getting published workshop, jacob carstensen
TRANSCRIPT
The ‘recipe’ on how to write scientific papers
Jacob Carstensen, Aarhus University
Communicating Science
Science is a shared form of knowledge inseparable from the written or spoken word.
The ability to write and speak effectively will determine, in no uncertain terms, the perceived importance and validity of your work.
Writing can be learned through hard work, patience, and a willingness to learn from others.
Paraphrased from Montgomery (2003) Communicating Science
| 3
Academic publishingThe publishing cycle
Solicit & manage
submissions
30-60% rejected by
> 13,000editors
ManagePeer Review
557,000+ reviewers
Edit &prepare
365,000articles
accepted
Production
12.6 million
articles available
Publish, Disseminate &
Archive
>700 milliondownloads by
>11 millionresearchers in>120 countries!
January 2015
| 4
Choosing the right journalBest practices
Aim to reach the intended audience for your work Choose only one journal, as simultaneous submissions are prohibited Supervisor and colleagues can provide good suggestions Journal Finder Tool: http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/ (shown on next slide) Shortlist a handful of candidate journals, and investigate them:
• Aims & Scope• Article types • Readership • Current hot topics• Review speed• Publication speed
Articles in your reference list will usually lead you directly to the right journals.
| 5
Full articles• Substantial, complete and
comprehensive pieces of researchIs my message sufficient for a full article?
Letters or short communications• Quick and early communications
Are my results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?
Review papers• Summaries of recent
developments on a specific topic• Often submitted by invitation
Planning your articleTypes of manuscripts
Your supervisor or colleagues are also good sources for advice on manuscript types.
2 year IF calculation
| 6
Preparing your manuscript Read Guide for Authors
Find it on the journal homepage of the publisher Keep to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript It will save you time
| 7
Manuscript language - Why is language important? Poor language quality can delay or block publication of work Proper English should be used throughout the manuscript Proper English is important so editors and reviewers can understand
the work Use short, concise sentences, correct tenses, and correct grammar Refer to the journal’s Guide for Authors for specifications Have a native English speaker check your manuscript or use a
language editing service Check the spelling throughout
Do publishers correct language?
No! It is the author’s responsibility...
...but resourcesare available
| 8
General structure of a research article
Title Abstract Keywords
Introduction Methods Results and Discussion
Conclusion Acknowledgements References Supporting materials
Play an important role in allowing the article to be easily found, easily indexed, and advertised to potential readers.
Present your work and convey the main messages and findings effectively. Reader’s time is not unlimited. Make your article as concise as possible.
Artificial groupings and the order can change. Some journals request the Discussion section to be combined with the Conclusion or Results. There are also different arrangements of the order (e.g., Methods put after R & D…). Read the Guide for Authors for the specific criteria of your target journal.
| 9
Attract reader’s attention Contain fewest possible words Adequately describe content Are informative but concise Identify main issue Do not use technical jargon and rarely-used abbreviations Colons, question marks, humour etc improve citations!
Effective manuscript titles (‘catchy title’)
Editors and reviewers do not like titles that make no sense or fail to represent the subject matter adequately. Additionally, if the title is not accurate, the appropriate audience may not read your paper.
| 10
Authorship: Do’s and don’ts
First Author: Conducts and/or supervises the data
analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results
Puts paper together and submits the paper to journal
Co-Author(s): Makes intellectual contributions to the
data analysis and contributes to data interpretation
Reviews each paper draft Must be able to present the results,
defend the implications and discuss study limitations
General principles for who is listed first:
Ghost Authors: Leaving out authors who should
be included
Scientific Writers and Gift Authors: Including authors when they did
not contribute significantly
Abuses to be avoided:
Co-author vs Acknowledgement?
Vancouver Protocol
| 11
Keywords
Article title Keywords“An experimental study on evacuated tube solar collector using supercritical CO2”
Solar collector; supercritical CO2; solar energy; solar thermal utilization
Are the labels of the manuscript Are used by indexing and abstracting services Should be specific Should use only established abbreviations (e.g. DNA) No need to repeat words in the title
Check the Guide for Authors for specifics on which keywords should be used.
| 12
Summarize the problem, methods, results, and conclusions in a single paragraph (no paragraph breaks!)
Make it interesting and understandable Make it accurate and specific
A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not the reader will continue reading your paper
Keep it as brief as possible Acts as an advertisement for your article since it is freely available via
online searching and indexing It may be the only part of the paper that is read!.
Abstract
Take the time to write the abstract very carefully. Many authors write the abstract last so that it accurately reflects the content of the paper.
| 13
The process of writing – building the article
Title, Abstract, and Keywords
Figures/Tables (your data)
Conclusion Introduction
Methods Results Discussion
| 14
• Provide a brief context/background to the readers
• Address the problem• Identify the solutions and limitations• Identify what the work is trying to achieve• Provide a perspective consistent with the
nature of the journal• Give Aim(s), Objectives & Hypotheses
Introduction (what is to be done and why)
Write a unique introduction for every article. DO NOT reuse introductions.
| 15
Describe how the problem was studied
Include detailed information
Do not describe previously published procedures, rather refer to them and cite them fully
Identify the equipment and materials used
Methods (what was done and how)
| 16
Methods – ethics committee approval
Experiments on humans or animals must follow applicable ethics standards
Approval of the local ethics committee is required and should be specified in the manuscript, covering letter, or the online submission system
Editors can make their own decisions on ethics
| 17
Include only data of primary importance
Use sub-headings to keep results of the same type together
Be clear and easy to understand Highlight the main findings
Feature unexpected findings
Provide statistical analysis
Include illustrations and figures
Results (what was found by you)
| 18
Interpretation of results
Most important section
Make the discussion correspond to the results and complement them
Compare published results with your own
Discussion (what it means, compare & contrast, the ‘so what’ and ‘what if’ questions)
Be careful not to use the following:- Statements that go beyond what the results can support- Non-specific expressions- New terms not already defined or mentioned in your paper- Speculations on possible interpretations based on imagination (but hypothesis generation is OK)
| 19
Conclusion (the main findings) Be clear - help the reviewers, editors and readers judge your work
and its impact Provide justification for your work e.g. indicating uses, extensions, or
applications of the work. Do not just repeat the Abstract here. The Abstract and Conclusion
serve different purposes, although some of the same messages may be mentioned.
Don’t list the experimental results here – trivial restatements of your results are unacceptable in this section.
No need to cite references here. Explain how your work advances the present state of knowledge Suggest future experiments and point out any relevant experiments
that may already be underway.
| 20
Acknowledgements
Advisors Financial supporters and funders Proof readers and typists Suppliers who may have donated materials Referees if they have been helpful!
| 21
References
Do not use too many references Always ensure you have fully absorbed the
material you are referencing Avoid excessive self citations Avoid excessive citations of publications from
the same region or institute Conform strictly to the style given in the
Guide for Authors Use a reference management software
You can get help from Mendeley (www.mendeley.com), a free reference manager and academic social network.
The Mendeley Reference Manager generates citations and bibliographies in Word, OpenOffice, and LaTeX.
| 22
Prepare a Cover LetterYour chance to address the Editor directly
“Sell” your work - WHY did you submit the manuscript to THIS journal?
Do not summarize your manuscript, or repeat the abstract
Mention special requirements, e.g. if you do not wish your manuscript to be reviewed by certain reviewers
Declare whether the current manuscript is based on previously-published (conference) paper(s) and how it has been (significantly) extended/altered
Although most editors will not reject a manuscript only because the cover letter is bad, a good cover letter may accelerate the editorial process of your paper
| 23
Your suggestions may help the Editor to pass your manuscript to the review stage more efficiently
The reviewers should be widely international. They should not be your supervisor, direct colleagues at the same institute or close friends.
Give an institutional email address for the reviewer if possible
Generally you are requested to provide 3-6 potential reviewers. Check the Guide for Authors
Suggest potential reviewers (& mention conflicts!)
The formalia of writing scientific articles
Lessons from a gifted writer
The do’s and don’ts• Avoid focus• Avoid originality and personality• Write long contributions• Remove implications and speculations• Leave out illustrations• Omit necessary steps of reasoning• Use many abbreviations and specialised terms• Suppress humour and flowery language• Degrade biology to statistics• Quote numerous papers for trivial statements
The do’s and don’ts• Avoid focus– Specifically formulate research questions and hypotheses
The do’s and don’ts• Avoid originality and personality
– Do not repeat what others have done– Think of the novelty of the study– What can other scientists learn from the manuscript?– Do not make your manuscript to case-study specific: Is
this study relevant to scientists in other parts of the world?
– Your excitement about the results should shine through – you simply must tell the world about these important results
So what?
The do’s and don’ts• Write long contributions– No need to repeat methods described by others– Details can be important, but make use of Supplementary
Information to the largest extent possible to keep focus and prevent the reader from falling asleep
– Avoid verbosity, e.g. ”It has been shown by numerous studies that the depth limit of eelgrass is regulated by light conditions (e.g. ref1, ref2)”, which could be shortened as ”Eelgrass depth limit is regulated by light conditions (e.g. ref1, ref2)”.
– Avoid ”weaving” and be direct/focused
The do’s and don’ts• Remove implications and speculations
– Other scientists are generally not interested in your data – they want to learn from your study
– Advancing science means proposing new ideas, thoughtful speculation and providing sufficient support for these, i.e. your discussion should link to the results
Duarte et al. (2009): Return to Neverland: …
The do’s and don’ts• Leave out illustrations– A figure can say more than a thousand words– Make a conceptual figure for your study, even if you are
not going to use it in the manuscript. It is often good for structuring your thoughts
Duarte et al. (2009): Return to Neverland: …
The do’s and don’ts• Omit necessary steps of reasoning
– Do not jump to conclusions such as starting a discussion with ”Our results clearly demonstrate ……”, unless you use it as an intro to a more elaborate discussion by adding ” ….. , which we will substantiate in the following”
– Structure the discussion around the research questions and start by elaborating all possible explanations from our current knowledge, followed by a narrowing of the plausible explanations
– Remember that you need to convince skeptical reviewers (first) and readers (second)
The do’s and don’ts• Use many abbreviations and specialised terms
– Introduce all abbreviations and explain specialised terms that readers are not expected to know
– Know your readers– Use abbreviations only for terms that are repeated
frequently, i.e. do not use abbreviations for terms that are used once in the introduction and twice in the discussion
The do’s and don’ts• Suppress humour and flowery language
– You are a storyteller– Be prolific in your wording, i.e. do not use the same
restricted vocabulary again and again
Carstensen et al. (2011): Connecting the dots: …
The do’s and don’ts• Degrade biology to statistics
– It is the natural science research questions that should guide the statistics and not vice versa
– Correlations are descriptive but not the same as causality– Complex multivariate methods should not be used to
hide a lack of understanding of the underlying structures in data, i.e. you have to understand and partition sources of variation before examining putative cause-effect relationships
– Formulate your hypotheses and expectations to data based on research questions
– ”If you torture the data long enough they will confess”
Statistics helps you to uncover the story
The do’s and don’ts• Quote numerous papers for trivial statements
– Use references only for statements that might be debated, i.e. no need for quoting in ”Eutrophication is a large environmental problem in many coastal areas (Nixon, Cloern, Paerl, Borum, Sand-Jensen, Valiela, Elmgren, + 5 more refs)”
– Use a maximum of 5 references and elaborate differences, if important
– Be specific when quoting, e.g. “Similarly, differences between in vivo fluorescence and extracted Chla have previously been found for cyanobacteria dominated communities (Pinto et al. 2001, Gregor & Maršálek 2004) .”