Writing a good and publishable paper –an editor’s perspective

Cecil C. Konijnendijk,

Editor-in-Chief, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

Professor (urban forestry), University of British Columbia

WHAT IS A ‘GOOD PAPER’???

2

3

Contents

▪ Why publish?

▪ It’s all about impact (or is it?)

▪ How to select a journal?

▪ Preparing yourself to publish

▪ Example: publishing in UFUG (how does it work?)

▪ Some tips and tricks for writing a good, publishable paper that will have an impact

Publish or perish...

▪ Research does not exist unless published...

... in (international) peer-reviewed journals

▪ Universities demand peer-reviewed papers....

... preferably in journals with an impact factor

▪ Peer review is important...

... as it (usually) makes your work better

▪ Publish to be part of a global scientific community...

... especially important for graduate students and early-career researchers

4

Publish or perish... (2)

▪ PhD/Dr dissertations are now mostly article based

▪ Good to submit papers ’running’, i.e. not all in the end

▪ Scientific papers are important – but should not be the only outlet

▪ Present at conferences, publish in professional magazines, in your own language, be active on the social media, etc.

5

6

http://blog.efpsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/research-impact-cartoon1.jpg

Getting cited...

▪ Writing scientific articles is one thing...

... getting them accepted another ...

▪ But in the end it is about being read...

... and having animpact!

7

http://ivadlo.com/Research_Cartoons/Important-

Science-Is-Already-Done.gif

Citations

▪ Citations are counted – by different systems

▪ Citations are listed per article – and per author; this is referred to as the citation impact of an article / author

▪ Commonly used systems include:

▪ ISI Web of Knowledge

▪ Scopus

▪ Google Scholar

▪ ResearchGate

8

Web of Knowledge / Science

▪ Developed by Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)

▪ Managed by Thomson Reuters

▪ Web of Science: only journals included that have an impact factor!

▪ Journal impact factor is determined as follows (example for 2016):

» A = cites in 2016 to articles published in 2014-2015

» B = Number of articles published in 2014-2015

» Impact factor for 2016 = A/B

9

How is an ‘Impact Factor’ granted?

▪ Publisher submits proposal to Thomson Reuters (TR) to get journal included in Web of Knowledge

▪ TR has expert pannels that evaluate journals

▪ Criteria include:

▪ Quality of papers in selected samply issues

▪ Citations in journals with an Impact Factor

▪ Regularity

▪ Geographic scope

▪ Publisher received outcome – if negative: wait for at least two years until new application

10

11

Citation Impact (of articles)

12

Citation Impact (of authors)

13

14

15

www.scopus.com Keyword: ‘urban forestry’

16

www.googlescholar.com

A wealth of possibilities...

17

18

19

How to choose a journal?

▪ Relevant scope

▪ Relevant audience

▪ Impact Factor (Web of Science)

▪ Journal ranking

▪ ‘Turn-around’ time

▪ Acceptance rate

▪ Level of service

▪ Open source or not?

▪ Cost

▪ Other..., maybe because you know the Editor...

20

21

Highest impact factors

for “urban studies”

22

Before writing: how do I find relevant literature

▪ In the ‘old days’: go to the library

▪ Use reliable online databases, such as the Web of Knowledge and www.scopus.com to find scientific articles, book chapters, etc.

▪ Tools such as Google Scholar are getting better, e.g., for getting a first overview

▪ Look for ‘high impact’ articles – and find leading authors

23

Example: submitting to UFUG

▪ You have decided to publish with us, because:

▪ The journal has relevant aims, scope and audience

▪ It has a decent impact factor and journal ranking

▪ You feel that you have a fair chance of getting accepted/published

▪ You have heard that UFUG has a rather short ’turn-around time’ – and you want to get some papers published before your PhD-defence or tenure evaluation!

24

25

UFUG: aims and scope

▪ UFUG is a refereed, international journal aimed at presenting high-quality research with urban and peri-urban woody and non-woody vegetation as its main topics.

▪ UFUG concentrates on all tree-dominated (as joint together in the urban forest) as well as other green resources in and around urban areas, such as woodlands, public and private urban parks and gardens, urban nature areas, street tree and square plantations, botanical gardens and cemeteries.

▪ The journal welcomes basic and applied research papers, as well as review papers and short communications.

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

UFUG: types of papers

▪ Research papers

▪ Review papers

▪ Short Communications

▪ Special issue papers

▪ Other, such as:

▪ Editorial, Book review

35

Research papers

▪ ‘Normal’ papers

▪ Results of completed, original research

▪ Length up to 8,000 words

▪ Typical structure:

▪ Abstract + keywords

▪ Introduction

▪ Material and methods

▪ Results

▪ Discussion

▪ (Conclusions)

▪ References

36

Review papers

▪ Review articles present a comprehensive overview of the state-of-art and international literature within a specific area of urban forestry and urban greening.

▪ Sometimes Editors will invite leading experts to prepare review papers on selected topics

▪ Minimum requirements:

▪ Comprehensive overview of state-of-art literature

▪ Towards development of novel ideas, new theories, suggestions for future research

37

Short Communications

▪ Short communications are brief presentations of innovative research, highly original findings, or novel ideas

▪ Consist of not more than 4000 words, including references, table texts etc.

▪ No more than three figures and/or tables

▪ Although each short communication should have an abstract, the remainder of the text does not need to be divided into sections as for full articles

▪ Full peer review

38

39

The process

▪ Stages in the process:

▪ Online submission

▪ Editor is assigned

▪ Two (or more) peer reviewers are invited

▪ If needed: alternative reviewers are invited

▪ After review submissions: first editor decision & author notified

▪ Revision (and resubmission) if needed, possibly followed by another round of peer review

▪ Technical editing and typesetting

▪ Checking of proofs by editor and author

▪ Online publication at Science Direct

▪ Publication in hardcopy

40

Editorial

time

Production

time

Peer review in UFUG (1)

▪ Minimum of two reviewers (for all scientific papers)

▪ Experts in the field, with publication record

▪ ’Double blind’ process

▪ No direct affiliation with author(s)

▪ Authors can suggest 3 or more potential reviewers

41

Peer review in UFUG (2)

▪ Reviewers submit the following:

▪ Form with yes/no questions regarding title, abstract, methodology, novelty of the results, figures and tables, language,e tc.

▪ Confidential information to the editor

▪ Comments to the authors: often a general part and more detailed comments

▪ Reviewer decision: accept, revise (minor or major revision), reject (possibly resubmit), reject

▪ N.B. editor can also desk reject because of poor quality, structure, language, fit with scope, etc.

42

43

Tips and tricks (1)

▪ In general: do your best to please the Editor and reviewers

▪ You do NOT do this by citing the Editor or reviewers (well, you do not know who they are anyway)...

▪ ... but you do this by preparing a ‘perfect’ submission, which can directly sent into review

▪ ... and by taking the reviewers seriously – they do this hard and time-consuming work for free

▪ So: if in doubt, better to work a bit more on your manuscript

44

Tips and tricks (2)

▪ Attend seminars for scientific writing – it is really a field of its own

▪ If possible, try to review some other papers (for a journal, for your colleagues)

45

Tips and tricks (3)

▪ Make sure that your study presents something new and interesting, also for an international audience

▪ Submit only original work not published elsewhere

▪ In case of doubt, contact the Editor

▪ Do not cut your work up in ‘too many small parts’

▪ Make sure that the language is good

▪ Prepare your work according to the Instructions for Authors (e.g. the references!)

▪ Have a colleague comment on your work before submitting

▪ If in doubt: send the abstract to the editor to check suitability

46

Tips and tricks (4)

▪ Submit as if this was the final version; no ‘cutting corners’!

▪ Limit the length of your article: better too short than too long

▪ Kill your darlings

▪ Include only those figures and tables that are essential

▪ Use a sound structure: Introduction – Materials & Method – Results – Discussion – Conclusions

47

Tips and tricks (5)

▪ Be critical of your references!

▪ International, preferably peer reviewed articles and books

▪ Recent publications (unless key/standard works)

▪ Limit the use of national-language publications

▪ Leading works in your field

▪ Only work that has been published (or is in press)

▪ Limit the use of online resources / websites

▪ Be weary of using ‘Wikipedia-like’ sources

48

THANK YOU – AND GOOD LUCK WRITING!

49