docNature Communications Nicky Dean Associate Editor
download 
Report Transcription
Nature Communications Nicky Dean Associate Editor
How to get published in Nature Communications Nicky Dean Associate Editor Nature Communications Demystifying the editorial process at Nature journals Nicky Dean Associate Editor Nature Communications The Nature story Nature launched 4 November 1869 Published and privately owned by Macmillan 3 Mission Statement First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life. 4 NPG - A global enterprise Editorial offices in London, Washington DC, New York, Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, Munich, Shanghai, Paris and Tokyo 5 The NPG family of journals Nature Nature Communications Scientific Reports 6 Nature 7 Famous hits at Nature Discovery of Australopithecus (1925) Existence of the neutron (1932) Structure of DNA (1953) Dolly cloned from adult cells (1997) The human genome sequence (2001) 8 9 Infamous misses Krebs cycle - rejected without review. Beta decay (Fermi) - rejected without review. Presumably many more recent submissions… 10 Nature life sciences journals 1983 1992 1994 1995 1998 1999 2000 2004 11 Nature physical sciences journals 2002 2005 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 12 The NPG family of journals Nature Nature Communications Scientific Reports 13 Impact factor 7.396* Online only Open Access options Multidisciplinary No ‘front half’ Advisory Panel * 2011 Journal Citation Reports® Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2012) 14 Nature Communications Published 701 papers in 2012 51% of papers were “biology” 38% of papers were “physics” 8% of papers were “chemistry” Biology Chemistry Earth Physics 3% of papers were “earth and environment” 15 16 The NPG family of journals Nature Nature Communications Scientific Reports 17 Technically sound papers Not assessed for impact or novelty External Editors Fully Open Access Multidisciplinary Daily publication 18 Scientific Reports Published 797 papers in 2012 56% of papers were “biology” 33% of papers were “physics” 6% of papers were “chemistry” Biology Physics Chemistry Earth 5% of papers were “earth and environment” 19 Open Access Nature Communications offers two Creative Commons licences: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works www.creativecommons.org/licenses 20 Open Access Scientific Reports offers three Creative Commons licences: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works Attribution www.creativecommons.org/licenses 21 Meet the Nature Communications Editors Chief Editor Lesley Anson Associate Editor Nicky Dean Managing Editor Joerg Heber Associate Editor Curtis Asante Executive Editor, China Ed Gerstner Associate Editor Christoph Schmitt Senior Editor Katie Ridd Associate Editor Luke Batchelor Senior Editor Richard White Assistant Editor Giulia Cuccato Senior Editor Niki Scaplehorn Assistant Editor, China Congcong Huang 22 Getting published 23 Think well ahead • Nature journals consider papers that are conceptually novel and that do not represent an incremental step • Resist temptation for quick publication • We don’t mind conference presentations or prepublication on preprint servers • We do mind publication of conference proceedings in journals or other widely disseminated ventures 24 Prepare well • Self-selection: Where does it fit into the field? Will it represent a significant leap forward? • Prepare the paper well (the first time!) clear structure, accessible, bring out the key message • Read the guide to authors and comply with journal policies 25 Cover letters Not helpful: 26 Cover letters • They are useful, but often overrated • Explain appeal of your work, but don’t oversell • We try to honour referee exclusion requests • Identify all related in press or submitted manuscripts 27 http://www.flickr.com/photos/gaetanlee/298178764/ • Always suggest referees, but not all your best friends Key ingredients • Good science • Explain what you have done • Link the results back to the context in a way that convinces others you have made significant progress • The purpose is to communicate results efficiently — not to impress others with how smart you are 28 http://www.flickr.com/photossantos/2252824606/ • Establish the context of the field — why should we care? The editorial process • First decision within a week • We go for impact, not impact factor • Decision based on editor’s expertise — we read about 500 new submissions a year • 2-4 referees per paper; aim at a total turnover time of 4-5 weeks for first decision 29 http://www.flickr.com/photos/elsie/178565914/ • At least one editor reads a paper, although papers are often discussed with other editors The editorial process Returned to author Accept 60-85 % Revise The Theory of Everything Editorial decision Peer Review Editorial decision Original submission date Reject (big revisions) New submission date Reject 30 Typical editorial checks • Novelty of claims • Supporting data in favour of claims • Prior related studies by the authors and others • Cited references: completeness, important omissions 31 The choice of referees • Experience in the field • Technical expertise • Broad overview of current trends and important issues • Efficient (we ask for one week turnaround) • History of thorough and to-the-point reports • Fair-minded and constructive 32 How our decisions are made • Editors make decision based on arguments – we don’t count votes • Most papers experience two rounds of review before publication • For borderline decisions, a goal is to avoid multiple rounds of review • If we consider a work to be of interest, we can be patient and wait for additional experiments to be completed 33 Dealing with referee reports • If invited to resubmit, only do so after you are able to comprehensively address all comments • If further experiments are requested, don’t try to argue your way around them • Stay professional – insults, arrogance and bullying are counterproductive • Referees are only human – they can make mistakes. Don’t forget that these are colleagues in your field and you will have to deal with them again 34 Peer review is a modern tool A paper on gravitational waves written by Einstein and Rosen was rejected by Physical Review on 23 July 1936. Einstein’s only encounter with peer review! His response: Dear Sir, We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address the — in any case erroneous — comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere. Respectfully, Albert Einstein http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml/ 35 Unhappy? http://www.flickr.com/photos/tscarlisle/105062659/ Consider your case realistically Papers are seen again by the handling editor Appeals are not given the highest priority 36 How to appeal • Present new data to make your point! • Point out possible factual errors in the decision process and argue scientifically • Detail the specific contribution of the work to the field as well as its possible immediate impact 37 How not to appeal • Statements about your reputation and the number of papers published • “Celebrity” endorsements • General statements on the importance of a field • Overselling your results • Cosmetic rewriting of the paper 38 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ableman/452302551/ • Unfair and unspecific attacks on referees and editors Manuscript transfer service 39 Thank you www.nature.com/ncomms [email protected] @NatureComms #NCommPhys 40
Similar documents
Publish - perish? Publish - flourish! Jean-Marc Dewaele Deptm of Applied Linguistics &
How to Publish At the June, 2008 CEA meetings, the Canadian Women Economists Network and the Canadian
