Publishing in international journals: From bench to acceptance Matthew Salter Publishing Manager, Asia-Pacific

Monday 29th June 2015

The University of Tokyo

• Brief introduction to IOP Publishing

• Writing scientific papers: three common myths

• Choosing a journal

• Open Access vs Subscription journals

• Impact factors

• Planning and writing your paper: things to consider

• Writing better scientific English

• Peer review

• Summary

Outline of the talk

The global scientific publishing landscape in numbers

2,000 Journal publishers globally

Peer-reviewed journals

10m readers worldwide

2.5bn

Full text downloads

Per year

2,000,000 articles

per year*

30,000

*growing by 3-4% p.a.

PRC #1 source of research papers

18.7% total

Fraction of papers published OA

• Leading non-profit scientific society

• Established in 1874

• Worldwide membership of 50,000+

• Mission to advance physics education, research and application

• Engages with policymakers, students and educators, and the general public

• www.iop.org

• For-profit publishing arm of IOP

• Society publisher of 70+ journals in the physical sciences , conference proceedings, ebooks

• Many partner journals

• Physics World

• www.iopscience.iop.org

IOP around the world

IOP Publishing in numbers

75 Journals & Magazines

Articles per year

30,000

27

International publishing partners

3

Full-text downloads

22m staff in 16 locations

>300

Partner journals 40

IOP Japanese partner journals

Japanese Journal of Applied Physics

Applied Physics Express Fluid Dynamics Research Science and Technology of Advanced Materials

JSAP (IF=1.127) JSAP (IF=2.365) JSFM (IF=0.990) NIMS (IF=3.513)

Writing scientific papers: three common myths

• Your paper will be rejected if the English is poor

• Your paper will be rejected if it is incorrectly formatted

• There is a secret magical trick to getting published in a scientific journal

Getting published: three key factors

• Carry out innovative, high-quality, relevant research

• Write the paper in a clear, informative manner

• Submit to a journal of appropriate scope and level

What journals look for in a paper

• Novelty and innovation

• Significant step forward and/or a breakthrough in performance

• High impact in the field

• Important advance in scientific understanding

• Data persuasively supports conclusions

• In some cases, interesting to a broad range of readers

• Consider the journal for your paper before you begin writing

• Think about who you want to ready your paper

• Don’t choose the journal primarily on its Impact Factor

• Be honest about the level of the paper you are writing

• Read the journal scope statements and Instructions to Authors

Deciding on the right journal for your paper

Publishing scientific papers is a very important part of a researchers job and can be a career changing decision. There are many factors to consider when choosing the right journal for your paper.

Things to consider when selecting a journal

• The audience you wish to address

• Journal scope

• Reputation

• Publication frequency

• Quality criteria

• Speed

• Who else publishes in the journal

• Open access or subscription based

• Technical-peer-review-only journals

• Impact factor

Impact Factors

e.g. Journal X publishes 175 articles in 2012 and 212 in 2013

In 2014 it receives 943 citations to these articles across the entire literature;

943 / (175 + 212) = 2.437 Impact Factor for 2013

# citations in 2014 to articles published in 2012 and 2013 IF (2013) =

# articles published in 2012 and 2013

• The Impact Factor (IF) is a measurement of the importance and

influence of a journal.

• Calculated based on a two-year period.

• Normally published in June-July of the year after the

measurement period

Problems with the Impact Factors

• The Impact Factor is a backward-looking metric

• Does not assess current performance of a journal

• IF is awarded to journals, not individual articles

• Articles in high IF journals not necessarily high quality, articles in

low IF journals not necessarily low quality

• IF can be ‘gamed’ and are sensitive to the size of a journal

• Other metrics available

e.g. 5-year IF, Altmetric, sharing on social media

• IF open to abuse by institutions, funders etc.

Open Access journals: how are they different?

Open-Access journal

• Accepted articles available on payment of an Article Publication Charge (APC)

• Publishing costs paid by the APC

• Anyone can access the article

• No cost to libraries

• Unlimited access

• Creative Commons CC-BY or CC-BY-NC

Subscription journal

• Made available to readers by subscription (normally institutional).

• Publishing costs paid by the subscription fees

• No subscription, no access

• Needs library budget

• Restricted access

• Reproduction rights complex

• Open Access publishing becoming increasingly popular

• Many high-quality OA journals now available

• Three patterns for OA journals: Green, Gold and Hybrid

• Gold OA

– APC charged

– Immediate free access and re-use of ‘Version of Record’

– Creative Commons’ licence, e.g. CC-BY or CC-BY-NC

• Green OA

– No APC but embargo period (normally 12 months) on free access/re-use

– Normally ‘Accepted Manuscript’ form (not ‘Version of Record’ made available

– Archiving on repositories, publisher websites. Preprint and Accepted Manuscripts possible (e.g. through arXiv

• Hybrid OA

– Subscription journals with option to publish some individual articles as Gold OA

• Four dedicated open access journals in portfolio of over 75.

• Three open access Conference Proceedings

• 40 ‘hybrid’ journals, publishing individual papers on an open access basis within subscription-based journals, since 2011

‒ CC BY licence our standard licence for gold open access publication

‒ Dedicated OA journals – no subscription

‒ ‘Hybrid’ model combining subscription with OA option

– Care to ensure no-one pays twice

• Self-archiving of accepted version (green OA) after 12 month embargo period

IOP Open Access policy

Writing the paper: General points

• The ABC of writing style

– Be Accurate

– Be Brief

– Be Clear

• Clarity

– Write for your reader

– Do not over-explain and avoid overstatement

• Language and grammar

– Use simple words and avoid jargon

– Avoid long sentences. Use more, shorter sentences.

– Think carefully about verb tenses.

– Write in the active voice.

A scientific paper must contain enough information to enable readers to:

• Assess observations

• Repeat experiments

• Evaluate conclusions and data interpretations

Planning your paper: The basic requirements

• The journal in which you intend to publish the paper

• The significance of your work

• The broader context of your work

• The major unsolved problems in your field

• What your work has added to the current knowledge of the field

• The methods and techniques use in your work

• The wider impact of your work

Before beginning to write, plan your paper carefully bearing the following points in mind:

Planning your paper: General considerations

• Include enough data to make a coherent point.

• Avoid so called ‘salami-slicing’

• Top-tier journals will normally want a more complete story.

• BUT…also consider other factors (students/postdocs, competition) in assessing cost/benefit

• Be honest — do not ignore data that do not fit your hypothesis

• Be selective — include the necessary data to support the main claims, but do not overcrowd the paper

• Gather all material for the paper.

• List the ideas to include.

• Consider the best format for your data (graphs, tables, figures).

• Develop an outline for the paper.

• Select the data for figures and tables.

• Design the figures and tables and place in order.

• Write rough subject headings to add structure.

Writing the paper: Getting started

• Work from large to small

• Use graphs, figures and tables to ‘storyboard’ the develop coherent flow

• Introduces ideas and data in a logical order

• Increases readability

Writing the paper: Overall structure Concepts

Subsections

Paragraphs

Sentences

Writing the paper: Essential elements

• Title

• Abstract

• Introduction

• Methods

• Results

• Discussion

• Conclusion

• Acknowledgments

• References

• Figures

• Title Most visible part of the paper. Concise, informative, draws attention of the reader.

• Abstract Summarizes paper into a single paragraph.

• Introduction Describes the main goals and give an overview of methods. Sets the work in the context of previous research.

• Discussion Introduction of data, comparison to previous work, theoretical or practical implications, description of the significance of the work. Show the significance and impact of your results. Compare with other published work, discuss the implications and applications

• Conclusion Summarize major points, highlight novelty and significance of your work, answer questions put in the Introduction, plans for future work

• Methods Present data in an organized manner with enough information to allow duplication of your results. Ethical statements showing compliance with laws governing animal and human subjects (if applicable).

• Acknowledgements Recognize the contribution of funders or other people or agencies who have given assistance

• References Cite appropriate references to original works both historical and recent. Follow the reference style of the journal

Writing the paper: Write for your readers

• Remember: you know your work but your readers do not

• Focus on a single main question

• Plan the content and organization with an outline especially the flow of reasoning

• Use simple, direct and concise wording

• Check that all parts are connected with persuasive reasoning, appropriate structure, linkage and context.

Writing the paper: Tips on style

• Use active voice; for example, “We demonstrate…” rather than “It is demonstrated…”

• Current work in present tense

• Previous work in past tense

• Put your work into context. Explain its importance in relation to previous papers

• Reference relevant previous literature

• Do not exaggerate. Conclusions must be supported by results

• Give potential impact and future work

• Refer briefly to your results to support your discussion statements

Levels of confidence

impossible < implausible < unlikely < plausible < possible < probable < likely < certain

• Editing is an essential part of the process. Helps refine and enhance the text

• Refine language and review presentation, structure and content.

• Remember: even native speakers of English need editing

• Ask others for comments even experienced authors benefit from this

• Leave some time between writing and editing

• If English is not your first language, ask a native English speaker to help

• Be completely honest with yourself, it is normal to rewrite entire sections from scratch

• The final step is proof reading

Writing the paper: Editing and proofing

Submitting your paper: Cover Letter

• Additional opportunity to ‘sell’ your work.

• Freedom to speculate (within reason)

• State in a concise, clear and informative way why the journal should publish

your paper. Think of it as an opening statement to the court in a legal case.

• Not all journals require cover letters, but including one is strongly encouraged.

• Seems like a lot of trouble but in fact it is a golden opportunity.

The Cover Letter: Recommending referees

• Suggested referees including their areas of expertise

• Suggested exclusion list (i.e. people who should NOT be approached to review the MS because of conflicts of interest)

• Statements that experiments done comply with animal care and human subject laws

• Statement that manuscript is not simultaneously being considered at another journal

• Your contact information (email, phone, address)

Peer review is the process of subjecting a scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field

Peer Review

• Vital part of publishing

• Gives the scientific community and the public a reliable indicator on what to believe

• Gives authors feedback that can help to improve a paper

• Maintains quality by filtering out weaker papers

• Helps editors decide what to publish

Peer review: a typical mechanism

• The editorial team review all submissions

– Check for content, originality, novelty and scope

– Use to detect plagiarism or duplication

– Consult the journal’s Editorial Board if necessary

– If the paper is not suitable it will be rejected at this stage

Peer review: ‘Pre-refereeing’

• Plagiarised work

• Incremental work – only a very small advance on earlier work

• Work falling outside the journal scope

• Insufficient content or new data (expectations vary between journals)

• Derivative work – using including text and previous work by the same author.

‘Pre-refereeing’: Common reasons for rejection

• Referees are chosen based on: – Expertise – Independence – Availability – Previous record

Peer review: Referee selection

• Referee knows who the author is (Single Blind) • Authors don’t know who the referee is

• Normally require at least two referee reports - Adjudicator consulted if reports disagree

• Decision is based on reports sent to the editorial team

• Revisions based on referee suggestions normally requested

• Rejection rates >65% common for high-quality journals

Peer review: Making a first decision

• Read each referee’s report carefully

• Address each and every comment specifically

• Do not just make a few cosmetic revisions and hope for the best.

• Never ignore a comment

• Keep a list of all your changes

• If you disagree with the referees, clearly explain why

Peer review: Responding to referees’ comments

Peer review: Following revision

● Paper will be accepted if the referees are satisfied ● …or rejected if the revisions are not strong enough

• PLOS One/Scientific Reports

– ‘Light-touch’ or ‘low-threshold’ peer review; review for soundness of methodology only, not for quality or importance

• PeerJ

– Very low-cost open access peer review and publication; $99 for one paper per year, $299 for unlimited papers, per author

• Rubriq

– Peer review independent of a journal

– $600 per review

– Business model as yet unproven

Alternative peer review models

Peer review: Possible outcomes

• Accept with or without editorial revisions

• Revise requested to address specific concerns

• Reject, with an option of resubmission with significant new data

• Reject outright

• Don’t lose heart: scientific publishing is tough

• Learn from the experience and improve your paper

• Consider submit ting to another journal (may require some rewriting)

• Using the publishing company’s manuscript transfer system (if they offer one)

• If you think the decision was wrong most journals give you an opportunity to appeal.

Peer review: Getting rejected

Be appealing not appalling

• Try to tell us how to do our job

• Sound angry

• Claim referees were unfair

• Try to guess the referees’ identities then make personal attacks

• Claim celebrity or personal endorsements

• Just make cosmetic change (with no real change in the substance of the paper)

• Make statements about the authors’ reputation: “Do you realise who I am ?”

• Say things like: “Our paper is better than horrible paper X that you published…”

When making an appeal don’t:

Accepted for publication: final steps

• Sub editing (on some journals) to ensures scientific terms are accurate

• English language polishing

• Author corrects proofs

• Advanced online publication (depends on journal)

• Print published later (depends on journal)

• Journal cover? Press release? Journalistic coverage?

Yippee! Success! Time to crack open the champagne. But before the article there are just a few final steps

Summary

• Plan your paper as you plan your research

• Carefully choose the journal and follow the guidelines

• Write for your audience

• Organize your material well

– Plan an outline

– Focus or the main points

– Use clear English and short sentences

– Provide appropriate structure, linkage and context

• Seek and value feedback and criticism

• Do not get discouraged