improve your financing chances - pallet enterprise july 2014
Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted for Publication
-
Upload
university-of-salford -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
1.886 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted for Publication
Overcoming Challenges
When Writing for
Publication@MariaJGrant
Editor http://bit.ly/9RMH6S
Enhancing Your Chances of Your
Manuscript Being Accepted
@MariaJGrant
Editor http://bit.ly/9RMH6S
A Bit About Me…
• Editor of the Health
Information and
Libraries Journal
• First publication in
1998
• Peer support writers
group since 2006
How Many of You Write?
http://bit.ly/Na7VRj
What Do We Mean by ‘Write’?
• Mark (letters, words, or other symbols) on a surface, with a pen, pencil, or similar implement
• Compose (a text or work) in writing
http://amzn.to/LDA7Ng
Writing for publication perceived to be
different from other forms of writing(Grant et al 2010)
Different Forms of Writing for Publication
• Blogs
• Newsletters
• Book reviews
• Journal articles
• Practitioner accounts
http://bit.ly/pgUxaH
Writing Academic Papers Is Different
• Level of rigour when writing is higher
• Expected to support statements with references
• Contextualise what is known about the subject and any gaps in the evidence
• The manuscript adds to the body of knowledge
What Are the Common Challenges When Writing?
http://bit.ly/M8BJ1E http://bit.ly/NcaVQM http://bit.ly/OcL8pk
Finding Time Having an Idea Knowing When to Stop
http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
Finding Time…
http://bit.ly/M8BJ1E
Making Time…
http://bit.ly/M8BJ1E
Having an Idea
http://bit.ly/NcaVQM
Working Titles
1. Brainstorming a range of draft working titles
2. Think creatively
3. Rate your titles
4. Shortlist no more than six
(Race 1999)
http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted
http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted
1. Message
2. Audience
3. Guidelines
4. Editorial Team
5. Published Papers
6. Setting the Context
7. Experienced Colleagues
http://bit.ly/Odoj4G
What is the ‘Take Home’ Message?
• Not only what you want to say
• What can the readers of your manuscript usefully apply to their own practice?
http://bit.ly/nS9QxS
Consider Your Audience
• Academic vs. Practitioner publications – HILJ vs. HLG Newsletter
• Journals each have defined and unique scope
• Imagine an individual you are writing for…
http://bit.ly/qhUSlq
Author Guidelines
• Read the guidelines… and then follow them
• Guidelines will help you determine:– In scope
– Structured abstract
– Structure of the manuscript
– Word count
– Referencing stylehttp://bit.ly/cv7S6j
Editorial Team
• Not sure if your manuscript fits the scope of a journal…
Looks at Past Issues
• Learn from people who have already been through the process
http://bit.ly/qOaJWR
Setting the Context
• Literature review
– What is known about the subject area?
– What are the gaps identified in the literature?
– How does your manuscript address this gap?
– International context
http://bit.ly/n8ed3j
Experienced Colleagues
• Learn from colleagues with publishing experience
– Writing together
– Editing and advising
Writing
• Write for 5 minutes about the working title you ranked as the most important
• Don’t self edit
• Don’t re-read
• If you don’t know what to write then write “I don’t know what to write”
• Keep your pen or pencil flowing
http://bit.ly/N4gUGY
http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
Sandwich Filling
• Take turns to share your writing idea with the person sitting next to you
• Ask questions to clarify your understanding http://bit.ly/N4gUGY
http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
Writing Sandwich
• Re-visit your five minutes of writing
• Rework it in light of the questions your partner asked http://bit.ly/N4gUGY
http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
What is Peer Review?
‘Peer review is the process by which reports of, or proposals for, research are scrutinised by other researchers.’
(Committee of Publisher Ethics 2011)
What is the Purpose of Peer Review?
• To ensure that only the best quality manuscripts are published
• To provide constructive feedback on how a manuscript can be further developed
What Are the Potential Outcomes of a Peer Review?
• Four potential outcomes
– Accept
– Minor revisions
– Major revisions
– Rejecthttp://bit.ly/qKLDRq
Outcome 1: Accepted
• A cause for celebration!
• I’ve never known a peer reviewed manuscript be accepted at first submission
• Usually a journey…http://bit.ly/o80w2e
Outcome 2: Minor Revisions
“A recommendation of minor revision should be made if the manuscript is likely to be of interest to the HILJ readership but typographical errors or incomplete references are present.” (S1M 2011)
http://bit.ly/n3Uowg
Outcome 3: Major Revisions
“A recommendation of a major revision should be made if the manuscript is likely to be of interest to the HILJ readership but requires a reworking in terms of structure or the inclusion of additional materials.”
(S1M 2011)
What To Do When You Receive Referee/s Comments?
• Take a deep breath– Read the comments
– Put the manuscript aside
– Discuss them with your co-author/s
– Respond positively to each point raised
• Remember, very few manuscripts are accepted without any revisions
http://bit.ly/LBT2Ja
Outcome 4: Rejected
“A recommendation to reject a manuscript should be made if the manuscript is unlikely to be relevant/of interest to the HILJ readership or is not sufficiently rigorous to be suitable for publication in an academic journal.”(S1M 2011)
http://bit.ly/pT2Ess
Reasons a Manuscript Might Be Rejected
• Out of scope– Topic area or format
• Insufficiently developed– Bullet points
– May show promise…
• Plagiarism
• Not responding to referee/s comments
http://bit.ly/pT2Ess
Plagiarism
• “Take (the work or idea of someone else) and pretend it is one’s own.” (Fowler, Pocket OED 2002)
• “Direct quotes” or in your own words but the source must be acknowledged
http://bit.ly/ne6p4U
Research, Evaluation & AuditKey Steps in Demonstrating Your Value
• Chapter 11: Writing for Publication
• Co-written with Graham Walton, Editor, New Review of Academic Librarianship
(Grant et al Forthcoming) http://bit.ly/MXt6LT
One Sentence… http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
http://bit.ly/RVf3Gc
Writing Ideas Generated (1)
• An Investigation into the Information-Seeking Behaviour of F1 and F2 Doctors. To investigate the information-seeking behaviour of F1 and F2 doctors in an Acute Trust in order to ensure their needs are being met and improve the existing knowledge on this subject.
• Changing the Future Now. Using innovations to plan forward for a successful life audit for now and beyond…
• Does Social Media Raise the Impact of Current Awareness Days? Measuring the impact of current awareness days in light of social media compared to before relying only on TV, radio and newspaper coverage.
• Evaluating Uni Work of OLS in a Large Acute Trust on Patient Care. [No abstract]
• From Conference First-Timer to Seasoned Networker. [No abstract]
• Going for Gold. Encouraging more NHS staff & students to register for NHS Athens accounts during the 2012 Olympics.
• [Untitled] Creating a long-term conditions NHS implementation service using a zero cost approach in collaboration with third sector organisations.
Writing Ideas Generated (2)
• [Untitled] Library anxiety is an important issue for placement students that hospital librarians should understand and support through better collaboration with academic librarians.
• [Untitled] My experience of the HLG 2012, in particular the Innovate or Wait session from Day 1, for the HLG Newsletter.
• [Untitled] The research seeks to establish the availability of medical information resources in resource limited settings, the level of access and the utilization of the information.
• What Are The Challenges of Providing Health Information to Patients Via Email? An article to address the challenges of responding appropriately to an email enquiry for health information by an NHS information service.
• What Do Searches of Trials Registers Add to the Systematic Review Evidence Base? Searches of trails registers may add essential evidence to the SR process and compensate for potential bias, therefore we should search them despite challenges of basic search interfaces, lace of specificity & reference management issues.
• “Where Do I Go From Here” A reflective discussion of the next step on the career ladder for an academic librarian.
Knowing When to Stop
http://bit.ly/MNVdx0
References• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Written evidence submitted by the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (PR 34). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m34.htm
• Fowler FG, Fowler HW (eds) Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 9th ed
• Grant MJ, Sen B, Spring H (Eds) Research, evaluation and audit: key steps in demonstrating your value, London: Facet Publishing, forthcoming.
• Grant MJ, Munro W, McIsaac & Hill S. Cross-disciplinary writers group stimulates fresh approaches to scholarly communication: a reflective case study within a higher education institution in the north west of England New Review of Academic Librarianship in press.
• Race P, 1999, Tips for Lecturers, London: Routledge Falmer. Chapter 8.
• S1M. Health Information and Libraries Journal on ScholarOne Manuscript. 2011 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hilj
Contact Details
Maria J. Grant
Editor – HILJ
+44 (0) 161 295 6423
@MariaJGrant @HILJnl