FEMS Microbiology Ecology

Getting Your Work Published

Telling a Compelling StoryWorking with Editors and Reviewers

Jim ProsserChief Editor

FEMS Microbiology Ecology

FEMS Journals

FEMS – Federation of European Microbiological Societies

Five journalsFEMS Microbiology EcologyFEMS Microbiology LettersFEMS Immunology and Medical MicrobiologyFEMS Yeast ResearchFEMS Microbiology Reviews

The Research

Research never published is research never done What will paper look like? Why will anyone want to read it:

Interest Topicality Significant novelty Hypothesis-driven

Can you identify a significant advance that will arise from the paper

Is the study more than just ‘handle-turning’? Could the study change the way people think? Be very objective and very critical Don’t adopt a ‘scatter gun’ approach

FEMS Manuscript Central – review

Manuscript ID:

Manuscript Type:

Keywords:

Date Submitted:

Manuscript Title:

Date Review Returned:

Authors:

Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Lower 50% Lower 25%

Significance of Research

Originality of Research

Experimental Design and Quality of Data

Preparation

Which journal would be most appropriate? What do the editors want?

Author guidelines Journal scope and aims Look at papers already published by the journal Ask

What do you want to say? Draft key points Add:

Abstract Figures Tables Text

Stay focussed and seek criticism Language

Blackwell language service

Title

ExcitingConciseCatchyAttention-grabbing

Abstract

Possibly most important sectionMay be only section readTitle and abstract used for key word

searchingRepeat key phrasesConciseCatchyAttention-grabbing

Introduction

Mention key facts and relevant published literature

Note important issues of background and/or technique

Place your work in the context of previous workWhere are the (important) gaps in knowledge How will your work fill them

Hypothesise, and explain how you will test the hypothesis

State aims of the work clearly

Methods

Describe methods and equipment (with justification, where appropriate)

Mention manufacturers and locationsCite previously published methods where

possibleDescribe experimental design Describe statistical analysis methods

Results

Describe the data clearly – readers will be less familiar with material than you

Think carefully about use of tables and figures Which? Which type? Use same symbols to represent same features Include standard errors or significant differences, where

appropriate Describe statistical analysis Describe data critically, objectively and dispassionately Always remember the aims of the study Avoid jargon and slang

Discussion

What do the results mean in relation to the question you set out to address and the aims of the study? Did the work fill a gap?Did the results provide evidence supporting, or

rejecting hypothesis?Mention caveats – critically assess results,

pitfalls, biasesCompare results with those publishedWhat are the implications of your results and the

conclusions you’ve drawn?Highlight the novelty of your findings

Editorial process

Submit paper

Authors

FEMS Manuscript Central – submission

FEMS Manuscript Central – title

FEMS Manuscript Central – attributes

FEMS Manuscript Central – authors

FEMS Manuscript Central – reviewers

FEMS Manuscript Central – details

FEMS Manuscript Central – upload

FEMS Manuscript Central – review

Editorial process

Submit paper

Editorial office

Chief Editor

Editor

Reviewers

Reject

Authors

On-line publication

Publisher

Revise

Authors Accept

Proof check

Publication

Dealing with revision

Be humble, polite and objective Do not assume the reviewers and editor are:

Stupid Wrong Biased Competitors Enemies

Do not take comments personally Do not try to guess who reviewers were Do not insult reviewers or editor Address all points made by reviewers clearly Track changes Challenge points if justified

Dealing with rejection

Be humble, polite and objective Do not assume the reviewers and editor are:

Stupid Wrong Biased Competitors Enemies

Do not take comments personally Do not try to guess who reviewers were Do not insult reviewers or editor Wait 24 hours Challenge points if justified

Trends

Increased demands on speed to first decision

Increasing volume of submissionsIncreased focus on quality Increasing level of reject without reviewIncrease level of reject Impact factorDigital form of increasing importance

Wiley-Blackwell

Journal author servicesTracking performance Increased information for authors on their papersMarketing and dissemination Links with indexing and abstracting services e.g.

PubMedRetrievability by search engines e.g. Google,

Academic SearchPublicity of individual articles