Mr.

Muhammad
Imran (IBBT)
JOURNAL SELECTION AND FAST
TRACK PUBLICATION

0923338405663
Content Part 1
1. Covering letter and Title
2. Abstract writing (Heart)
3. Introduction writing skills
4. Methodology writing Skills
5. Results Demonstration
6. Discussion section (Most Important)
7. Conflict of interest
8. Acknowledgement
9. References
Content part 2
• Selection of Journal
• Elsevier Journal Finder
• Springer Journal suggester
• Other publishing centers
• Fast track publication
• Paper style
• Ethical standards
• Conflict of interest
 Cover letter

• Why the paper fits the journal’s scope

Convince the • Why readers would find it important
editor • Why the paper is important for the field
• Originality of the research

Highlight • Give a brief, largely non-technical summary

• Put the work in context
novelty and
• Explain briefly the specific advances over
impact previous research and potential applications

# 3.1.16
 Cover letter

• Submission type (article, review, report, etc.)

• Unique submission
Other • Agreement of all co-authors
statements • Potential conflict of interest
• Co-authors contact details
• History of the manuscript
• Independent reviewers suggestion (or
exclusion)

Address • Directly to the Editor in Chief

# 3.1.17
 Cover letter

Avoid typo and

Paste the abstract
spelling errors

Provide the correct

Use acronym and journal’s title and
too technical editor’s name
terminology

Complain about
previous rejection
Exceed two
pages Speak negatively
about other studies or
researchers Over-interpret
your findings
Letter: 1st Paragraph
Letter: 2nd Paragraph
Title and Authorship

• Who can be an author?

• Responsibilities of first author
ownership
submission and communications
Letter: Suggested Reviewers
Title
• Describes the paper’s content clearly and precisely including keywords
• Is the advertisement for the article
• Do not use abbreviations and jargon
• Search engines/indexing databases depend on the accuracy of the title - since they use the
keywords to identify relevant articles
 Section of a Paper
Components Purpose
Title Clearly describes contents
Authors Ensures recognition for the writer(s)
Abstract Describes what was done
Ensures the article is correctly identified
Key Words (some journals)
in abstracting and indexing services
Introduction Explains the problem
Methods Explains how the data were collected
Results Describes what was discovered
Discussion Discusses the implications of the findings
Ensures those who helped in the research
Acknowledgements
are recognised
Ensures previously published work is
References
recognised
Provides supplemental data for the expert
Appendices (some journals)
reader
 Abstract
• What was done?
• What were the specific results?
• What are the significant conclusion?

Specific
details

General
significance
 Introduction
• Clearly state the:
• Problem being investigated
• Background that explains the problem
• Reasons for conducting the research
• Summarize relevant research to provide context
• State how your work differs from published work
• Identify the questions you are answering
• Explain what other findings, if any, you are challenging or extending
• Briefly describe the experiment, hypothesis(es), research question(s); general experimental
design or method
 Introduction: Last Paragraph

What samples collected

What was measured

Why? What results

did we hope to achieve?
Introduction
Methods

• Where were samples collected?

• What were the conditions under which they were taken?

• What were the analytical or experimental procedures?

• Provide the reader enough details so they can understand and replicate your
research.

• Explain how you studied the problem, identify the procedures you followed,
and order these chronologically where possible
Methods

Cite the methods of other researchers wherever relevant

 Results

• Objectively present your findings, and explain what was found

• Show that your new results are contributing to the body of scientific knowledge
• Follow a logical sequence based on the tables and figures presenting the findings
to answer the question or hypothesis
• Figures should have a brief description (a legend), providing the reader sufficient
information to know how the data were produced
Results
• Data only—not interpretations

• Show patterns

• Show sample locations

• Discuss errors

• Label axes
 Discussion/Conclusion
• Describe what your results mean in context of what was already known about the subject
• Indicate how the results relate to expectations and to the literature previously cited
• Explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward
• Do not extend your conclusions beyond what is directly supported by your results - avoid undue
speculation
• Outline the next steps for further study
 Conclusion

• Explain the broader significance

• Review the main conclusions

• Offer more speculative interpretations (cautiously)

• Point to the direction of future research

Acknowledgments

• Funding sources (include grant number HEC PSF with number)

• Colleagues who helped

• Laboratory technicians

• Family or friends (not usual, but sometimes done)

Acknowledgments
Appendices (optional)

• Detailed methodology

• Data tables

• Algorithms

• Other useful detail not required in main text

• Check the journal’s guidelines

• May be electronic or printed

Figures and Captions

• Figures should be numbered in the order that they appear in the text

• Figure captions should only explain the figure content (all interpretations
and discussion should be in the text)

• Figures will usually be reduced in size when printed

• Figures will usually be printed in grey tones unless you pay for color
References

• Whenever you draw upon previously published work, you must acknowledge
the source
• Any information not from your experiment and not ‘common knowledge’
should be recognized by a citation
• How references are presented varies considerably - refer to notes for authors
for the specific journal
• Avoid references that are difficult to find
• Avoid listing related references that were not important to the study
Writing Successful Manuscripts
• Selecting a journal

• Thinking ahead during research

• Understanding the publication process

• Writing the manuscript

• Submitting the manuscript

• Responding to reviews

• Publication

• Avoiding common errors

Avoid Common Mistakes
• Read and follow all formatting guidelines

• Be sure the journal is suitable for the research

• Keep in good communications with co-authors

• Keep the paper clearly organized and place information in the correct
location

• Be sure you know the existing research and cite it correctly

 Ethical Issues
• Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
• Acknowledgment of funding sources
• Image manipulation guidelines
• Online submission - supplemental information (datasets, videos)
• For Health Sciences
• Submission of a Clinical Trials to a Central
Registry
• Institutional Review Board approval
Publication Process

• Submission
• Acceptance of submission
• Reviews submitted
 Accepted for publication as written
 Accepted if revised
 Rejected

• Response to reviews
• Re-submission of edited manuscript
 Publishing Tips

Editors and reviewers are looking for original and

innovative research that will add to the field of study;
keys are:

• For research-based papers, ensure that you have enough numbers to justify sound
statistical conclusions

• For a larger study, it may be better to produce one important research paper, rather
than a number of average incremental papers
 START The peer review process

8
AUTHOR 7 Sends the REVIEWER Reads the EDITOR
revised MS revised MS
to reviewers + writes
review report
1 Submits the EDITOR Assesses 9
manuscript reviews
(MS abbrev.)
2B 10 C 10 A
EDITOR Rejects 6 Submits the AUTHOR Sends reviews EDITOR Sends

DEAD

DEAD
without revised MS + asks for

END
reviews

END
review additional + rejects the
revisions revised MS
2 Sends out Sends reviews Sends
A the MS 5 + asks for 10 B
reviews
for review A a first round + accepts
of revisions the paper for
Sends
REVIEWER Reads the EDITOR Assesses EDITOR publication
JOURNAL Prepares JOURNAL
reviews +
MS reviews accepts PRODUCTI proofs for PRODUCTI
+ writes the paper for ON authors ON
review publication DPT DPT
report
3 4 Sends reviews 5 11 Publishes
+ rejects or C the final 12
5B encourages version
resubmission
DEAD
END HAPPY
END
 Reasons for REJECTION
Inappropriate
Incorrect
scope and “Salami” science
formatting
audience

Flaws in Inadequate
Lack of novelty literature citation
methodology

Conclusion not (Self-)Plagiarism

Limited impact Text + Image
supported by the
and urgency
data
Research data
Premature
Lack of not available
publication
interpretations
Deciding What (or When)
to Publish
• Some factors to consider: quality of the work, extent of the work, interest to others
• Suggestions:
• Seek guidance in this regard from others in your field who are more experienced in
publishing journal articles.
• Present your work orally first. Doing so can help in deciding whether the work is
publishable and in shaping the paper.
Identifying a Target Journal

• Decide early (before drafting the paper). Do not write the paper and then look for a
journal.
• Look for journals that have published work similar to yours.
• Consider journals that have published work that you will cite.
Using the Journal’s Instructions
• Read the instructions to authors before starting to prepare your paper.
• Consult the instructions while preparing your paper.
• Check the instructions again before submitting your paper.
Some Questions the Instructions May Answer
• What categories of article does the journal publish?
• What is the maximum length of articles?
• What is the maximum length of abstracts?
• Does the journal have a template for articles? If so, how can it be accessed?
• What sections should the article include? What are the guidelines for each?
Some Questions (cont)
• What guidelines should be followed regarding writing style?
• How many figures and tables are allowed? What are the requirements for them?
• In what format should references appear? Is there a maximum number of references?
• In what electronic format should the paper be prepared?
Submitting the Paper
• Traditional submission (by mail)—now rare
• Electronic submission
• Commonly via online submission system
• Sometimes as e-mail attachment
• Inclusion of a cover letter (conventional or electronic)
• Completion of required forms
Some Categories of Editors at Journals

• Helpful to know because you might interact with each

• Main categories:
• Editor-in-chief (and sometimes associate editors etc)—concerned mainly with content
• Managing editor(s)—concerned mainly with administration of the journal
• Manuscript editor(s)—improve the writing and maintain a consistent style
Initial Screening by the Journal

• For appropriateness of subject matter

• For compliance with instructions
• For overall quality (sometimes)
Peer Review
• Evaluation by experts in the field
• Purposes:
• To help the editor decide whether to publish the paper
• To help the authors improve the paper, whether or not the journal accepts it
The Editor’s Decision
• Based on the peer reviewers’ advice, the editor’s own evaluation, the amount of space in
the journal, other factors
• Options:
• Accept as is (rare)
• Accept if suitably revised
• Reconsider if revised
• Reject
Referees’ reports: what the author sees
(and what the editor sees)
What does the author see? What does the editor see?
Reviewer Number 1 Reviewer Number 2
Title XXX Title XXX
Authors YYY Authors YYY
Quality of the Science Quality of the Science
Mostly competent, suffering from serious flaws Experimentally and/or theoretically excellent,
reliable data, no flaws
Importance of the Science Importance of the Science
Important research on topic of broad Important research on topic of broad significance;
significance; novel aspects novel aspects
Quality of Science Rating 3 Quality of Science Rating 4
Importance of Science Rating 3 Importance of Science Rating 4
Overall Assessment Overall Assessment
Reject in present form, but encourage Accept after minor revision; no further referee
submission of new manuscript assessment
Reduction in Length Reduction in Length
Yes No
Revising a Paper
• Revise and resubmit promptly.
• Indicate what revisions were made.
• Include a letter saying what revisions were made. If you received a list of requested
revisions, address each in the letter.
• If requested, show revisions in Track Changes.
• If you disagree with a requested revision, explain why in your letter. Try to find a
different way to solve the problem that the editor or reviewer noted.
Answering Queries
• Queries: questions from the manuscript editor
• Some topics of queries:
• Inconsistencies
• Missing information
• Ambiguities
• Other
• Advice: Respond promptly, politely, and completely yet concisely.
Responding to referees’ reports
• Read the editor’s letter first for instruction
• Take a deep breath: proceed to the reports
• Put them aside for a day, or two, a week…
• Re-read reports and discuss with coauthors …
• Revise paper and prepare response document
• Remember –
• Even comments that seem aggressive or ignorant can be helpful
• Always view this as a chance to improve the paper
Good response to referees’ reports are ….
• Well organised
• Address common themes at start
• Use a ‘quote and response’ OR numbering system of points raised by each referee
• Informative
• Provide full explanations
• Do not overlook or ignore any points
• Assertive (and polite)
 The decision:
accept, re-review, reject
• Questions going through the editor’s mind:
• How good is the science in this paper?
• Is an important issue/area of study being addressed?
• Is the experimental design appropriate and adequate?
• Are the analyses appropriate and competently done?
• Has the study been put in context?
• Does the paper contribute significantly to the literature?
• Does the paper tell an interesting story?
• Will it be read and cited?
The decision
• Remember –
• The editor will make a final decision based on how well the referees’ reports have
been dealt with, so …
• Revise with care
• Respond fully to each of the referees’ comments
• Present cogent and complete arguments if you have not followed a referee’s
recommendation
• Make the editor’s job as easy as possible!
Reviewing Proofs
• Proofs: typeset material to check
• Review the proofs promptly.
• Some things to check:
• Completeness (presence of all components)
• Accuracy (absence of typographical errors in text and references)
• Placement of figures and tables
• Quality of reproduction of figures
• Note: This is not the time to rewrite the paper.
A Final Step

Celebrate Publication of
Your Paper!
 Impact Factors

no. of citations
Impact Factor =
total no. articles

calculated over the last 2

years

This looks simple. Is it too simple?

 Impact Factor

Are you a good researcher

Nature art. publ. cited in 2014
if you publish in a top journal?
2013 860 29,753
2012 869 41,924
TOTAL 1,729 71,677

71,677
IF2014 = = 41.456
1,729

# 3.4.1
 You published an excellent article last year.
But, for now, it hasn’t received many citations…

How could you (ethically) increase

the visibility of your paper ??
 Present your
Mention your
work in
paper on
conferences
Twitter Cite your paper
in further
publications**
Deposit your
paper in
INFOSCIENCE Disseminate
* the news
through EPFL channels

Add your paper

on academic social
networks*

Share your
datasets

Talk about
your paper
in your blog
# 3.4.8
* within the limits of your contract **when relevant
Summary
• Writing for successful publication means
• having a well designed, original study to write about
• selecting an appropriate outlet/journal
• knowing what you want to write
• writing clearly
• making the story interesting
• highlighting the significance of the results
• responding carefully and positively to referees’ reports
Ten rules for getting published (1)
1. Read many papers, and learn from both the good and the bad ones.
2. The more objective you can be about your work, the better the work
will ultimately become.
3. Good editors and reviewers will be objective about your work.
4. If you do not write well in the English language, take lessons early; it
will be invaluable later.
5. Learn to live with rejection.
 Ten rules for getting published (2)

6. Understand what makes good science and what makes good science writing: be
objective about them.
7. Start writing the paper the day you have the idea of what questions to pursue
8. Become a reviewer early in your career.
9. Decide early on where to try to publish your paper.
10. Quality (not quantity) is everything.
Practical demonstration
of paper submission
Questions