jie lu editor-in-chief knowledge-based systems faculty of eit university of technology sydney...
TRANSCRIPT
Jie Lu
Editor-in-ChiefKnowledge-Based Systems
Faculty of EITUniversity of Technology Sydney
Editor's advice of getting published UTS library research weekUTS library research week
Outline
1. Editorial issues: editorial process and impact factor
2. Publication issues: distribution, speed and acceptance rate
3. Guideline for writing high quality manuscripts:
4. Revisions and response to reviewers
2
impactUsing KBS as an example
3
1. Editorial Issues
To publish a paper
4
Purpose of peer review
5
Check the manuscript for
• Mistakes in procedures or logic• Conclusions not supported by the results• Errors or omissions in the references• Compliance with ethics standards
• Animal research: e.g. “Guiding Principles in the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals”
• Human research: Most recent “Declaration of Helsinki”
• Originality of the work• Significance of the work
Basic peer review process
6
Submit a paper
Basic requirements met?
REJECT
Assign reviewers
Collect reviewers’ recommendations
Make a decision
Revise the paper
[Reject]
[Revision required]
[Accept]
[Yes]
[No]Review and give recommendation
START
ACCEPT
Author Editor Reviewer
Review process (i)
7
Regular articles are initially reviewed by at least two reviewers
When invited, the reviewer receives the Abstract of the manuscript; if a reviewer rejects to review, the editor will invite another one
The editor generally requests that the article be reviewed within reasonable time (such as 7-8 weeks), limited extensions sometimes acceptable
Reviewers are invited mainly from the journal reviewer database; Authors could become reviewers with key research areas.
The reviewers’ reports help the Editors to reach a decision on a submitted paper
• The reviewer is the recommends; the editor decides!
Review process (ii)
8
If a report has not been received in good time, the Editorial office contacts the reviewer by sending reminders (such as one week before, one week after the deadlines..)
If a reviewer cannot submit his/her review report after few reminders, the editor will un-invite him/her and re-invite a new reviewer. It will delay at least 7 weeks to feedback to authors
If there is a notable disagreement between the reports of the reviewers, a third reviewer may be consulted
If a review report is not written in a professional, way the editor will invite a new reviewer as well.
The anonymity of the reviewers is strictly maintained
Conflict of interests will be identified (same organisation, co-authors...)
Review process (iii)
9
As reviewer
As author
As editor
As reader
As a researcher,you wear many hats!
• Reviewers do not communicate directlywith authors
• All manuscripts must be treated confidentially by editors and reviewers– The manuscript cannot be distributed outside
this small group
• The aim is to have a “first decision” to the authors as fast as possible after submission of the manuscript
• Meeting these schedule objectives requires asignificant effort on the part of the Editorial staff,Editor and Reviewers
• If reviewers treat authors as themselves would like to be treated as authors, then these objectives can be met
Reviewers look at
• Importance and clarity of research hypothesis
• Originality and innovation of work
• Delineation of strengths and weaknesses of methodology, experimental / statistical approach, interpretation of results
• Writing style and figure / table presentation
• Ethics concerns
“ Technical” Quality
“ N
ove
lty”
10
Rejection without external review
11
The Editor-in-chief evaluates all submissions, and determines whether they go into the review process or are rejected by the editor (pre-rejection) (about 20-30% of new submissions)
Criteria• Out of scope (journal scope/focus is dynamic; the focuses between
two similar journals) • Too preliminary• Lack of novelty and innovation• English language is inadequate• Prior publication of (part of) the data• Multiple simultaneous submissions of same data
Benefit to authors—submit to another journal or conference
Benefit to reviewers---save their time
Reviewer comments to Editors
12
• Comment on novelty and significance
• Confidential comments will not be disclosed to author(s)!
• Recommend whether the manuscript is suitable for publication or not, usually
– Accept / Minor revision / Major Revision / Reject
Reviewer makes arecommendation
Editor makesthe decision
Reviewer checklist
13
Confidential checklist meant for editor’s eyes only
Rating ScaleTop 10%____Top 25% ____ Top 50%_____ Lower 50%____ For each of Experimental Design, Data Quality, Originality, Overall priority
Manuscript Length
OK ______ E(xpand) ______ S(horten) ______ For each of Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References
Recommen-dation to editor
Accept / Minor revision / Major Revision / Reject
What you get back from review?
• Accepted without change (very rare!)• Minor revision (means you will have to change a few things, such as
figures, provide more data, etc) • Mayor revision (means you will have to dares some fundamental
shortcomings – possibly doing additional research and certainly rewriting big sections)
• Rejection (means the manuscript is not deemed suitable for publication in that journal) (in principle, don’t encourage authors revise and re-submit.
• The re-submitted revised version will be sent out to previous reviewers (or new reviewers when previous reviewers are not available) for review again if you received “major” revision.
14
<- Desk reject
Initial peer review
2nd and 3rd round review
Author revision
<- reject after 1st review round
<- reject after revision
<- Accepted!
speedKBS review times per stage
15
2. Publication Issues
• Acceptance and rejection rates• Publication speed
16
KBS 2013(-Oct) report (acceptance and rejection rates)
Subm.
Final disposition
No. of
articles
No. of
articles
Processing times (in weeks)
Results
Subm. to 1st
decn.
Auth. rev. time
Sub. to fin. disp.
Withdrawn
Accepted
Rejected
Rejec. rate
Total 1266(130
0)
1259(124
1)
8.3(16.1
)
10.2(10.2)
13.6(21.7)
37(20)
220(224)
1002(997)
0.82(0.82)
17
Publication speed (in weeks) 2013
Production time
Publication time
No. of article
s
Editorial
time
Article in
final version on web
Complete
issue on
web
Printed
issue
On web
Printed
issue
All issues
218 33.9 2.8 8.2 13.8 42 46.3
Publication speed (in weeks)
From submission of a paper to get a result (reject/accept) --- in average, 33.9 weeks, 7.5 months;If a paper is accepted, from its submission to online with issues---in average, 42 weeks, 9.5 months.
18
Editorial per year
19
KBS published issues (2012 and 2013)
Published I ssues Number of issues Pages Editorial pages
26C to 37C 12 3196 3138
Issues Number of issues Pages Editorial pages
38C to 53C 16 2584 2528
2012
2013
20
KBS issue progress
21
3. Writing a Quality Manuscript
• Preparations, • Article construction, • Language and • Technical details
22
Writing a quality manuscript
• Preparations
23
Can I publish this?• Have you done something new and interesting?
• Have you checked the latest results in the field?
• Have the findings been verified?
• Have the appropriate controls been performed?
• Do your findings tell a nice story or is the story incomplete?
• Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
• Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
If all answers are “yes”, then start preparing your manuscript.
24
Quality of the work
25
Are the methods appropriate and presented in sufficient detail to allow the results to be repeated?
Are the data adequate to support the conclusions?
Methods Results Conclusions
1. Do all “methods” have a “results”?
2. Have all “results” been described in the “Methods”?
1. Are all “conclusions” based on “results”?
What type of manuscript?
Full articles / Original articlesShort CommunicationsReview papers
• Self-evaluate your work: Is it sufficient for a full article? Or are your results so thrilling that they need to be revealed as soon as possible?
• Short communication papers also need review process• Reviewer papers are normally written by established
researchers with track record in this area • Ask your supervisor and colleagues for advice on
manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders may see things more clearly than you.
26
Which journal?
Consider:• Aims and scope (check journal websites and recent articles)• Types of articles• Readership• Acceptance rate• Impact factors• Process speed• Current hot topics (go through recent abstracts)
Check that the scope of the paper is appropriate for the selected journal – change journal rather than submit inappropriately
Submit your paper to the journal where you can find more interesting papers in your research area.
27
Format
• Consult and apply the list of guidelines in the “Guide for Authors”
• Ensure that you use the correct:– Layout– Section lengths (stick to word limits)– Nomenclature, abbreviations and spelling (British vs.
American)– Reference format– Number/type of figures and tables– Statistics
28
Presentation of the paper
29
Trade names, abbreviations, symbols
• Properly used where indicated? Abused?
Tables• Can they be simplified or condensed? Should any
be omitted?
Figures• Justified? Clear? Sharp, with fonts proportionate to
the size of the figure? Clear and complete legends?
Abstract• Brief, and describing the purpose of the work, what
was done, what was found, and the significance?
Title• Specific, and reflecting the content of the
manuscript?
Writing• Clear, concise, good English?
• But no need for reviewers to act as language editor
Final checks
Revision before submission can prevent early rejectionWhat can I do to ensure my paper is in the best
possible state prior to submission?
•Ask colleagues to take a look and be critical
•Check that everything meets the requirements set out in the Guide for Authors – again!
•If necessary, get an editing service to improve the language and ensure that the manuscript possesses the three “C”s
•Ensure that the literature cited is balanced and that the aims and purpose of the study, and the significance of the results, are clear
30
Writing a quality manuscript
• Article construction
31
Article structure
• Title• Authors• Abstract• Keywords
• Main text (IMRaD)– Introduction– Methods– Results– Discussion (Conclusion)
• Acknowledgements• References• Supplementary materials
Need to be accurate and informative for effective indexing and searching
Each has a distinct function
32
Title
A good title should contain the fewest possible words that adequately describe the contents of a paper
DO
Convey main findings of research
Be specific
Be concise
Be complete
Attract readers
DON’T
Use unnecessary jargon
Use uncommon abbreviations
Use ambiguous terms
Use unnecessary detail
Focus on part of the content only
33
A social network –based collaborative filtering method for recommender systems
A combination of CF method and social network to generate more accurate recommendations in recommender systems
Title
34
Abstract
The quality of an abstract will strongly influence The quality of an abstract will strongly influence the editor’s decisionthe editor’s decision
A good abstract:•Is precise and honest
•Can stand alone
•Uses no technical jargon
•Is brief and specific
•Cites no references
Use the abstract to “sell” your articleUse the abstract to “sell” your article
35
Keywords
Keywords are important for indexing: they Keywords are important for indexing: they enable your manuscript to be more easily enable your manuscript to be more easily identified and citedidentified and cited
Check the Guide for Authors for journal Check the Guide for Authors for journal requirementsrequirements
•Keywords should be specificKeywords should be specific•Avoid uncommon abbreviations and general termsAvoid uncommon abbreviations and general terms
36
Keywords
Bad keywords:
Combination of social network and CF, RS; recommender system sample, association
Good keywords:
Social network, collaborative filtering; recommender systems, association ruls
37
Introduction
Provide the necessary background Provide the necessary background information to put your work into information to put your work into contextcontext
It should be clear from the introduction:It should be clear from the introduction:•WhyWhy the current work was performed the current work was performed
–aimsaims–significancesignificance
•WhatWhat has been done before has been done before (in brief terms) (in brief terms) •WhatWhat is your main contribution? Innovation? is your main contribution? Innovation?•WhatWhat is your research methodology (in brief terms) is your research methodology (in brief terms)
38
Methods
The Methods section must provide sufficient information so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment
List suppliers of reagents and manufacturers of equipment, and define apparatus in familiar terms:
“using an AD 340C plate reader (Beckman Coulter)”
OR
“using a plate reader (Beckman Coulter AD 340C)
NOT
“using a Beckman Coulter AD 340C.”
Unless the Guide for Authors states otherwise, use the past tense; the present tense is usually only used in methodology-type papers
39
Results
The main findings of the research
DO
•Use figures and tables to summarize data
•Show the results of statistical analysis
•Compare “like with like”
DON’T
•Duplicate data among tables, figures and text
•Use graphics to illustrate data that can easily be summarized with text
40
Graphics
•Legend is poorly defined
•Graph contains too much data
•No trend lines
41
Graphics
•Legend is well defined but there is still too much data and no trendlines
42
Graphics
•Legend is clear•Data is better organized•Trend lines are present
43
Conclusion
Put your study into CONTEXT
Describe how it represents an advance in the field
Suggest future experiments
BUT
Avoid repetition with other sections
Avoid being overly speculative
Don’t over-emphasize the impact of your study
44
References
Check the Guide for Authors for the correct format
Check
•Spelling of author names
•Punctuation
•Number of authors to include before using “et al.”
•Reference style
•Page no
•Journal and conference
Avoid
•Personal communications, unpublished observations and submitted manuscripts not yet accepted
•Citing articles published only in the local language
•Excessive self-citation and journal self-citation
45
Writing a quality manuscript
• Language
46
The three “C”s
•Clarity
•Conciseness
•Correctness (accuracy)
Good writing possesses the following three “C”s:
The key is to be as brief and specific as possible without omitting essential details
47
Know the enemy
•Repetition 反复•Redundancy 重复•Ambiguity 含糊•Exaggeration 夸张
Good writing avoids the following traps:
These are common annoyances for editors
48
Conciseness
•Example 1: Method, approach,..
•In Abstract:
“This paper proposes a new ABC method to deal with...”
•In Section 1
“We developed a new ABC approach which can ...”
Example 2: “Knowledge-based system” and “knowledge base system”
49
Writing a quality manuscript
• Technical details
50
Layout
•Keep line spacing, font and font size consistent throughout – double-spaced 12-point Times New Roman is preferred
•Use consistent heading styles throughout and no more than three levels of heading
•Number the pages
•Order and title sections as instructed in the Guide for Authors – Figure and Table sections are normally together following References
51
Length
“…25-30 pages is the ideal length for a submitted manuscript, including ESSENTIAL data only”
Julian Eastoe, Co-editor, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science
Consult the Guide for Authors for word and graphic limits
Letters or short communications have stricter limits on the length. For example, 3000 words with no more than five illustrations.
52
Abbreviations
• Define non-standard abbreviations on first use in both the abstract and the main text
• Check the Guide for Authors for a list of standard abbreviations that don’t need defining
• Don’t abbreviate terms used only once or twice in the entire manuscript – spell these out in full
• Acronyms: capitals not required in the definition unless a proper noun or start of a sentence
ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) NOT
Ubiquitin Proteasome System (UPS)
53
Cover letter
• This is your chance to speak to the editor directly
• Keep it brief, but convey the particular importance of your manuscript to the journal
• Suggest potential reviewers (editor will decide to use or not)
This is your opportunity to convince the journal editor that they should consider your study, so it is worth investing time at this stage
54
Cover letter
Include:
• Editor name – Address to journal editor, not generic
• First sentence – provide title, author list and journal name
• Briefly describe: • your research area and track record• the main findings of your research• the significance of your research
• Confirm the originality of the submission
• Confirm that there are no competing financial interests
55
4. Revisions andResponse to Reviewers
• First decision• Revision: a great learning opportunity• Response report• Rejection: not the end of the world• Post-referee revision
56
Accepted• Very rare
• Congratulations!– Cake for the department– Now wait for page proofs and then
for your article online and in print
Rejected• Probability 80%...• Do not despair
• It happens to everybody
• Try to understand WHY• Consider reviewers’ advice (they spent
time for you!)• If you submit to another journal,
begin as if it were a new manuscript
• Take advantage of the reviewers’ comments. They may review your (resubmitted) manuscript again!
• Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal, again and again.
First decision
57
First decision: “Major” or “Minor” Revisions
Major revision– The manuscript may finally be published in the journal– Significant deficiencies must be corrected before acceptance– Usually involves (significant) textual modifications and/or
additional experiments
Minor revision– Basically, the manuscript is worth to be published– Some elements in the manuscript must be clarified, restructured,
shortened (often) or expanded (rarely)– Textual adaptations– “Minor revision” does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision!
• Often two reviewer reports, one minor and one major.
January 2012 58
Revision: a great learning opportunity!
• Value the opportunity to discuss your work directly with other scientists in your community
• Prepare a detailed report of response– Cut and paste each comment by the reviewer. Answer it directly
below. Do not miss any point.– State specifically the changes (if any) you have made to the
manuscript. Identify the page and line number• A typical problem – discussion is provided, but it is not clear
what changes have actually been made. • Provide a scientific response to the comment you accept, or a
convincing, solid and polite rebuttal to the point you think the reviewer is wrong.
• Write in a way that your responses can be forwarded by the editor to the reviewer.
January 2012 59
A detailed report of response
•State specifically what changes you have made to address the reviewers’ comments, mentioning the page and line numbers where changes have been made
•Avoid repeating the same response over and over; if a similar comment is made by multiple people explain your position once and refer back to your earlier response in responses to other reviewers or the editor
60
Rejection: not the end of the world
January 2012
•Everyone has papers rejected--Accepting rejection•Do not take it personally - I have yet to meat anyone how whose manuscript had never been rejected, including Nobel prize winners, editors, •Don’t resubmit elsewhere without significant revisions addressing the reasons for rejection and checking the new Guide for Authors•Try to understand why the paper was rejected•Note that you have received the benefit of the editors and reviewers’ time! take their advice serious!•Re-evaluate your work and decide whether it is appropriate to submit the paper elsewhere.
If so, begin as if you are going to write a new article.If so, begin as if you are going to write a new article.Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal, again and Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal, again and
again.again.
61
Summary: What gets you accepted?
AAttention to details
CCheck and double check your work
CConsider the reviews
EEnglish must be as good as possible
PPresentation is important
TTake your time with revision
AAcknowledge those who have helped you
NNew, original and previously unpublished
CCritically evaluate your own manuscript
EEthical rules must be obeyed
– Nigel John Cook, Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews
62
