which points are important for editors and reviewers?* prof. dr. süleyman kaplan 1

Which points are important forEditors and Reviewers?*

Prof. Dr. Süleyman Kaplan

1

Scientific papers are often poorly constructed and written

Many scientists do not enjoy writing

So familiar with the material they have difficulty seeing it from the readers perspective

Result: loss of dissemination of critical (and expensive) information to the scientific community

2

Reasons effective writing is difficult for many scientists

They don’t enjoy writingEnglish is not their native languageTime constraints limit their time

Yet, publication is absolutely essential for a scientist

3

To assist with writing

Prepare the data and gather the key references

Prepare an outline of major issues to be covered

Supplement this outline with additional details

First write the sections of the report with which you are most comfortable, e.g., results

Plan a specific writing session

4

Factors Influencing Acceptance of a Paper

Importance of topicOriginalityScientific strength of dataClarity of presentationCompleteness of written expressionPotential interest to readership

Journals survive on the basis of their impact factor

5

Politely reply to reviewers’ comments (even though you

may strongly disagree)(reviewers do make errors)

Rarely is a paper accepted without change

Explanation or changes made/not made (required changes versus suggestions !!!)(Referees are constructing a bridge between you and editor…)

6

Journal Rejection Rate

Varies widely among journals

Usually higher among high impact factor journals

Not uncommonly as high as 75%, or greater

Rejection rate increases as impact factor becomes higher

7

Reasons for rejectionLack of novelty, e.g., use of a different species

Primarily confirmatory

No mechanisms defined

Does not advance state of science (observational)

Poorly prepared(Guide to Authors exists for a reason)

Methods outdated

Outside the interest of the journal (triage; a good thing)

8

Sometimes papers are rejected becausethey are too revolutionary, they are “ahead of their time”

Witness, Barry Marshall, Nobel Prize winner

For the same reason, truly revolutionary papers are not cited until years after their publication

Witness, discovery of melatonin in plants

The nice thing about science is that truth eventually prevails9

A reviewer often makes a decision if a paper will be accepted/rejected

on the basis of his/her first impression

Reviewer reads the remainder of the paper looking for a support for the original decision

10

Factors Leading to Rejection of a Paper

Merely extends previously known information to another species

Provides no fundamental advance in biology/medicine

Paper is purely descriptive Lacks mechanistic insights Large data sets that fail to highlight biological

significance

Failure to follow Instructions for AuthorsPaper not neat (cannot be over emphasized)

14

Little Things may Make a Big Difference

Font size (most journals require at least 12 point)

Font type (common are Times New Roman, Arial, Calibri) Avoid exotic font types, e.g., Gaudy Stout, Old English, etc.

Do not justify left-hand margin

Number pages

Make it as easy as possible for editor/reviewers

15

When publishing

Conflicts of interest must be specified (in the event of potential bias)

Transparency by all co-authors

Conflicts of interest are potentially more commonwhen research is supported by a pharmaceutical company

Thus, the judgment of the researcher may be influenced by the likelihood of continue financial support

16

http://researchedu.med.miami.edu/x18.xml

Definition Plagiarism is the intentional use of someone else's words

(e.g., direct quotes), thoughts (e.g., paraphrased quotes), ideas (e.g., charts, data), or internet materials in your own writings/presentations without acknowledging their source.

Plagiarism is the theft of intellectual property and is not unlike stealing from a commercial business.

A special case of plagiarism is the unacceptable practice is "self plagiarism" in which an author will use segments of his/her own published material (e.g., methods section of a scientific paper) in a new publication without reference.

Plagiarism

17

PLAGIARISM IN SCIENCE(unfortunately more common than you think)

Editors/reviewers and granting agencies

considers plagiarism to be scientific

misconduct

This is a consideration in publishing and in

grant applications

Reviewers must treat applications and

manuscripts confidentially (not borrow ideas) 18

Penalties for plagiarismand scientific misconduct

Embarrassment

Lost of scientific reputation

Disbarment from applying for grants

Financial penalties

Incarceration

20

Journal Impact Factors depend on research field

Journals in some fields permit many citations (biochemistry/molecular biology) while others greatly limit

number of cited articles (mathematics)

In highly dynamic fields where data quickly becomes obsolete (biochemistry/molecular biology), most citations occur soon after publication

These citations are used to calculate the Impact Factor

21

Does Open Access have advantages over Conventional publication

In first year, Open Access articles get more downloads and reach a broader audience

However, they do not get more citations (within the first 3 years)

The groups that benefit most from Open Access publishingare organizations that use the knowledge, but do not publish, and the companies that publish these articles

23

The fact that neither Editors nor Reviewers are perfect (or may have a conflict of interest)

should motivate authors of rejected papers to resubmit,

after due consideration of the suggestions of the reviewers,

their paper to another journal

24

Even for the “best” journals, reviewers are often hard to find

Some journals have unqualified reviewers on the Editorial Board

The best known scientists are often too busy to review a paper (often younger scientists are the best reviewers)

Sometimes suggested reviewers are fraudulent(on occasion the suggested reviewer is an author of the paper using an unrecognized e-mail)

25

Peer Review of Scientific Papers is not without Flaws

In October, 2013, John Bohannon’s spoof paper

This fraudulent paper had serious flaws:

1. No approval to use human subjects 2. Glaring errors in presentation of results3. Irrelevant conclusions

Accepted by 157 of 304 Open Access journals to which it was submitted

Oter S, Wellington G. Universal ethics in scientific publishing. J Exp Integr Med 2014; 4(1), 1-2

26

Your goals in science should be identified

Never too early to establish goals

Short-term goals

Long-term goals(e.g., in 10 years)

Randomness is not a method that ensures success

(don’t watch things happen, make things happen)27

No one said it would be easy (competition makes a better scientist)

Rejection is not an excuse for quitting (rejection makes a better scientist)

Education is expensive (having done it, exploit it)

28

I thank you for this opportunity

and wish all of you success in

your scientific endeavors

29

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

* By courtesy of Prof. R. Reiter30