knowledge for generations tm author strategies for successful publication jason hu 胡昌杰 journal...

KNOWLEDGE FOR GENERATIONSTM

KNOWLEDGE FOR GENERATIONS TM

Author Strategies for Successful Publication

Jason HU 胡昌杰Journal Publishing Manager, Asia Pacific

Wiley-Blackwell

Thursday, Dec 9 2010University of Science & Technology of China,

Hefei, China


What we will cover

• Introduction• The Journal• Why publish?• Where to publish?• Tips on successful submission• Survive Peer Review• Publication Ethics• What happen after acceptance• Answer 10 Questions to win a

book

2


John Wiley & Sons

3

• Founded in 1807• Acquired Blackwell in Feb 2007• About 5,000 employees worldwide• Three core businesses

– Wiley-Blackwell (Scientific, Technical, Medical, & Scholarly)

– Professional & Trade– Higher Education

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com


4


Questions 1

5

How many journals published by Wiley-Blackwell?

A: 800B:1000C: 1200D: 1500


Wiley-Blackwell

6

• One of the largest STM publishers • > 1,470 peer reviewed journals• Extensive collection of

– Books– Major Reference Works– Databases– Laboratory Manuals

• World’s top society publisherWileyWiley-

BlackwellWiley Yeah!I like it! Wiley


7

700+ Society Publications

7


Questions 2

8

What the highest Journal Impact Factor Today?

A: 30.125B: 34.480C: 50.017D: 87.925


1000 + journals with Impact Factors

9CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 87.925


Wiley in China

10

• 2 offices (Beijing, Shanghai)• 13 journals


11

www.wileychina.com


12

materialsviewschina.cn


Who am I

胡昌杰 , 期刊出版经理，亚太区

13

• Acquire or Launch new journals• Manage a list of journals in Life

Science and Health Science• Lead strategy to develop the journals

to further success• Publisher’s main point of contact with

Editors and Societies


Who are you?

14

• Post-doc or PhD ？

• PhD candidate?

• Working toward a Masters?

• Undergraduate ?

• Have you ever published in an English language journal?


The Journal-Definition

15

• A specialised periodical– containing learned or scientific content– written by the scholars or researchers of that

content themselves– edited by an academic expert in the field– its content peer reviewed by the community

• A forum for the exchange of ideas in a subject area


Questions 3

16

How many peer-reviewed scholarly journal in the world today?

A: 20000-25000B: 25000-30000C: 30000-35000D:35000-40000


The Journal-Publishing Circle

17

Reader读者

Submission投稿

Copyediting / proofing版面编辑 /校对

Decision/Revision决定 /退修

Editorialoffice

JOURNAL期刊

Referee审稿人

Editor主编

Author作者

PUBLISHER出版商

AGENT代理商

LIBRARY图书馆

Finalized journal issues出版的期刊

Acceptedpeer reviewed

Mss被接受稿件

Access to E or Print journals纸本 /电子版

Peer review process同行评议过程

Info courtesy of Michael Mabe, CEO of STM


Questions 4

18

When was the first true scholarly English journal born?

A: 1565B: 1665C: 1765D:1865


The first true scholarly English journal

19

Henry Oldenburg (1618-1677)

6th March 1665


Why publish?

20

• [We must be] very careful of registring as well the person and time of any new matter.., as the matter itselfe; whereby the honor of ye invention will be inviolably preserved to all posterity.

[Oldenburg, 24 November 1664]

• all Ingenious men will be thereby incouraged to impart their knowledge and discoveryes

[Oldenburg, 3 December 1664]

• [I should not] neglect the opportunity of having some of my Memoirs preserv’d, by being incorporated into a Collection, that is like to be as lasting as usefull

[Boyle, 1665]

• “[Phil. Trans. should be] licensed under the charter by the Council of the Society, being first reviewed by some of the members of the same.”

[R.Soc. Order in Council 1/3/1665]


Why Publish?

21

Publish or

Perish


Research & Writing

• Do good research• Writer’s block – it’s common – just do

it!• Read other papers in journals

considering• Read journal instructions• Read writing books

22

Practice! Practice! Practice!


Resources on Writing

• Wiley-Blackwell Author Serviceshttp://authorservices.wiley.com/

• Writing a Paper by George Whitesides, Advanced Materials (available on http://materalsviewschina.cn)

• Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategy and Steps by Margaret Cargill, Patrick O'Connor, April 2009

• How to Write a Paper, 4th Edition edited by George M. Hall (Editor), February 2008

23


Where to Publish?

24

Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas. New Journal Publishing Models: An international survey of Senior Researchers. A CIBER Report for the Publishers Association and International Association of STM Publishers. 2005

A survey: Reasons for choosing a journal (n=5,513)


Where to Publish?

25

The survey before this seminar : Reasons for choosing a journal (n=118)


Choosing the right journal

26


Impact Factor (IF)

27

Number of source items published in 2007 and 2008_________________________________

Impact Factor2009 =

Number of citations in 2009 to articles published in 2007 and 2008

Example

Journal of … publishes 75 articles in 2008 and 83 articles in 2007.

In 2009 it receives a total of 344 citations to these articles in all the other published journals.

The journal’s Impact Factor for 2009 is 344 (75 + 83) = 2.18

2009

2006

2005

2004

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Citedwindow

Citingwindow

2009

2007

2008


Questions 5

28

If a paper published in a top tier journal like Nature/Cell/Science,

does it mean it will get high citation?

A: Yes, Sure!B: No, no necessarily


IF: just Journal Level Metric

29Data source: ISI Web of Science, Date: Dec 8 2010


IF may be skewed

• 2007 IF: 2.385• 2008 IF: 2.051• 2009 IF: 49.926

30

Acta Crystallographica Section A

G.M. Sheldrick, "A short history of SHELX", Acta. Cryst. (2008) A64, 112-122


IF: Reflection of Past

• Listed journal may be suspended• A journal’s IF may change dramatically• Newly indexed journal has to wait

sometime for its first IF, which may benefit you

31

Journal of Digestive Diseases

Accepted in 2008indexed with 2007 contentFirst IF 2009: 1.791


Going for high Impact Factor?

32



33

• Seek advice from your advisors, colleagues

• Abstract & Indexing Database

• Publishers’ Platform



34

• Read Author Guidelines

• Read Aim & Scope

• Keep the Journal and the intended audience in mind as you write, or even before your research

• Think about what the editor is looking for – editorial policy, IF development etc, regional development, etc



35

• Don’t aim too high – go one level up.

• Page charge• Color charge• Copyright terms?• Publication Speed:Online ahead of issue pub, peer review

• More service beyond text and figure?


Tips on submission

36

• Read the Author Guidelines• Follow journal style guide

– Most manuscripts don’t meet form requirements

– Many are returned without review

• Know the preferred terminology– Glance through index of previous years’

issues

• Avoid haste– Proofread– Test data for reproducibility


Write a helpful cover letter

37

– Express your belief that the paper is within the scope of the Journal

– Describe, very briefly, what you found and why this is relevant to readers.

– Highlight the key points but don’t oversell– Clarify any point that may raise question– State the paper is new and original. – Statement on Conflict of Interest – A statement that the paper has been read

and approved by all the authors


Get the Title Page correct

38

– The title of the article.– Authors’ names and institutional

affiliations. – Full Info of Corresponding author– Source(s) of support in the form of grants,

equipment, drugs, or all of these.– A running head, usually <=40 characters– Word counts for the text only– Word counts for Abstract only– The number of figures and tables.– Keep it separate with other text pages if

required, Why?


Refine your Title, Abstract and Keywords

39

• Title• Abstract• Keyword• Introduction• Methods• Results• Discussion• References• Figures


Why they are so important• Busy editors may form an opinion from

abstracts and titles• For busy readers the abstract may be the

only part of your paper they read• It must convince them to take time to read

the whole paper• In some cases electronic crawlers only look

at abstracts• It may be the only information available in

a Medline/other search

40


Improve your English

41

• Work with someone who is good at English writing

• Enlist the help of a native English speaker

• Use a professional service


42http://authorservices.wiley.com


Checklist before submission

1. the right journal (within scope)?2. a realistic choice of journal?3. followed the Author Guidelines?4. materials complete?

5. all declarations complete?6. Study design appropriate?7. chosen the right article type?8. met all the ethical/registration

requirements?


Survive Peer Review

44

Cartoon from community.acs.org


Why Peer Review?

A methodological check– soundness of argument– supporting data and cited

references

A learning and improvement process

A filter for selection and a quality control mechanism 45

Photo on top: http://www.globalsearchnetwork.com/continuous-improvement.aspxPhoto on bottom: internet


Peer Review Types

• Single Blind Review• Double Blind Review • Open Review• Post Review

• Reviewers chosen by Editors• Author could also nominate or warn

against those with competing interest

46


Questions 6

47

Keep Title Page separate with other text pages if required, why?


The Peer Review Process

48

Reject Accept Send back for revision

Paper submitted to Editor

Editor sends paper to referees

Referees return comments

Editor makes decision

Rejection before review

Rejection after

review

Rejection after

revision


4949

CE decision(2 days)

Author Submit

EO checks /assigns to AE(1 day)

Reviewers response to invitation (7 days)Reviewers give comments (14 days)

Author Minor Revision (30 days) or Major Revision (60 days)

AE final decision(3 days)

EO mechanic edits, language polish, collects files including copyright form(3 days)

EO uploads manuscript with all files and copyright form to FTP (1 day)

AE assign to CE(3 days)

CE invites Reviewers(5 days)

CE preliminary decision(3 days)

Reviewer comments again if needed

(14 days)

Author answers query, sign copyright form

(1 day)

First Decision

within 33 days

Peer Review Process-An real Example•Editor in Chief•Associate Editor•Co-Editor•Reviewer•Editorial Office


What does a referee lookfor?

50

1. Is your article within scope for the journal?2. Is it of sufficient quality e.g.

a) Is it novel and important work? b) Are the research, analysis and conclusions valid?c) Does it give a clear statement of aims and achievements?d) Is the presentation of figures, tables correct?e) Are calculations correct, do models work?f) Is existing literature cited appropriately?g) Is statistical analysis used appropriately?

3. Areas for improvement4. Ethics – publishing or experimental


Rules of Thumb

51

• It is rare that reviewer is completely right, and the author completely wrong, or vice versa.

• Understand that editors and reviewers are trying to improve your paper, Accept feedback as a learning experience

• Always show the editor you are doing everything you can to improve the paper

• Rejection/Criticism don’t auto mean your work is not good


Before you respond

• Remember: Editors/Reviewers are just trying to help

• It is a game, not personal!• Don’t get angry• Don’t respond immediately• Seek advices from your supervisor or

colleagues.

52


How to Respond

• Persistence pays – answer questions and address requests for revisions in a clear and timely fashion

• Avoid personal attack and defensive behavior

• Be polite but not obsequious• Address each points/comments in

order• Explain which changes have been

carried out53


How to Respond

• If suggestions/additional experiments were not incorporated, explain why

• Argue with scientific evidence • If you really don’t agree with making

the changes proposed, you need to argue with editor

• Or withdraw your paper and submit to another journal

54


Nobody’s Perfect. Take heart!

55

• Did you have to revise your last paper? 91% Yes• Did the review process improve the quality? 91% Yes• How many journals rejected your last paper before it

was accepted? (pie chart)

Peer Review Survey 2009: Preliminary Findingssenseaboutscience.org.uk


Comments ExampleAuthor preferred reviewer’s

The paper is really a good one. I strongly recommended for publication with the following correction 1. In the methodology the year of the study should be specified. (Page 4; Line 27 to 30) 2. In the result section, after the table there should be description of the result in details (like not only the year of 2004) (Page 6; Line 13 to 30)

56

•Select someone who can really help your research •Be careful when you select your colleagues or friends.•The Editor and readers can tell


Comments ExampleEditor selected Reviewer 1

Confidential Comments to the Editor• I am not sure whether you want to give these authors a chance in publishing

their data. It is a rather poor paper, and I have been trying to give some positive feedback, also by not rejecting it instantaneously. I do understand that you may want to reject it, however by giving these authors a chance we build on in the spirit of *****.

Comments to the Author• The first paragraph of the Introduction can almost be deleted, since it extensively discusses prevalence of

diabetes in severel countries, which is not the topic of this paper. This also saves us a lot of unnecessary references.

Why did the authors choose these age groups, and not age groups by decades. By default, most diabetic patients will be between 45 and 75, therefore they will make the highest costs.

It remains unclear what cardiovascular complications are responsble for the admission rates: acute MI? cerebrovascular accidents? angina? congestive heart failure? It would be very helpful when the authors could list the top ten of admission reasons, including their ICD-9 or 10 codings.

It is difficult to extrapolate the results from this studies to the situation country-wide. Shortages in available beds or admission policies may have their influence. Also data will be influenced heavily by the quality of care outside the hospital. There are no data related to that.

The authors conclude: 'The optimal management of blood glucose, blood pressure, lipid concentrations and early detection as well as management of complications may reduce the excess costs associated with hospitalization of individuals with diabetes.' This can be doubted. Although multifactorial treatment may postpone complications, these will develop eventually, but in a later age phase. So expenses will shift from the 44-75 to the > 75 years age group.

Please use proper '.' and ',' in depicting the amounts of money.

In the final paragraph the authors give some recomendations, like * Establish and strengthen the national surveillance systems on behavioural risk factors ............... * Strengthen the quality-control system of imported and locally produced food ... * Interact with food industries .... . * Control the advertising and marketing of “unhealthy” food products ... * Provide a conducive environment with suitable infrastructure to encourage and facilitate daily physical activity .... * Initiate/strengthen schemes like school health programmes and health-promoting schools .... All these recommendations -although important- have nothing to do with the present paper, their contribution to the presented data has not been evaluated, and this section should be eliminated completely. The authors should restrict themselves in the conclusion to the relevant discussion of issues raised by the study, not make statements on general health issues or politics.

The manuscript would benefit a lot from extensive review by a person fluent in English.

57


Confidential Comments to the Editor• This is an impossible manuscript to review - so poorly written and

constructed that I don't know what was done, or how. The results are based on who knows what and I don't think can be trusted. For the benefit of your readers, PLEASE don't publish this...

Comments to the Author• My apologies to the authors for not being able to give more specific comments, but I found this manuscript

extremely difficult to review. The methods for the study and the costings are so vague it is impossible to determine what was actually done here. The topic is perhaps one of interest given the likelihood of significant increases in diabetes prevalence in Bangladesh, and it is therefore unfortunate that this manuscript cannot provide evidence based data on the costs associated with hospitalization due to diabetes in Bangladesh. A few comments that may help the authors revise their work follow:

- The introduction is all about diabetes prevalence, but that is not what this paper is interested in. More data on diabetes hospitalization costs, particularly in developing countries, is required. - The numbers of admissions reported is extremely confusing. Why is 330000 patients mentioned, and then suddenly there are only 2000 admissions? - There is no evidence of any genuine attempt to determine the excess costs involved. Basing this on "admission indexes and the mean stay" is not a valid way of determining costs associated with hospitalisation. It is perhaps for this reason that the treatment costs appear so inflated. Is it really possible that at this hospital (which should be named), over $14 million USD was spent on patients with diabetes? My experience in ****is that you would have to work quite hard to spend this amount of money on 2000 patients! The cost estimates provided, to my naive assessment, seem almost random.- I would encourage the authors to examine other papers on this topic, to look at the rigour they have used in their methods and then to reassess whether the data presented here are truly reliable. - page 10 is not related to the content of the article and should be removed. - What do the last 2 sentences have to do with this article? To comment on the lack of data in **** suggests to me that not much thought has been put into the writing of this section! The last sentence of the Intro doesn't make any sense at all.

58

Comments ExampleEditor selected Reviewer 2


Publication Ethics

59

神马都是浮云！克隆之父

民族英雄

问鼎诺贝尔首席科学家

國家科技實力象徵免费头等舱


60

Publish AND

Perish


Background of Ethics

• Academic publishing depends on trust.

• Transparency• Research Integrity• Ownership of idea and copyright

61


Transparency

• Who funded the work?

• Who did the work?

• Has the work been published before?

• Any Conflicting Interest?


Research Integrity

• Data shall be accurate, clear and original

• Protecting the rights of research participants/subjects

• Respecting cultures and heritage

63


Ownership of Ideas and Copyright

• Editors and readers have a right to expect that submitted work is the author's own

• Copyright has not been breached (for example, if figures or tables are reproduced).

64


Ethical Issues

• Duplicate/Redundant publication• Disputed Authorship• Fabricated data• Falsification• Plagiarism• Figure Manipulation • Conflict of Interest

65


Duplicate/Redudant publication

• Duplicate publication –publishing the same paper or substantial parts of a paper in more than one place

• Redundant publication – using previously published text or data (usually your own) in a new paper

66


Questions 7

67

If I publish a Abstract in a meeting proceeding, then publish full text in another journal

Is it acceptable?

A: Yes, acceptable in most casesB: No, unacceptable in most cases


What may not be seen as prior pub

• Abstracts and posters at conferences• Results presented at meetings • Results databases (data without

interpretation, discussion, context or conclusions in the form of tables and text to describe data/information where this is not easily presented in tabular form)

68


Questions 8

69

If I published a paper in Chinese language journalThen translate and submit it to a English journal

but without disclosure, is it acceptable?



Translated publication

• Journals may choose to accept (i.e. consider 'not redundant') accurately translation from an original publication in a different language.

• Must have appropriate permission(s)• Indicate clearly that the material has

been translated and re-published,• Indicate clearly the original source of

the material.

70


What defines authorship?

1. Substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data

2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content

3. Final approval of the version to be published.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors www.icmje.org

Authors should meet 1 AND 2 AND 3


What defines authorship?

• All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.

72

Ghost Author

• Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.


What not define authorship?

• Acquisition of funding• Collection of data• General supervision of the research

group.

73

Guest AuthorGift Author


Deciding on authorship• Agree who will be listed as an author

at the beginning of your study• Agree who is responsible for what

work• The corresponding author should be

aware of, and agree to, their responsibility as the representative of the authors

• Acknowledge those who assisted but do not qualify for authorship, with permission


Plagiarism

75


Plagiarism

• Taking the work of another from a published or unpublished paper without attribution

• Data• Figure• Table• Wording

76


Questions 9

77

If I just copy some sentences from the Introduction of another paper, is it acceptable?



crosscheck

• Compare the paper in question with publications in a database

• it identifies matching text in different documents

• Then a knowledgeable person has to look at the results as part of the editorial screening process.


Falsification and fabrication

• Changed or made up data to “improve” the results

79


Image modification• Images cannot be modified to change the

overall appearance or appearance of any specific feature

• Adjustments of brightness and contrast or colour balance are acceptable but must be applied to the entire image

• Features cannot be obscured and any rearrangements must be explicitly indicated by the insertion of dividing lines

Lisa A. Hannan, PhD, Managing Editor, TrafficThe Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla


Image modification

81

Images in Question

Contrast Enhanced


Conflicts of interest

• Conflicts of Interest exist when an author(or its inst), reviewer or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence(bias) his/her actions.

ICMJE www.icmje.org

82

• Everyone has a responsibility to disclose conflicts of Interest


Conflicts of interest

• The Key is disclosure• Authors should provide disclosure

statements from all authors• All sources of funding• potential sources of conflict

(employment, collaborations, affiliations)

• Personal relationship(family, marriage, friend)

• If not sure whether to disclose, do it83


Ethics resourcesEthics resources

84

Committee on Publication Ethicswww.publicationethics.org.uk/

http://authorservices.wiley.com


85What happen after acceptance?


86

CE decision(2 days)

Wiley PE get Mss/copyright form

File checking, Assigning DOI

(1 Day)

Manuscripts to Typesetter(1 Day)

Typesetter to publish AA(1 Day)

Typesetters send SSSed files to

copyeditor(5 days)

Copyeditor edits / typesetters (10

days)

EO corrections and to PE(3 day)

Typesetter sends 1st Proof to

EO/Author/PE (5 days)

Authors correction/to PE(2 day)

PE consolidates corrections/tallo

typesetters for first revision( 2 days)

Typesetter revises/sends 2nd Proof to EO /PE

(2 days)

EO corrections /to PE(2 day)

Typesetter revises/sends 3rd(final) proof to PE/EO

for approval(2 days)

EO approves (ideally no further correction allowed)

(1 day)

PE final approval (1 day)

Author answer questions(3 days)

Typesetter uploads to QA(1 day)

Paper published online as Early View

(1 day)

Author Submit


Reviewers response to invitation (7 days)

Reviewers give comments (14 days)

Author Minor Revision (30 days) or Major Revision (60

days)


EO mechanic edits, language polish, collects files including copyright

form(3 days)

EO uploads manuscript with all files and copyright

form to FTP (1 day)




Reviewer comments

again if needed(14 days)

Author answers query, sign copyright

form(1 day)

First Decision

within 33 days

Paper published in an Issue

Peer-viewed Version online(5

days)

Final Version online without Issue(39 days)

Signed copyright form must be

supplied

Final Version online/Print within an Issue

•Respond quickly•Revise minor errors only•Don’t change house style


87

CE decision(2 days)

Wiley PE get Mss/copyright form

File checking, Assigning DOI

(1 Day)

Manuscripts to Typesetter(1 Day)

Typesetter to publish AA(1 Day)

Typesetters send SSSed files to

copyeditor(5 days)

Copyeditor edits / typesetters (10

days)

EO corrections and to PE(3 day)

Typesetter sends 1st Proof to

EO/Author/PE (5 days)

Authors correction/to PE(2 day)

PE consolidates corrections/tallo

typesetters for first revision( 2 days)

Typesetter revises/sends 2nd Proof to EO /PE

(2 days)

EO corrections /to PE(2 day)

Typesetter revises/sends 3rd(final) proof to PE/EO

for approval(2 days)

EO approves (ideally no further correction allowed)

(1 day)

PE final approval (1 day)

Author answer questions(3 days)

Typesetter uploads to QA(1 day)

Paper published online as Early View

(1 day)

Author Submit


Reviewers response to invitation (7 days)

Reviewers give comments (14 days)

Author Minor Revision (30 days) or Major Revision (60

days)


EO mechanic edits, language polish, collects files including copyright

form(3 days)

EO uploads manuscript with all files and copyright

form to FTP (1 day)




Reviewer comments

again if needed(14 days)

Author answers query, sign copyright

form(1 day)

First Decision

within 33 days

Paper published in an Issue

Peer-viewed Version online(5

days)

Final Version online without Issue(39 days)

Final Version online/Print within an Issue

1

2

3

4 5

Versions of

Manuscript

Accepted Articles

Early View

Author Manuscript

Print/Onlinein a Issue


Questions 10

88

Which Version can be treated as Version of Record?

A: 1-Author ManuscriptsB: 2-peer reviewed Manuscrpts

C:3 edited/formated manuscriptsD: Online version in a issueE: Print version in a issue


Online ahead of Issue Publication

89

Early View


Keep track with your submission

90


Cheer for your publication!

91


Maximize the visibility of your paper

• Wiley Author Service allows you to share your works with up to 10 colleagues

92http://authorservices.wiley.com


Who will win the book?

93


Questions?

94

Jason HU 胡昌杰亚太区期刊出版经理

Journal Publishing Manager, Asia Pacific

Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley & SonsTel: +86-21-51163201, Fax: +86-21-63912077

Email: [email protected]

knowledge for generations tm author strategies for successful publication jason hu 胡昌杰 journal...

Documents

wiley slide

generations tm questions

generations tm wileyblackwell

generations tm john

ceo of stm slide

scholarly journal

subject area slide

journal issues