How to get published

What distinguishes a good manuscript from a bad one?

A good manuscript... Illustrations

...is in scope Illustrations are critical, because...
Investigate all candidate journals on elsevier.com to find out: cient way to present
Figures and tables are the most efficient pressent
Aims and scope results
Accepted types of articles Results are the driving force of the publication
Readership
Current hot topics by going through the One picture is worth a thousand words.
abstracts of recent publications Sue Hanauer (1968)

iled
Captions and legends must be detailed d enough
enough to make
...adheres to publication ethics figures and tables self explanatory
Avoid plagiarism of others work
text or
No duplication of results described in text or other
ottherr
Avoid multiple publication of the same work, never submit illustrations
your manuscript to more than one journal at a time
Cite and acknowledge others work appropriately Use proper manuscript language
Only list co-authors who made major contributions
Publishers do not correct language, this is the authors responsibility

...follows the Guide for Authors Ask a native speaker or use a language editing service to
Stick to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript, editors do improve your paper before you submit it.
not like wasting time on poorly prepared manuscripts. Poor English makes it difficult for the editor and reviewers
to understand your work and might lead to rejection of your
You can find the Guide for Authors on the journals homepage on
elsevier.com. paper.
Be alert to common errors:
Sentence construction
Incorrect tenses
Inaccurate grammar
Mixing languages
English language should be used throughout the manuscript,
including figures, charts, graphs and photos.

Are you ready to submit?

Roughly 35% of all submitted manuscripts are rejected before peer
review. Make sure you revise before you submit.
Article structure Do your findings advance understanding in a
specific research field?
Is your work of interest to the journals audience?
Title Is your manuscript structured properly?
Abstract Are your conclusions justified by your results?
Keywords Are your references international/accessible enough?
Did you format your figures and tables properly?
(IMRAD) Did you correct all grammatical and spelling mistakes?
Introduction
Methods Make your article as
Make sure you are equipped!
Results concise as possible
And
Discussions

Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
Discover our free training webcasts at
Supplementary data
www.elsevier.com/trainingwebcasts

elsevier.com/authors
Successful grant writing
Getting it right

Critical stages of grant applications... Top tips and tricks

and what to consider along the way Time keeping: Be realistic about the time it
takes to write the grant - grants are like an ideal
gas, they fill all the space available to them.
Generate an idea
Why is this interesting and d who cares? Check your style: Do not use tiny fonts, even if
the call doesn't have a low limit.
Who will benefit if the workk is successful?
s
11 point is probably as low as you can go.
How novel iss this
thi idea? Leave ample margins (3/4 in is pushing it).
Why am I thehe best person
p to do this? Avoid passive voice and tell a story.
ly achieve
Can I realistically ac eve what I claim?
cla Know your audience: Find out more about your
funding agency and use it to your advantage
Find a matching funding
unding opportunity e.g. emphasize basic science for NSF, healthcare
Look at who funds
f ds similar
sim research for NIH or technology for DARPA etc.
are: different
Be aware: dif ent agencies support
upport different types
typ of projects Connect and network: Grant calls include the
le calls
Scan for available ca contact information for a reason. Call the
st a wider
Be willing to cast w net Program Manager as they seldom can answer all
their emails. Prepare all your questions in
Think outside off the box. Keep p your mind open
op
advance.
Background
round re
research
arch Recycle but be warned: If you reuse parts of
Understand the different
ifferent agencies and their styles older grants (everybody does it) watch for the
items specific to older grants in those texts -
Talk to the Programm Manager they are used to cold calls!
nothing reveals a quick hack job better.
ure search,
Do the literature se ch, it can save you weeks of writing!
Assume thee panel members
m ers know nothing about your work, but Size matters: When it comes to budget be
abou your competitors.
everything about etitors. frugal but realistic. The average size of the
award specified in the call is a good indication
But don't expect the panell members
me s to be experts in your field, put of the scope of work the Program Manager
your idea into context. has in mind.

Write technical portion Be original! Try to be original and propose ideas

that make sense, not just the boilerplate.
What problem are you addressing?
Reviewers have read the boilerplate many
Why hasn't it been solved yet? times before. But dont forget to explain things
hypothesis?
Why do you think you will succeed? What is your hypothesis? that look unusual.
What is your work plan and milestones?
How will you measure success?
Time and effort for a typical grant
Check administrative parts Submission
Read the call again and again and again
5%
Calls are usually specific about the formats they require Looking for a
Administrative
Terms like required and must include should be adhered to funding call
parts
Work on your budgets and other documents in advance be prepared
10% 25%
If you need external letters, give people enough time to get them to
you
Submit and forget
Allow enough time to upload the files and check pdfs for readability
and errors. Writing
the technical Planning
Many agencies systems get very busy during submission times accept the proposal
narrative
and prepare for this.
Once submitted, forget about the proposal until you hear from the 35% 25%
review panel.
Make sure that the agency communications dont get filtered into your And remember
spam folder.
Many agencies will return detailed reviews. Use the review to revise and Always assume any problems were your
resubmit your grant.
fault, not the reviewer.
If the reviewer has misunderstood
something, then you did not explain it
clearly enough.
Make sure you invest considerable work
and effort in any revision - Reviewers will
likely do the same.
and finally good luck!
Content produced by: Aleksandr Noy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Member of Editorial Advisory Panel, Materials Today & Natasha Noy from Stanford University, USA. In association with Elsevier & Materials Today

elsevier.com/authors
Research and publishing ethics
Authorship, plagiarism and responsibilities

What does it mean to be an author? What is plagiarism and how is it detected?

An author is generally considered to Plagiarism is the appropriation of

be someone who has made substantive another persons ideas, processes,
intellectual contributions to a published or words without giving appropriate
study. credit, including those obtained through
confidential review of others research
Remember
Being an author comes with credit but also responsibility proposals and manuscripts.
Decisions about who will be an author and the order of Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999
authors should be made before starting to write up the
project CrossCheck is a huge database
of 30+ million articles, from
50,000+ journals, from 400+
Types of authorship publishers.
The software alerts editors to
First author: the person who conducts or supervises the data any similarities between your
collection, analysis, presentation and interpretation of the article and the huge database of published articles.
results, and also puts together the paper for submission
Many Elsevier journals now check every submitted article
Co-author: makes intellectual contributions to the data
using CrossCheck.
analysis and contributes to data interpretation, reviews each
paper draft, must be able to present the results, defend the
implications and discuss study limitations Work that can be plagiarised includes
Words (language) Computer programs Lectures
Avoid ghost authorship: excluding authors who Ideas Diagrams Printed material
participated in the work Findings Graphs Electronic material
Avoid scientific writers and gift authors: including Writings Illustrations Any other original
Graphic representations Information work
authors who did not contribute to the work
Correct citation is key
What happens when there is a dispute?
It must be resolved by authors
Editors cannot adjudicate or act as judge Declare conflicts of interest
It delays publication as the editor has to get
agreement from all authors about any changes Conflicts of interest can take many forms:
After publication it can be published as a Direct financial: employment, stock ownership, grants,
correction but needs agreement from all patents
authors with justification Indirect financial: honoraria, consultancies, mutual fund
ownership, expert testimony
Key author responsibilities Career and intellectual: promotion, direct rival institutional
Personal belief
Authorship:
Report only real, unfabricated data
The consequences
Originality
Declare any conflicts of interest Consequences vary depending on the misconduct and the
Submit to one journal at a time journal, institutions, and funding bodies involved.

Avoid: Authors could:

Fabrication: making up research data
Falsification: manipulation of existing
research data
Plagiarism: previous work taken and
passed off as ones own
Have articles retracted (carrying a note why they were
retracted, e.g. for plagiarism)
Have letters of concern or reprimand written to them
Institutes and funding bodies could carry out disciplinary
action

elsevier.com/authors
How to review manuscripts
Peer review, your role and responsibilities

Peer review Your ultimate checklist for reviewing a paper

is critical because it First impressions Results and discussion
Improves the quality of the published paper
Is the research original, novel and Suggest improvements in the way
Ensures previous work is acknowledged important to the field? data is shown
Determines the importance of findings Has the appropriate structure and Comment on general logic and
Detects plagiarism and fraud language been used? on justification of interpretations
and conclusions
Plays a central role in academic career development
Abstract Comment on the number of
figures, tables and schemes
...adheres to the principles that Is it really a summary?
Write concisely and precisely
It is a well understood concept Does it include key findings?
which changes you recommend
Without it there is no control in scientific Is it an appropriate length?
List separately suggested changes
communication in style, grammar and other small
Journal editors evaluate and reject certain articles Introduction changes
prior to external peer review Is it effective, clear and well Suggest additional experiments
organized? or analyses
Does it really introduce and put Make clear the need for
Why should you review? into perspective what follows? changes/updates
Suggest changes in organization Ask yourself whether the
and point authors to appropriate manuscript is worth to be
citations. published at all
Be specific dont write the
authors have done a poor job Conclusion
Comment on importance,
Methodology validity and generality of
Updated with latest Can a colleague reproduce the conclusions
developments
experiments and get the same Request toning down of
Helps with outcomes? unjustified claims and
own research Career generalizations
or new ideas development Did the authors include proper
Academic duty references to previously published Request removal of redundancies
Awareness of new research methodology? and summaries
GIVE before their peers
Is the description of new The abstract, not the conclusion,
General interest methodology accurate? summarizes the study
in the area
Could or should the authors have
Builds association with included supplementary material?
journals and editors References, tables and figures
Check accuracy, number
TAKE and citation appropriateness
Comment on any footnotes
Comment on figures, their
quality and readability
Editors view: what makes a good reviewer? Assess completeness of legends,
headers and axis labels
Provides a thorough and comprehensive report Check presentation consistency
Submits the report on time Comment on need for colour in
figures
Provides well-founded comments for authors
Gives constructive criticism
Demonstrates objectivity
Provides a clear recommendation to the editor

Comments to the editor

1 Comment on novelty and

significance 2 Recommend whether the manuscript
is suitable for publication 3 Confidential comments will not
be disclosed to the author(s)

elsevier.com/authors