Welcome to the 1st ACerS GGRN Webinar

A view (and a career) from the other side of scientific publishing

Presenter: Matteo Cavalleri, PhD

John Wiley & Sons

Sponsored by Saint-Gobain In conjunction with ACerS Global Graduate Researcher Network (GGRN)

Tuesday, April 21, 20152 p.m. (USA Eastern Time)

A view (and a career) from the other side of scientific publishing

JOURNAL EDITOR

Matteo Cavalleri – Managing EditorJohn Wiley & sons, inc.

How do journals work? THE YOUNG SCIENTISTS’ VIEW?

How do journals work? THE SENIOR SCIENTISTS’ VIEW?

By Nick Kim (www.nearingzero.net); used with permission

Why journals?TRADITIONAL ROLE VS. TODAY

-REGISTRATION: Recording author precedence and merit

-VALIDATION: Quality control via peer-review

-DISSEMINATION: Sharing results and methods

-ARCHIVING: Maintaining records of publication

And more recently:-SEARCH & NAVIGATION: Increasing the discoverability

How do journals work? THE PEER-REVIEW

What is the peer-review process?SINCE 1665, TOUCHSTONE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

“Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff”-International Committee of Medical Journals Editors

WHAT IT CANNOT DO (*) WHAT IT SHOULD DO

-Filter out bad/uninteresting work-Make as sure as possible the work is reported correctly-Make sure results are interpreted correctly, and convincingly-Improve the quality of publication

-Detect fabrication-Prevent duplicate publication-Pick the most interesting papers-Ensure quality-Ensure the article is right for the journal

(*) AUTOMATICALLY

What is the peer-review process?SINCE 1665, TOUCHSTONE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

“It seems paradoxical that scientific research, in many ways one of the most questioning and skeptical of human activities, should be dependent on personal trust. The fact is that without trust the research enterprises could not function”- Arnold S. Relman

WHAT IT CANNOT DO (*) WHAT IT SHOULD DO

-Filter out bad/uninteresting work-Make as sure as possible the work is reported correctly-Make sure results are interpreted correctly, and convincingly-Improve the quality of publication

-Detect fabrication-Prevent duplicate publication-Pick the most interesting papers-Ensure quality-Ensure the article is right for the journal

(*) AUTOMATICALLY

Peer-review is always evolvingPEER-REVIEW TYPES

-ANONYMOUS: Most common

-DOUBLE BLIND: Medical journals

-OPEN: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

-SIGNED: Non-anonymous referees, BMJ

-TECHNICAL PEER-REVIEW ONLY: PLoS One, Scientific Reports, PeerJ,…

-MIX OF THE ABOVE: Independent/Interactive, “Frontiers In”, EMBO…

-NONE: Evaluation by community post-publication, arXiv, F1000,…

-INDIPENDENT FROM JOURNAL: Rubiq, Peerage of Science

How do journals work? THE PEER-REVIEW

What editors look for?INSIDE PRE-SCREENING

MOST JOURNALS

-Novelty-Importance (in specific field / in related disciplines)-Interest

ALL JOURNALS

-Scope-Format (Communication, full paper, review…)-Understandability

Editors are not always qualified to evaluate the technical merits of manuscripts.This is the job of the referees.

This how referees are chosenPART SCIENCE & PART ART

-Editors’ knowledge & experience

-From related papers:- cited manuscripts- literature search

-Additional research:- conference/lab visits- web search (good ‘ol Google)

-Reviewer database:- keywords, interest, history…

Referees suggestions are welcomePREFERRED & NOT-PREFERRED REFEREES LIST

-Not just the big names, please

-No collaborators, previous advisors, grant co-applicants, …

-Tell us about circumstances that may prevent impartial review:- close competitors, who may “scoop” you- other conflicts

…within reason…

The cover letter is important NO COVER LETTER = WASTED OPPORTUNITY

THERE IS MORE

-Disclose conflicts of interest-List related papers in press, submitted- prepare to provide copies!-Provide reviewers suggestions

EXPLAIN TO THE EDITOR

-Why work is significant-What is the major advance-What is new, better on previous works-Why the journal is the right on for work

The cover letter should take shape from the paper’s intro & conclusion

TIP: Get the journal/editor’s names right! Especially if not 1st choice…

Accept, Reject or Revise?THE EDITOR’S JOB

-REJECTION- Without external referee reports (Editor)- Based on reports

-REVISION- Reconsideration or resubmission

possible after major revisions

-ACCEPTANCE- Without changes (rare)- With minor changes

The revision decisionKEEP CALM & IMPROVE YOUR MANUSCRIPT

-REVISION

Carefully consider referee comments

– Not all changes have to be made…

– …but need convincing arguments for changes not made

Prepare revision– Revise manuscript

• Highlight changes in manuscript– Point-by-point response to all

referee criticisms• Changes made• Why changes not made

– Response may go back to referees!• Need to convince editor and

referees

The peer-review process is not a private conversation between authors and referees. Try to work your answers to the reviewers in the revised manuscript!

Urban Myth: Editors hate appealsSO SHOULD YOU APPEAL?

USUALLY, NO

-Risk of long time of publication-Good papers are found and cited-Editors & referees know journal well

OCCASIONALLY, YES

-Importance/novelty missed by editor/referees-Factual error in referee reports that lead to rejection-Need more clarification of decision

Be calm, argumentative and give scientific justification for reassessment

-REJECTION

Beyond peer-reviewFROM PAPERS TO JOURNALS

Author Correction

Early ViewOnline

Publication

Issue Build and checking

Issue Publishing and

DistributionTypesettingSubmission Peer review Copy-editing

Peer Review Article Publishing (Early View) Issue Publishing

Models of editorial offi ceIN-HOUSE VS. EXTERNAL EDITORS

EXTERNAL EDITORS

…all ACS & Elsevier titles, some RCS, most Wiley journals…

IN-HOUSE EDITORS

…+ PRL, PRB, some RSC (PCCP), some IOP titles (NJP, JP:CM)…

Models of editorial offi ceIN-HOUSE VS. EXTERNAL EDITORS

EXTERNAL EDITORSIN-HOUSE EDITORS

Work full time on journal – can dedicate more time and resources on new developments

General view

Have own research group

Expert in specific field

BOTH: peer-review, decision making, dealing with appeals, commissioning, conference participation and lab visits, writing news stories, contributing to “input” marketing …

In-house editor is a career for PhDsTYPICAL BACKGROUND: ME

IJQC, October 2011

Most editors are PhD-trained scientists…

…often with PostDoc experience.

Own research experience is invaluable!

Types of editorsNOT JUST PEER-REVIEW

PEER-REVIEW EDITOR

-Scientific background-Manages peer-review, makes decision-Commissions content

TECHNICAL/COPY EDITOR

-Scientific backgrounds-Handles accepted papers-Copy edits, ensures best presentation of content to the public-Eye for details, passion for language

Other roles for scientists in publishing JOURNALS, BOOKS & WEB

IN JOURNALS

-Publishing Editor (portfolio of titles, budgets, strategy, not involved in science)-Editor of articles for broad audience, written by specialists (Nature’s News & Views,..)-Science journalist (works as freelancer)

IN BOOK & THE WEB

-Book Commissioning Editor-Web portal Editor (MaterialsViews.org, ChemistryViews.org,…)

Plus marketing, adverting and sales (Science education less crucial)

Editor’s career pros & consWHAT’S HOT & WHAT’S NOT

…AND WHAT I WOULD DO WITHOUT

-Journal/process development can be slow and frustrating-Angry authors are difficult to deal with-Fraud/Ethical violations are not uncommon and very exasperating!-Sometimes I miss coding, hacking hardware (being a “lab-rat”)-Career progression after Editor-in-Chief not easy

WHAT I LOVE…

-It’s a career at the “center of science”-Entrusted the knowledge of entire disciplines-Bird-eye view over science, see best results 1st!-Contact with the scientific community-Add & participate at the scientific debate and progress-Plenty of (international) travel-Real possibility of professional growth

What is a good editor made of?PASSION & SKILLS

… BUT YOU WON’T LOVE IT IF YOU …

-love being in the lab and do research-enjoy being the world expert in a specific subject-don’t like changing topics several time a day-hated writing your thesis

IT MAY BE THE JOB FOR YOU IF YOU …

-are passionate for science communication-recognize the importance of publishing in the scientific process-are curious about a broad range of topics & disciplines-know the art of diplomacy and have people skills-have analytical, and decision-making skills-are creative, with an eye for detail (and the “next big thing”)

ENGLISH IS THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE

-Publishing not restricted to native speakers anymore-BUT, you need to be fluent in communicating science with it

Wiley is wonderful, really, ……BUT OTHER PLACES ARE AVAILABLE

-Peer-review editors wanted:

-Other roles:

and more…

Questions? Complaints?MCAVALLERI@WILEY.COM & ON TWITTER: PHYSICSTEO

Find IJQC at http://www.q-chem.org

For further readingSEE ALSO: WWW.SLIDESHARE.NET/MCAVALLERI

Peer review• I Hames, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals, 2007• E Wager, F Godlee, T Jefferson, How to Survive Peer Review, 2002• Sense About Science, Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas (www.senseaboutscience.org.uk)• Nature’s Peer Review Debate (www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate)• Advanced Materials “Guide for Authors” (www.advmat.de)• M. Biagioli, Emergences, Volume 12, Number 1, 2002act Factor and h-index• JE Hirsch, PNAS 2005, 102(46), 16569 (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102)• J Bollen, H Van de Sompel, A Hagberg, R Chute, PLoS ONE 2009 4(6): e6022. (DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022)• ISI Web of Knowledge (www.isiknowledge.com/)• Journal Citation Reports (

thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/scholarly_research_analysis/research_evaluation/journal_citation_reports)

Publishing ethics• EuCheMS Ethical Guidelines for Publication in Journals and Reviews (www.euchems.org/Publications/)• ACS Ethical Guidelines (pubs.acs.org/ethics/)• COPE – the Committee on Publishing Ethics (www.publicationethics.org.uk/about)

Preparing the manuscript• AM Coghill, LR Garson, ACS Style Guide, 3rd edition, 2006• GM Whitesides, “Writing a Paper” Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1375 (DOI: 10.1002/adma.200400767)• M. Rolandi, K.Cheng, S. Perez-Kriz, Adv. Mater. 2011, 38, 4343 (DOI: 10.1002/adma.201102518)• Advanced Materials “Guide for Authors” (www.advmat.de)• Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, 2003