PUBLICATIONS WORKSHOP The British Mycological Society 28/09/2012
Transcription
PUBLICATIONS WORKSHOP The British Mycological Society 28/09/2012
28/09/2012 Wednesday, Sep 5, 14.15- 15.00 PUBLICATIONS WORKSHOP The British Mycological Society Guillermo Quindós Editor of R evista Iberoamericana de Micología Universidad del País Vasco (UFI 11/25 UPV/EHU), Bilbao Au thors: Alina Helsloot & Guillermo Quindós M e et the Journal Editors- Question & Answer session, Senior E d itors of the BMS Journals How to Write a World Class Paper 1. Why do scientists publish? 2. Why is it important to submit a GOOD manuscript? 3. What is a good manuscript? 4. How to write a good manuscript 5. Revision and response to reviewers 6. Ethical Issues 7. Conclusion: what leads to ACCEPTANCE 2 1 28/09/2012 1. Why do scientists publish? … to share with the scientific community something that advances knowledge in a certain field: Results and ideas not published, do not exist! A research study is meaningful only if… It is clear/ understood/ reproducible → it is used Your paper is a passport to the scientific community 3 2. Why is it important to submit a good manuscript? Before submitting an article make sure it is as good as you can make it. Because: i t makes YOUR life easier Your chances of acceptance will be increased. … b ut also the life of the Editors and Reviewers Editors and Reviewers are often overloaded. Incomplete manuscripts can create great frustration. 4 2 28/09/2012 3. What is a good manuscript? A good manuscript makes readers grasp the scientific significance EASILY Important are both …the CONTENT – useful and exciting …and the PRESENTATION – clear, logical 5 4. How to write a good manuscript Before starting: Ask yourself WHY you want to publish your work o Have you made a contribution or solved a problem in your field? o o Put your work into perspective with existing data Know the latest results! 6 3 28/09/2012 Which kind of contribution? Ask yourself in What FORM you want to submit your work o Fu ll / Original articles The most important papers; often substantial completed pieces of research that are of significance. o No t es / Cases / Rapid Communications / Short Communications / Letters o Usually published for the quick and early communication of significant and original advances; much shorter than full articles (usually strictly limited). o R eview papers / Perspectives / Special articles / Opinion papers o Summarize recent developments on a specific topic; highlight important points that have been previously reported and introduce no new information; often submitted on invitation. o 7 Which journal should you chose? A sk yourself to Which AUDIENCE you want to submit your work o Identify the sector of readership/community for which a paper is meant. o Identify the interest of your audience Which journals are read by your community? o Ch o ose the right journal! o Aims and scope o Accepted types of articles o Readership/Community o Current hot topics (go through the abstracts of recent publications) o Prestige, impact, but not only Impact factor! TIP: Articles in your references will likely lead you to the right journal! 8 4 28/09/2012 Before typing, read the journal’s ‘Guide for Authors’ Apply the Guide for Authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft. Check for length of manuscript, text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and tables, abbreviations etc. It will save your time, and the editor’s! 11 The general structure of a full article The writer of a scientific paper has the advantage of a readymade scaffold on which to build. o Main o o o An architect designing a house text : IMRAD Introduction Methods Results And o Discussion (Conclusions) o 12 5 28/09/2012 The general structure of a full article T i tle A u thors A b stract, Keywords Main text (IMRAD) Introduction Methods Results And Discussion (Conclusions) Make them easy for indexing and searching! (informative, attractive, effective) Journal space is precious. Make your article as brief as possible. If clarity can be achieved in n words, never use n+1! Acknowledgements, Conflict of Interests Re ferences Supplementary material 14 Work in progress versus final masterpiece The process of writing – building the article This is a very individual process, and you should do it in the way that suits you best. Many find it easiest to start spinning the story starting with figures/tables, the actual data. 4. 3. 2. 1. Title & Abstract Conclusion Introduction Methods Results Discussion Figures/tables (your data) 15 6 28/09/2012 The final article GENERAL Introduction SPECIFIC Methods & Results GENERAL Discussion, Conclusion 16 The title “Developm ent of a Fusarium graminearium Affymetrix GeneChip for profiling fungal gene expression in vitro and in planta” Is this a good title? What do you expect from this article? Is it specific enough to tell you what the article is about? Is it concise enough to generate your interest? The title is your opportunity to attract the reader’s attention. Keep it informative and concise: Bibliographic databases. Avoid technical jargon, cliches and abbreviations, if possible. 17 7 28/09/2012 Abstract o o o o This is the advertisement of your article. Make it interesting, and easy to be understood without reading the whole article. You must be accurate and specific A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your work is further considered: Bibliographic databases. Keep it as brief as possible (250-500 words) TIP: This is often the only part that people read. 18 Keywords: used for indexing and searching o Do not be too narrow,… and neither too broad o Avoid abbreviations o Check the Guide for Authors for instructions TIP: Search for your keywords online. → Would readers find YOUR article using these keywords? 19 8 28/09/2012 Introduction : Why did you start? (to convince readers that you clearly know why your work is useful) Give overall picture – keep it brief (no history lesson) Current state of knowledge What is the problem? Are there any existing solutions? What are their main limitations? And what do you hope to achieve? Aim or target of your study? 20 Methods: What did you do? (how the problem was studied) o Include detailed information, so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment. o However, use references and Supplementary Materials to indicate the previously published procedures. 21 9 28/09/2012 Results: What did you find? 22 Results o Tell a clear and easy-to-understand story. → RED THREAD o Only representative results – but do not hide results! o Add Supplementary Materials for data of secondary importance. o Be structured (sub-headings) 23 10 28/09/2012 Appearance counts o Un-crowded plots, symbols clear to read and data sets easy to discriminate. o Scale bar on photographs. o Use color ONLY when necessary. o Do not include long boring tables! 24 Discussion: What does it mean? o Here you SELL your data o Discussion to correlate with results, but o Put don’t repeat results your results into perspective with previously published data ATTENTION: DO NOT ignore work in disagreem ent with yours – confront it and convince the reader that you are correct 25 11 28/09/2012 Discussion - Watch out for the following: o Don’t exaggerate o Be specific (say “48 degrees” instead of “higher temperature”) o Avoid sudden introduction of new terms or ideas o Speculations on possible interpretations are allowed. But these should be rooted in fact, rather than imagination. o Check logic and justifications 26 Conclusions Provide a clear scientific justification for your work! TIP: DO NOT repeat the abstract End by stating HOW your results alter or advance current ideas If possible, indicate future lines of research. What have you shown? What does it mean for the field? Indicate possible applications and extensions, if appropriate 27 12 28/09/2012 References Typically, there are more mistakes in the references than any other part of the manuscript. It is one of the most annoying problems, and causes great headaches among editors… o o o Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based Do not inflate the manuscript with too many references o Avoid excessive self-citations o Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region o TIP: 30-40 references are appropriate for a full text article 28 Guidelines on AUTHORSHIP o o Each author should have pa r ticipated sufficiently in the work represented by the article to ta ke public responsibility for the content. Participation must include thr ee steps: o o o o o 29 Co n ception /design of the work and/or a n a lysis and interpretation of data. Dr a fting and/or revising the article for critically important content. Fi n al approval of the version to be published. Participation solely in the collection of data (or other evidence) does not justify authorship. Each part of the content of an article critical to its main conclusions and each step of the work that led to its publication must be attributable to at least one author. Edward J. Huth (1990) 29 13 28/09/2012 Author names: common problems o o o o o o Järvinen = Jaervinen or Jarvinen ? Lueßen = Lueben or Luessen ? Borchard or Borchardt ? Jaap Van Harten = Harten JV or Van-Harten J? José García Pérez = Pérez JG or García-Pérez J? José Álvarez de Vitoria Mendoza = Mendoza JAV or Álvarez-de-Vitoria-Mendoza J? o … and what happens if you marry ? Be consistent, my friend? 30 Cover letter o View it as a job application letter: it is your chance to speak to the Editor directly: include the rationale for publishing you paper. o WHY did you submit the o manuscript to THIS journal? Do not summarize your manuscript or repeat the abstract o Mention special requirements; e.g.: if you do not wish your manuscript to be reviewed by certain reviewers. 31 14 28/09/2012 Language 1. G rammar: UK or US spelling? Be consistent! 2. Style "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler” (Einstein) Be clear → Be objective → Avoid imprecise language → Be brief DO NOT believe people who tell you that writing is easy Except for the fortunate few, writers are made, not born, and the fashioning is a painful process. This is a very private struggle between you and a blank sheet of paper (Alex Paton, 1989) 32 “Write quickly and you will never write well; write well and you will soon write quickly” Marco Fabio Quintiliano (c. 65 AD) 15 28/09/2012 “Write, read, rewrite. Repeat steps two and three as needed” Susan Sontag (14.04.2009) The peer-review process Submission Author ↔ co-authors ↔ institution (sponsor) Review Editor-in-Chief ↔ (associate) Editor ↔ Editorial Board ↔ Reviewers (two or more) P eer review = a methodological check of the manuscript by two or more anonymous reviewers in a relevant subject field BUT: Many journals adopt the system of ‘initial review’ Editors may reject without sending your manuscript to reviewers 36 16 28/09/2012 5. Revision and response to reviewers o P r epare a detailed letter of response o o Copy-paste reviewer comments and address one by one. Don’t miss any point. Sta te specifically what changes you have made to the manuscript. Give page and line number. Underline changes in the manuscript. → A typical problem: Discussion is provided but it is not clear what changes have been made. o o o o P r ovide a scientific response to the comment you accept; or a convincing, solid and polite rebuttal to the point you think the r eviewer is wrong. Revise the whole manuscript o o not just the parts the reviewers point out M inor revision does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision. o Do not count on acceptance, but address all comments carefully 37 … and if the paper has been rejected • Remember: It happens to everybody! • Try to understand WHY, consider reviewers advice • Be self-critical • If you want to submit to another journal, begin as if you are going to write a NEW article →Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal 38 17 28/09/2012 6. Ethics Issues in Publishing Scientific misconduct o Falsification of results Publication misconduct o Plagiarism o o o o o o o Different forms / severities The paper must be original to the authors Duplicate submission Duplicate publication No appropriate acknowledgement of prior research and researchers No appropriate identification of all co-authors Conflict of interest 39 Publishing Ethics: an answer to misconduct? o CrossCheck: iThenticate anti-plagiarism software http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html o Elsevier PERK: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorshome.editors/Int roduction o COPE-membership: Committee on Publication Ethics http://publicationethics.org/ 40 18 28/09/2012 The article of which the authors committed plagiarism: it won’t be removed from ScienceDirect. Everybody who downloads it will see the reason of retraction… 41 7. Conclusion: What leads to acceptance ? o o o o o o o o o o Attention to details Check and double check your work Consider the reviewers’ comments English must be as good as possible Presentation is important Take your time with revision Acknowledge those who have helped you New, original and previously unpublished Critically evaluate your own manuscript Ethical rules must be obeyed 42 19 28/09/2012 Remember o A TOPIC WORTHY for publication… and a sty le that makes this obvious. o An h o n est assessment of the scope… and a text that i m p resses without exaggerating. The r i g ht group of authors… and a c o herent text despite multiple authors. o o o o o o o o o A TITLE that is s p ecific to the content… and also appeals to the non-specialist. An ABSTRACT that is c l ear… and also g ets attention. An INTRODUCTION that poses a q u estion… and keeps the reader reading. METHODS & RESULTS that are c o m plete… and as c o ncise as possible. DATA that are a c c urate… and that make a (c i table) point. A DISCUSSION that puts ideas into a c o n t ext… and also generates a novel idea. Ca r eful use of language and terminology… and a unique statement. A CONCLUSION that is r el evant… and also m emorable. Judith Crane (May 2009) 43 Questions? [email protected] 44 20