How to Write Great Papers - From title to references From submission to acceptance
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
How to Write Great Papers
From title to references
From submission to acceptance
Presented by: Jaap van Harten, PhD, Executive Publisher
Elsevier BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Location: Laval University, Québec City, Canada
Date: September 22, 2014
Objectives • Introduction • What steps do I need to take before I write my paper? • How do I build up my article properly? • How can I ensure I am using proper scientific language? • Manuscript submission, first decision and resubmission • Some legal stuff
What are your personal reasons for publishing? 3
Always keep in mind that … …. your paper is your passport to your community !
Thought Question
What is it that distinguishes an excellent
article from a poor one?
"All animals are equal, but some
animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell - Animal Farm
Why is it so important to submit
a good manuscript?
It makes not only YOUR life easier ....
… but also the life of Editors and Reviewers
– Editors and reviewers are already overloaded with
manuscripts, and poor manuscripts create great frustration.
A good manuscript has
• good CONTENT
– is useful and exciting
and has
• a good PRESENTATION of the data
– is clear and logically constructed
E = mc 2
What steps do I need to take even before I write my paper?
1. The very first step:
A well-written manuscript cannot compensate
for poorly-designed or executed research
• Proper literature search
• Adequate experimental design
• Data analysis plan
– Statistics
9
2. Type of your manuscript?
• Full articles/Original articles;
• Letters/Rapid Communications/Short communications;
• Review papers/perspectives
– Self-evaluate your work: Is it sufficient for a full article? Or
are your results so thrilling that they need to be shown as
soon as possible?
– Ask your supervisor and colleagues for advice on
manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders see things more
clearly than you.
103. Why do you publish your work?
Check the originality of the idea at the very
beginning of your research.
– Have you REALLY done something new and interesting?
– Is there anything challenging in your work?
– Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
– Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
Only when the answers are “yes”, then start
preparing your manuscript!4. Be up-to-date with what’s going on in your field
“Save as Alert”: Remind yourself about the new findings.5. Identify the right audience for your paper
• Identify the sector of readership/community for which
a paper is meant
• Identify the interest of your audience
– “Microwave-assisted drying of pharmaceutical
granules and its impact on drug stability” in the
Journal of Controlled Release?
• Is your paper of local or international interest?6. Choose the right journal
Do not just “descend the stairs”
Top journals
Nature, Science, Lancet, NEJM, ......
Field-specific top journals
Other field-specific journals
National journalsImpact Factor & H-index
“Impact Factor 2010” ≈ The average number of times an article
published in 2008 or 2009 was cited in 2010
H-index An h-index of 8 tells you that
an author published 8 articles
that were cited at least 8 times
since publication6. Choose the right journal
Investigate all candidate
journals to find out
– Aims and scope
– Accepted types of articles
– Readership
– Current hot topics
• go through the abstracts
of recent publications6. Choose the right journal
• Ask help from your supervisor or colleagues
– The supervisor (who is often a co-author) has at least co-
responsibility for your work.
• References in your manuscript will likely lead you to the
right journal.
• DO NOT gamble by submitting your manuscript to more
than one journal at a time.
– International ethics standards prohibit multiple/simultaneous
submissions, and editors DO find out! (Trust me, they DO!)Read the ‘Guide for Authors’!
• Stick to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript,
even in the first draft (text layout, nomenclature,
figures & tables, references etc.).
In the end it will save you time, and also the
editor’s.
• Editors (and reviewers) do not like wasting time
on poorly prepared manuscripts. It is a sign of
disrespect.
18How do I properly build up
my manuscript?General Structure of a Research Article
• Authors
• Title Make them easy for indexing
• Abstract and searching! (informative,
attractive, effective)
• Keywords
• Main text (IMRAD)
– Introduction
– Methods Journal space is not
unlimited.
– Results
Make your article as
– And
concise as possible.
– Discussions
• Conclusions
• Acknowledgements
• References
• Supplementary DataWork in progress: How it will look like
The final article
GENERAL
Introduction
SPECIFIC Methods & Results
Discussion, Conclusion
GENERALThe process of writing – building the article
Title & Abstract
Conclusion Introduction
Results Methods Discussion
Figures/tables (your data)Authorship
• Policies regarding authorship can vary.
• One example: the International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors (“Vancouver Group”) declared that an author must:
1. substantially contribute to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2. draft the article or revise it critically for important
intellectual content; and
3. give their approval of the final full version to be published.
4. ALL 3 conditions must be fulfilled to be an author!
All others would qualify as “Acknowledged Individuals”Authorship - Order & Abuses
General principles for who is listed first
• First Author
• Conducts and/or supervises the data generation and analysis
and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results
• Puts paper together and submits the paper to journal
• Corresponding author
• The first author or a senior author from the institution
– Particularly when the first author is a PhD student or postdoc,
and may move to another institution soon.
Avoid
Ghost Authorship
– leaving out authors who should be included
Gift Authorship
– including authors who did not contribute significantlyAuthor names: common problems • Different Spellings – Järvinen / Jaervinen / Jarvinen – Lueßen / Lueben / Luessen – van Harten / Vanharten / Van • First/Last Names – Asian names often difficult for Europeans or Americans • What in case of marriage/divorce? Be consistent! If you are not, how can others be?
Title
•Is this a good title?
•What do you expect from this article?
•Is it specific enough to tell you what the
article is about?
“Effects of red wine”Title
• A good title should contain the fewest possible
words that adequately describe the content of a
paper.
• Effective titles
– Identify the main issue of the paper
– Begin with the subject of the paper
– Are accurate, unambiguous, specific, and complete
– Are as short as possible
• Articles with short, catchy titles are often better
cited
• Do not contain rarely-used abbreviations
• Attract readers
27Keywords
• In an “electronic world, keywords determine
whether your article is found or not!
• Avoid to make them
– too general (“drug delivery”, “mouse”, “disease”, etc.)
– too narrow (so that nobody will ever search for it)
• Effective approach:
– Look at the keywords of articles relevant to your
manuscript
– Play with these keywords, and see whether they return
relevant papers, neither too many nor too few
28Abstract
• Is freely available in electronic abstracting &
indexing services
• PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, ....
• Provides a short description of perspective and
purpose of the paper.
• But does not overemphasize the perspective by
providing a literature review
• Gives key results
• But minimal experimental details.
• Includes a short description of the interpretation
& conclusions
29Abstract
Introduction
The place to convince readers that you
know why your work is relevant,
also for them General
Answer a series of questions:
– What is the problem?
– Are there any existing solutions?
– Which one is the best?
– What is its main limitation? Specific
– What do you hope to achieve?
31Pay attention to the following
• Before you present your new data, put them into
perspective
• Be brief, it is not a history lesson
• Do not mix introduction, results, discussion and
conclusions; keep them separate
• Do not overuse expressions such as “novel”, “first
time”, “first ever”, “paradigm shift”, etc.
• Cite only relevant references
– Otherwise the editor and the reviewer may think you don’t
have a clue where you are writing about
32Methods / Experimental
• Include all important details so that readers can reproduce the
work.
• Details that were previously published can be omitted but a general
summary of those experiments should be included
• Give vendor names (and addresses) of equipment etc. used
• Identify all chemicals used
• Do not use proprietary, unidentifiable compounds without
description
• Present proper control experiments
• Avoid adding comments and discussion
• Write in the past tense
• Use of active or passive voice depends on the journal
• Consider use of Supplementary Materials
• Documents, spreadsheets, audio, video, ..... Reviewers will criticize incomplete or
incorrect descriptions, and may even
recommend rejection
33Ethics Committee approval
• Experiments on humans or animals must follow
applicable ethics standards
– e.g. most recent version of the Helsinki Declaration and/or
relevant (local, national, international) animal experimentation
guidelines
• Approval of the local ethics committee is required,
and should be specified in the manuscript
• Editors can make their own decisions as to
whether the experiments were done in an ethically
acceptable manner
– Sometimes local ethics approvals are way below
internationally accepted standards
34Results – what have you found?
• The following should be included
– The main findings
• Thus not all findings
• Findings from experiments described in the Methods section
– Highlight findings that differ from findings in
previous publications, and unexpected findings
– Results of the statistical analysis
35Results – Figures and tables
Illustrations are critical, because
Figures and tables are the most efficient way to present results
and
Results are the driving force of the publication
Captions and legends must be detailed enough
to make figures and tables self-explanatory
No duplication of results described in text
or other illustrations
"One Picture is Worth
a Thousand Words"
Sue Hanauer (1968)Results – Appearance counts!
– Un-crowded plots
• 3 or 4 data sets per figure; well-selected scales; readable axis label
size; clear symbols; data sets easily distinguishable.
– Each photograph must have a scale marker
of professional quality in a corner.
– Text in photos / figures in English
• Not in French, German, Chinese, Korean, ...
– Use color ONLY when necessary.
• If different line styles can clarify the meaning,
then never use colors or other thrilling effects.
– Color must be visible and distinguishable
when printed in black & white.
– Do not include long boring tables!Discussion – what do the results mean?
• Check for the following:
– How do your results relate to the original question or objectives
outlined in the Introduction section?
– Do you provide interpretation for each of your results presented?
– Are your results consistent with what other investigators have
reported? Or are there any differences? Why?
– Are there any limitations?
– Does the discussion logically lead to your conclusion?
• Do not
– Make statements that go beyond what the results can support
– Suddenly introduce new terms or ideas
38Conclusions
• Present global and specific conclusions
• Indicate uses and extensions if appropriate
• Suggest future experiments and indicate whether
they are underway
• Do not summarize the paper
• The abstract is for that purpose
• Avoid bold judgments about impact
39Conclusions
What have you
shown? What does it
mean for the
field?
Indicate possible applications
and extensions, if appropriateAvoid non-quantitative words, if possible
e.g.
• low/high
• extreme
• enormous
• rapid/slow
• dramatic,
• massive
• considerable
• exceedingly
• major/minor
• hot/cool
•…
Quantitative descriptions are always preferred
41References: get them right!
• Adhere to the Guide for Authors of the journal
– It is your responsibility, not of the Editors, to format references
correctly!
• Check
– Referencing style of the journal
– The spelling of author names, the year of publication
– Punctuation use
– Use of “et al.”: “et al.” = “and others”
• Avoid citing the following if possible:
– Personal communications, unpublished observations, manuscripts
not yet accepted for publication
• Editors may ask for such documents for evaluation of the
manuscripts
– Articles published only in the local language,
which are difficult to find for international readers
42Supplementary Material
• Not part of the printed article
– Will be available online with the published paper
• Data of secondary importance for the main
scientific thrust of the article
– e.g. individual curves, when a representative curve or a mean
curve is given in the article itself
• Or data that do not fit into the main body of the
article
– e.g. audio, video, ....
• Must relate to, and support the article
43Abbreviations
• Abbreviations must be defined on the first use
– In abstract as well as main text
– Some journals do not allow the use of abbreviations in the abstract
• Abbreviations that are firmly established in the field do not
need to be defined
– e.g. DNA, oC
• Never define an abbreviation of a term that is only used
once
• Avoid acronyms, if possible
– Abbreviations that consist of the initial letters of a series of words
– Can be typical “lab jargon”, incomprehensible to outsiders
44Typical length of a full article
• Not the same for all journals, even in the same field
• “…25- 30 pages is the typical length for a submitted
manuscript, including ESSENTIAL data only.”
– Title page
– Abstract 1 paragraph
– Introduction 1.5-2 manuscript pages (double-spaced, 12pt)
– Methods 2-4 manuscript pages
– Results and Discussion 10-12 manuscript pages
– Conclusions 1-2 manuscript pages
– Figures 6-8
– Tables 1-3
– References 20-50
• Letters or short communications have a stricter size limitation
– e.g. 3,000 words and no more than 5 figures/tables
45Cover letter
Your chance to speak to the Editor directly
– View it as a job application letter
• You want to give your work the best possible shot
– WHY did you submit the manuscript to THIS journal?
• Do not summarize your manuscript, or repeat the abstract
– Suggest suitable reviewers
• Not from your own inner circle
• You can also mention who should not review your paper, and why
– Mention special requirements
• e.g. if (and why!) you do not wish your manuscript to be reviewed by
certain reviewers.
– Mention and explain conflicts of interest, if applicableHow can I ensure that I am
using proper scientific
language?Thought Question What are some “writing” characteristics of the best scientific papers you have read?
Why is Language Important?
• If “language” prevents editors and reviewers from
understanding the “science” of your work, they may
need to reject your paper for the wrong reason
– Why should good science suffer from poor English?
– Let a skilled writer, or at least somebody
fluent in English, check your manuscript
before submission
– Practice scientific writing in English
as much as you can
• Keep (lab) records in English?
• Email in English?Do Publishers Correct Language?
Yes…
– Publishers often provide resources for authors who are less familiar with
the conventions of international journals, or who lack language skills
• e.g. by pointing authors to value-for-money language editing
companies
• Editorial support is only available for very few high quality articles
– Some publishers perform Technical Prescreening
• Technical (NOT scientific!) manuscript screening before peer review
But…
– It is and remains the author’s responsibility to use proper language prior
to submission
– Copyediting is only done after an article is accepted
• But does not make up for poor writingScientific Language - Overview
Write with Be alert to common errors in
– Clarity – Sentence construction
– Objectivity – Incorrect tenses
– Accuracy – Grammar
– Brevity – Mixing languages
– Abbreviations
– Spelling mistakes / typos
"Everything should be made as simple
as possible, but not simpler than that.”
Albert Einstein
Check the Guide for Authors of the target journal
or any specific language requirementsLanguage – Sentences
Write direct and short sentences
– Long sentences confuse readers
– Short sentences look more professional
– The average length of a sentence in scientific writing is,
depending on the field,12-17 words
One idea or “element of information” per sentence
– Avoid multiple statements in one sentenceLanguage – Sentences An example of what NOT to do: “If it is the case, intravenous administration should result in that emulsion has higher intravenous administration retention concentration, but which is not in accordance with the result, and therefore the more rational interpretation should be that SLN with mean diameter of 46nm is greatly different from emulsion with mean diameter of 65 nm in entering tumor, namely, it is probably difficult for emulsion to enter and exit from tumor blood vessel as freely as SLN, which may be caused by the fact that the tumor blood vessel aperture is smaller.”
Language - Sentences
• Minimize use of conjunctives
– “however”, “in addition”, “moreover”
• Avoid incorrect use of conjunctives
– “Because…, so…”, “Although…, but…”, “Considering…, it is…”
• Avoid excessive use of subordinate clauses in one
sentence.
– “It has already been found that when,…there would be …,
which…, while…, therefore ….”
• Mixing different levels of parallelisms connected by
“and” in one sentence.
– “He got punished and mad.”
• Eliminate redundant phrases
– “Needless to say that” can be skipped, and also what follows.Language - Tenses
• Present tense for known facts and hypotheses
“The average life of a honey bee is 6 weeks”
• Past tense for experiments you have conducted
“All honey bees were maintained in an environment with a
constant temperature of 23 degrees centigrade…”
• Past tense when you describe the results
of an experiment
“The average life span of the bees in our contained
environment was 8 weeks…”Language - Grammar Use the active voice to shorten sentences – Passive voice: “It has been found that there had been…” – Active voice: “We found that…” – Passive voice: “Carbon dioxide was consumed by the plant…” – Active voice: “The plant consumed carbon dioxide..”
Language - Grammar • Avoid redundancies / pleonasms – “schematic diagram” – “alternative choice” • Double-check unfamiliar words or phrases – Understand every single word in your manuscript
Language – Wrong use of words and phrases
• Use the 3rd plural form of verbs for plural subjects
– NB: exceptions exist
• “The pharmacokinetics of paracetamol is ….”
• The data is/are stored on the server.”
• The committee has/have decided that …”
• Spoken abbreviations should not be used in scientific
writing
– “it’s”, “weren’t”, “hasn’t”, “didn’t”, ….Language – Mixed languages • Use English throughout the manuscript – US or UK English, but not mixed in one article • Some journals require one of the two – e.g. US society journals • Make sure that also the figures contain English text only – Not French, German, Chinese …
Language – Spelling mistakes
• Spelling mistakes are avoidable
– “If the authors didn’t even care about something as
simple as typos, how could I know that the rest of their
work was done meticulously?” -- an Editor
• Spell checkers are there for a reason
– Use them ……
– …. but with caution / discretion
• Distinguish a zero (“0”) from the letter “O”
– Never ever let editors spot e.g. “0bviously” where
“Obviously” was meantLanguage - Summary • Proper scientific language is important so that editors and reviewers can easily understand what you meant • Refer to the journal’s Guide for Authors for specifications • Check that your paper has short sentences, correct tenses, correct grammar, and is 100% in English • Let a native English scientist check your manuscript
Do everything to make your submission a success
• Write, write, and re-write
– After writing each manuscript version, take a few days of rest
– Then take a fresh and (self-)critical look at your own work
• “Did I write that?”
– Ask colleagues for constructive criticism
• Ask them to be critical
– The editors and the reviewers will be!
• Be open to their suggestions
– Editors and reviewers are likely to have the same type of questionsManuscript submission, first decision and resubmission
Manuscript Submission
No redundant, concurrent,
or multiple submissions, please
• Redundant submissions
– “Nothing new” manuscripts
– “Salami slicing”, or creating several publications from essentially
the same research
• “Slices” are often at best “lite” manuscripts, and likely to be rejected
• Difficult to prevent some overlap; risk of (unintended) publication misconduct
• Concurrent submissions
– “Simultaneous” submissions to different journals
• If detected, serious repercussions for the authors
• Multiple submissions
– Submission to a journal before the final decision has been taken
by the “first’ journal
• Includes (re-)publication in another language
• If detected, serious repercussions for the authorsSubmission Submission and editorial process online only
After Submission Editorial times until first decision vary significantly between journals – Most time-consuming task is to find responsive reviewers – Authors do themselves a favour when they suggest good and responsive reviewers Now the Editor has to decide to – “Accept” – “Accept after (minor or major) Revision – “Reject” the manuscript Wait until the first decision has landed in your inbox – You can track the status of your manuscript
The Peer Review Process - Overview
Author Editor Reviewer
START
Impossible d’afficher l’image.
Basic requirements met?
Submit a [Yes]
paper
Assign
reviewers Review and give
[No] recommendation
Collect reviewers’
recommendations
[Reject] Make a
REJECT
decision
Revise the [Revision required]
paper
[Accept]
ACCEPT
Michael Derntl
Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing.
http://www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/meth-se.pdfInitial Editorial Review
Many journals have adopted the system of initial editorial
review. Editors may “early reject” a manuscript without
sending it out for external review
Why?
• The peer-review system is grossly overloaded and
editors wish to approach reviewers only for those
manuscripts with a reasonable probability of
acceptance.
• It is a disservice to ask reviewers to spend time on
work that has obvious and serious deficiencies.Reasons for (early) rejection
Content
• Out of Scope
– Submit to a more appropriate journal
• Lack of novelty
– Submit to a less prestigious journal
• Poor science
– Authors have a real problem
Presentation
• Failure to meet submission requirements
– Adhere to the Guide for Authors
• Incomplete consideration of the available literature
– Provide context
• Unacceptably poor English
– Language editingFirst Decision: “Accepted” or “Rejected”
Accepted Rejected
• Very rare, but it happens • Probability 40-90% ...
• Do not despair
• It happens to everybody
• Try to understand WHY
• Consider reviewers’ advice
• Be self-critical
• If you submit to another
journal, begin as if it were a
new manuscript
• Take advantage of the reviewers’
• Congratulations! comments. They may review
– Cake for the department your (resubmitted) manuscript
– Now wait for page proofs again!
and then for your article • Read the Guide for Authors of the
online and in print new journal, again and again.First Decision: “Major” or “Minor” Revisions
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!
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 experimentsManuscript Revision
• Carefully study the editor’s and the
reviewers’ comments
– Get angry (if you can not resist), but not too long
– Do not take criticism personal
– Reviewers give you a fresh, independent, expert opinion
– There may be (some) truth in the comments of the “incompetent”
reviewers
• Revise the whole manuscript
– Not only the parts pointed out by the reviewers
• E.g. changes in the Results may affect the DiscussionManuscript Revision
Prepare a detailed Response Letter
– Copy-paste each reviewer comment, and type your response below it
– State specifically which changes you made to the manuscript
• Include page/line numbers
• No general statements like “Comment accepted, and Discussion changed accordingly.”
– Provide a scientific response to comments to accept, .....
– ..... or a convincing, solid and polite rebuttal when you feel the reviewer
was wrong.
– Write in such a manner, that your response can be forwarded to the
reviewer without prior editing
Do not do yourself a disfavour, but cherish your work
– You spent weeks and months in the lab or the library to do the research
– It took you weeks to write the manuscript
Why then run the risk of avoidable rejection
by not taking manuscript revision serious?Rejection: not the end of the world
• Everyone has papers rejected
– do not take it personally
• 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.
Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal, again and again.
74Some legal stuff
Publishing Agreements
Author warranties
• The publishing agreement has warranties as to
– Originality
– Obtaining of necessary permissions
– Obtaining of any necessary privacy waivers (subjects in clinical trials)
– Compliance with research standards
– Compliance with publishing and journal ethics and conflict of interest policies
– Agreement of all co-authors
Government works
• The laws of a number of countries note that the works of government
employees may have a special copyright status
– US government works
• if done in the scope of employment, exclusively by government authors, then will be
public domain (no copyright attaches)
– Crown copyright works
• for UK government authors, work is owned by and licensed out by UK government
(similar rules in other countries)Rights Retained by Authors The rights retained by authors in publishing agreements usually address academic usage rights – Use of the work by the author in teaching – Re-use in other scholarly works
Elsevier Author Rights
Publisher agreements do vary; Elsevier generally allows
authors the following uses
• Teaching
• Allowed to make copies of the article for use in classroom teaching
• Educational materials
• Article can be included in the author’s institution or company e-
course packs or in-company training
• Scholarly sharing
• Copies of the article can be shared with research colleagues
• Meetings & Conferences
• Article can be presented and copies can be made for attendees
• Further works
• Article can be used in compilations, expanded to book-form, or
used in thesis or dissertation
• Patent and trademark rights
• For any invention disclosed or product identifiedOther Allowances & Restrictions
• Elsevier’s Posting Allowances
– Pre-print version of article to internet websites
– Revised personal version of text of final article to author’s
personal or institutional website or server
– According to funding body agreements
• e.g. Wellcome Trust, HHMI, NIH
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/fundingbodyagreements
• Elsevier’s Commercial Purpose Prohibitions
– Posting by companies for use by customers
– Placing advertisements against postings
– Charging fees for access or document delivery
– Any form of systematic distributionSummary
• What are your responsibilities as an author?
– Correct Submission
– Ethics
– Plagiarism
– Authorship
– Conflicts of Interest
• So now I’ve written this paper. Who technically owns it?
– You do!
• But publisher agreements usually include rights transfer or exclusive publishing
licenses
• What can I do with my paper once it has been published?
– Publisher agreements vary, but many allow for most academic
usage rights to be retained by the author.
– Agreements generally allow various posting options as long as
they are not for commercial purposesWhat leads to acceptance ?
• 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
– Nigel John Cook
Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews
81Pharmaceutical Sciences
Thank You!
Questions welcome
82You can also read
