Getting research published: a BioMed Central workshop on publishing in open access journals

Jo ApplefordEditorial Manager

BMC series

About me

A neuroscientist who was tired of getting up at 3am for circadian rhythm experiments!

Undergraduate: Wye College, University of London (BSc Equine Science)

PhD : Imperial College (retinal photoreception and circadian rhythms)

…becoming a professional editor

Joined BioMed Central as an Assistant Editor on the BMC-series journals

Moved to The Lancet Neurology as a Senior Editor, primarily working on original research

Rejoined BioMed Central as Senior Editor and Deputy Medical Editor, now managing the Executive Editors who run 60 journals.

About BioMed Central

Largest global publisher of peer-reviewed open access journals

Launched first open access journal in 2000 Now publishes >200 OA titles All research articles published under Creative

Commons license Costs covered by 'article processing charge'

(APC)

Growth of submissions to BioMed Central journals

Started a bit of a trend!

20102000

And more…

How does Open Access publishing differ from traditional

publishing? Editorial and production processes are very

similar to traditional journals BioMed Central and PLoS systems are

optimized for fully online continuous publication:- file formats- article length- colour images and additional material

Emphasis on free access to data

BioMed Central’s 3 types of journals

1. BMC-series (>60 titles)

e.g. BMC Cancer, BMC Genetics

– Some have in house editorial process

– Moving to external – Section Editors and Associate Editors

– Systematic coverage of biology and medicine

– Aims to publish all scientifically sound research

– BMC Biology and BMC Medicine highlight best research

– BMC Research Notes publishes incremental results, datasets etc.


2. Independent journals (>135 titles)

e.g. Malaria Journal, Molecular Cancer, Retrovirology

– External Editors-in-Chief

– External editorial process (with option of in-house support)

– Some are very broad, some focus on a specific niche

– Often society-affiliated


3. ‘Hybrid’ journals (~6 titles)

e.g. Genome Biology, Breast Cancer Research

– Some of BMC’s most established titles

– In-house editorial support

– All research is open access

– Commissioned content available only to subscribers

How to get your manuscript published - key steps

1. Critically assess your results in the context of current literature

2. Choose the right journal, know the process

3. Prepare a ‘good’ manuscript

4. Appeals

Tools for assessing your work in the context of the literature

1. Critically assess your results

What’s a valuable contribution? New and original results or methods/tools Reanalysis or reinterpretation of published data Metareviews (clinical studies) Reviews of a particular subject Negative results can be of value too

You should not knowingly publish: Work that is out of date Flawed or manipulated data Duplication of previously published work


How do you keep track of the field?

Database searches: E.g. PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus Consider different keyword combinations



Special features at PloS and BioMed Central:Related literature listings


Special features at PloS and BioMed Central:Related article listings

Gateways and hubs:Many publishers have subject-related pages


What is the right article type for your results?

For example: Original research articles Methods, Software Letters or short reports Correspondence Hypotheses Reviews Perspectives

Note: Article ‘types’ vary between journals – consult the journal information pages! Evaluate your work critically: what is the extent of new insights and evidence.

How strong are your claims (and how much support do you have)? Is it an initial observation, a new hypothesis without much data?


How to choose the right journal

How do you decide which journal to submit to?

What are the most important factors for you?

2. Choose the right journal

What do authors tell us?

Prestige of the journal Target readership Visibility Speed of peer-review process


Find the major journals that publish studies in your area of

research


Issues to consider when choosing a journal

Aims and scope of the journal Ranking and indexing

services Editorial structure Peer-review procedures


Journal scope: includes subject areas covered and breadth of topics-All of biology/medicine-Broad specialty journals (e.g. genetics, immunology)-Niche journals

Most journals describe their scope in information pages.Make sure you look at recent publications in the candidate journals to get a feel for what they publish!



Journal prestige:

-Impact factors

-Alternative citation measures (Scimago)

-Who’s behind the journal (editors, editorial boards…)?

-Who else has published in the journal?

How to judge a journal’s visibility – Google ranking

Similarly:

Molecular Biology

Systems Biology

Bioinformatics

Developmental Biology

Veterinary Research-All on first page of Google results


How to judge a journal’s visibility – Article accesses


Who will make the decisions on your manuscript?

Professional Editors- usually with extensive

scientific training - embedded in publishing

environment

Academic Editors-in-Chief- academics or clinicians - often active researchers – so,

only ‘part-time’

They are ultimately responsible for the content in their journals and make a final decision on publication. They might commission content and conduct peer review themselves and/or work closely with: Editorial boardScientists/cliniciansMight advise on policies, adjudicate in conflict situations etc

vs


Find out about the editorial model from the journal’s information pages


Understand the journal’s peer-review process

1. Manuscript submission

2. Initial manuscript assessment: professional editors or EiCs/section editors assess suitability, usually in terms of (1) journal scope and (2) interest level

3. Selection and invitation of peer reviewers

4. Peer review: 2-4 reviewers’ reports required – depending on expertise

5. Editorial decision on the basis of the reviewers’ reports: - Accepted manuscripts: enter production cycle - Revisions invited: revised manuscripts are

assessed again by editors and/or reviewers (back to step 1)

- Rejected manuscripts: if scientifically sound, possible transfer to a more specialised journal


Presubmission enquiries

Advantages:Usually quick response: particularly important for higher-

end journals with large submission numbersInitial agreement of the editors to consider the

manuscript for peer review – first hurdle taken

Usually required: Well-written abstract outlining key questions, results and

novel insightsDetailed cover letter, explaining significance of new

insights, methods used and data presented in the MS


Consider who will peer review your manuscript

- Technical experts judging the data: appropriate methods used and applied correctly, controls, statistics

- Leaders in the field assessing the interpretation: support for claims, novelty and significance, context of existing literature

Some, but not all, reviewers can provide expertise on both methods used and insights gained. Their expertise will influence the editors’ decision.

- Open peer review versus closed


Consider differences in procedures:

Open peer review


Authors may be offered consideration in another journal: peer-review cascade

Highrejection rate

Moderaterejection rate

Lowrejection rate


How to write a good manuscript

Key issues to bear in mind: Ensure that the scientific message is clear and

arguments built up logically Be concise: lengthy discussions and descriptions can

distract from the key message(s) Ensure claims are supported and don’t overstate your

findings Clearly and explicitly state the aims of the study and

questions you have addressed Put your work into the context of the literature: be sure

to cite the relevant key references and cite them in the correct context

Pay attention to journal policies:

3. How to write a good manuscript

Journal-specific instructions for authors: Manuscript structure (order of sections) Language and style, including reference style How to prepare figures and tables File formats accepted


Special focus: title

Be specific and concise Broad appeal: avoid unnecessary detail Avoid jargon and abbreviations Reviewers and editors will assess whether the title

accurately reflects the content of the manuscript

A good title will help attract readers and citations!


Include detailed and precise information about: - The key aims of the study and why the questions you

asked are important- Key methods and materials used- Results presented and- Conclusions drawn. Bear indexing and searching in mind: Use effective keywords that will attract readersAvoid acronyms with multiple meanings (e.g. CNS)

A badly written and unclear abstract might mean- that the editor misses the importance of the work and

declines to consider the manuscript- that invited referees decline to review the manuscript

Special focus: abstract


Special focus: cover letter

Provide brief answers to the following questions:

What is the scientific question you are addressing? What is the key finding that answers this question? What is the nature of the evidence you provide in

support of your conclusion? What are the three most recently published papers that

are relevant to this question? What significance do your results have for the field? What significance do your results have for the broader

community (of biologists and/or the public)? What other novel findings do you present? Is there additional information that we should take into

account?


And finally…Before submitting your manuscript: Get your colleagues’ feedback: Can they follow your arguments? Are the figures and tables clearly described? Is the text well written (get a native English speaker to check it)?

When revising your manuscript: Take the referees’ and editors’ requests and criticisms on board!

This is your opportunity to improve the manuscript!

Before submitting your manuscript to another journal: Make sure you modify the cover letter Don’t ignore a rejection and address the referees’ criticisms as

much as you can in the manuscript

Appeals!

Remember… Peer review is not a democracy Reviewers often disagree with

each other Editors may overrule reviewers

….mistakes can be made (everyone is human)!

How to appeal

Don’t dash it off as soon as you receive a rejection

Was the decision a serious mistake (rather than a borderline case)?

Can a rebuttal be made of the concerns raised?

Be polite and calm

Grounds for considering appeals

If the editors are convinced that the original decision was a serious mistake

If a referee made substantial errors of fact or showed evidence of bias ONLY if a reversal of that referee's opinion would have changed the original decision.

Further consideration usually involves external advice: original or additional reviewers.

Tips:DO: Be clear you are

appealing Be clear what specific

issue is at the root of the appeal. It should be new information –that wasn’t available to the editors at the time of the decision.– Referee or editor made

factual errors or missed important considerations

– New data became available

– Specific evidence of referee bias

– Comprehensive rebuttal

DON’T: Cite author’s status or

reputation Use threats, abuse,

emotive language Use celebrity

endorsement Repeat the cover letter

….and good luck!

Thank You!

[email protected]

Getting research published: a BioMed Central workshop on publishing in open access journals

Education

Transcript of Getting research published: a BioMed Central workshop on publishing in open access journals