)
o
12
5
28/09/2012
The general structure of a full article
T i tle
A u thors
A b stract, Keywords
Main text (IMRAD)
Introduction
Methods
Results
And
Discussion (Conclusions)
Make them easy for indexing and
searching! (informative, attractive,
effective)
Journal space is precious. Make your
article as brief as possible. If clarity can
be achieved in n words, never use n+1!
Acknowledgements, Conflict of Interests
Re ferences
Supplementary material
14
Work in progress versus final masterpiece
The process of writing – building the article
This is a very individual process, and you should do it in the way that
suits you best. Many find it easiest to start spinning the story starting with
figures/tables, the actual data.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Title & Abstract
Conclusion Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Figures/tables (your data)
15
6
28/09/2012
The final article
GENERAL
Introduction
SPECIFIC
Methods & Results
GENERAL
Discussion,
Conclusion
16
The title
“Developm ent of a Fusarium
graminearium Affymetrix
GeneChip for profiling fungal
gene expression in vitro and in
planta”
Is this a good title?
What do you expect from this
article?
Is it specific enough to tell you what
the article is about?
Is it concise enough to generate
your interest?
The title is your opportunity to attract the reader’s attention.
Keep it informative and concise: Bibliographic databases.
Avoid technical jargon, cliches and abbreviations, if possible.
17
7
28/09/2012
Abstract
o
o
o
o
This is the advertisement of your article. Make it interesting,
and easy to be understood without reading the whole article.
You must be accurate and specific
A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your
work is further considered: Bibliographic databases.
Keep it as brief as possible (250-500 words)
TIP: This is often the only part that people read.
18
Keywords: used for indexing and searching
o
Do not be too narrow,… and neither too broad
o
Avoid abbreviations
o
Check the Guide for Authors for instructions
TIP: Search for your
keywords online.
→ Would readers find YOUR
article using these keywords?
19
8
28/09/2012
Introduction : Why did you start?
(to convince readers that you clearly know why your work is useful)
Give overall picture – keep it brief
(no history lesson)
Current state of knowledge
What is the problem? Are there any existing solutions?
What are their main limitations? And what do you hope to
achieve? Aim or target of your study?
20
Methods: What did you do? (how the problem was studied)
o Include detailed
information, so that a knowledgeable reader
can reproduce the experiment.
o However, use references
and Supplementary Materials to
indicate the previously published procedures.
21
9
28/09/2012
Results: What did you find?
22
Results
o
Tell a clear and easy-to-understand story.
→ RED THREAD
o
Only representative results – but do not hide results!
o
Add Supplementary Materials for data of secondary importance.
o
Be structured (sub-headings)
23
10
28/09/2012
Appearance counts
o Un-crowded plots,
symbols clear to read and
data sets easy to discriminate.
o Scale bar on photographs.
o Use color ONLY when necessary.
o Do not include long
boring tables!
24
Discussion: What does it mean?
o Here you SELL
your data
o Discussion to correlate with results, but
o Put
don’t repeat results
your results into perspective with previously published data
ATTENTION:
DO NOT ignore work in disagreem ent with
yours – confront it and convince the reader that you are correct
25
11
28/09/2012
Discussion - Watch out for the following:
o Don’t
exaggerate
o Be specific
(say “48 degrees” instead of “higher temperature”)
o Avoid sudden
introduction of new terms or ideas
o Speculations
on possible interpretations are allowed. But these
should be rooted in fact, rather than imagination.
o Check
logic and justifications
26
Conclusions
Provide a clear scientific justification for your work!
TIP: DO NOT repeat the abstract
End by stating HOW your results alter or advance current ideas
If possible, indicate future lines of research.
What have you
shown?
What does it
mean for the
field?
Indicate possible applications and
extensions, if appropriate
27
12
28/09/2012
References
Typically, there are more mistakes in the references than any other
part of the manuscript.
It is one of the most annoying problems, and causes great
headaches among editors…
o
o
o Cite the main
scientific publications on which your work is based
Do not inflate the manuscript with too many references
o Avoid excessive self-citations
o Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region
o
TIP: 30-40 references are appropriate for a full text article
28
Guidelines on AUTHORSHIP
o
o
Each author should have pa r ticipated sufficiently in the work
represented by the article to ta ke public responsibility for the content.
Participation must include thr ee steps:
o
o
o
o
o
29
Co n ception /design of the work and/or a n a lysis and interpretation of data.
Dr a fting and/or revising the article for critically important content.
Fi n al approval of the version to be published.
Participation solely in the collection of data (or other evidence) does
not justify authorship.
Each part of the content of an article critical to its main conclusions
and each step of the work that led to its publication must be
attributable to at least one author.
Edward J. Huth (1990)
29
13
28/09/2012
Author names: common problems
o
o
o
o
o
o
Järvinen = Jaervinen or Jarvinen ?
Lueßen = Lueben or Luessen ?
Borchard or Borchardt ?
Jaap Van Harten = Harten JV or Van-Harten J?
José García Pérez = Pérez JG or García-Pérez J?
José Álvarez de Vitoria Mendoza = Mendoza JAV or
Álvarez-de-Vitoria-Mendoza J?
o
… and what happens if you marry ?
Be consistent, my friend?
30
Cover letter
o View it as
a job application letter: it is your chance to speak to the
Editor directly: include the rationale for publishing you paper.
o WHY did you submit the
o
manuscript to THIS journal?
Do not summarize your manuscript or repeat the abstract
o Mention special requirements; e.g.: if
you do not wish your manuscript
to be reviewed by certain reviewers.
31
14
28/09/2012
Language
1. G rammar:
UK or US spelling? Be consistent!
2. Style
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”
(Einstein)
Be clear → Be objective → Avoid imprecise
language → Be brief
DO NOT believe people who tell you
that writing is easy
Except for the fortunate few, writers are made, not born,
and the fashioning is a painful process.
This is a very private struggle between you and a blank sheet of paper
(Alex Paton, 1989)
32
“Write quickly and you will never write well;
write well and you will soon write quickly”
Marco Fabio Quintiliano
(c. 65 AD)
15
28/09/2012
“Write, read, rewrite. Repeat steps two and
three as needed”
Susan Sontag
(14.04.2009)
The peer-review process
Submission
Author ↔ co-authors ↔ institution (sponsor)
Review
Editor-in-Chief ↔ (associate) Editor ↔ Editorial Board
↔ Reviewers (two or more)
P eer review = a methodological check of the manuscript by two
or more anonymous reviewers in a relevant subject field
BUT: Many journals adopt the system of ‘initial review’
Editors may reject without sending your manuscript to reviewers
36
16
28/09/2012
5. Revision and response to reviewers
o
P r epare a detailed letter of response
o
o
Copy-paste reviewer comments and address one by one. Don’t miss any point.
Sta te specifically what changes you have made to the manuscript.
Give page and line number.
Underline changes in the manuscript.
→ A typical problem: Discussion is provided but it is not clear what changes have
been made.
o
o
o
o
P r ovide a scientific response to the comment you accept; or a
convincing, solid and polite rebuttal to the point you think the
r eviewer is wrong.
Revise the whole manuscript
o
o
not just the parts the reviewers point out
M inor revision does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision.
o
Do not count on acceptance, but address all comments carefully
37
… and if the paper has been rejected
• Remember: It happens to everybody!
• Try to understand WHY, consider reviewers advice
• Be self-critical
• If you want to submit to another journal, begin as if you are
going to write a NEW article →Read the Guide for
Authors of the new journal
38
17
28/09/2012
6. Ethics Issues in Publishing
Scientific misconduct
o
Falsification of results
Publication misconduct
o
Plagiarism
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Different forms / severities
The paper must be original to the authors
Duplicate submission
Duplicate publication
No appropriate acknowledgement of prior research and
researchers
No appropriate identification of all co-authors
Conflict of interest
39
Publishing Ethics: an answer to misconduct?
o CrossCheck: iThenticate anti-plagiarism software
http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html
o Elsevier PERK: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorshome.editors/Int
roduction
o COPE-membership: Committee on Publication Ethics
http://publicationethics.org/
40
18
28/09/2012
The article of which the authors committed plagiarism: it
won’t be removed from ScienceDirect. Everybody who
downloads it will see the reason of retraction…
41
7. Conclusion: What leads to acceptance ?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
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
42
19
28/09/2012
Remember
o
A TOPIC WORTHY for publication… and a sty le that makes this obvious.
o
An h o n est assessment of the scope… and a text that i m p resses without exaggerating.
The r i g ht group of authors… and a c o herent text despite multiple authors.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A TITLE that is s p ecific to the content… and also appeals to the non-specialist.
An ABSTRACT that is c l ear… and also g ets attention.
An INTRODUCTION that poses a q u estion… and keeps the reader reading.
METHODS & RESULTS that are c o m plete… and as c o ncise as possible.
DATA that are a c c urate… and that make a (c i table) point.
A DISCUSSION that puts ideas into a c o n t ext… and also generates a novel idea.
Ca r eful use of language and terminology… and a unique statement.
A CONCLUSION that is r el evant… and also m emorable.
Judith Crane
(May 2009)
43
Questions?
guillermo.quindos@ehu.es
44
20