How to get published in an international journal:

from preparation to publication

Deborah Logan
Publishing Director, Energy & Earth Journals, Elsevier

Professor Yanjun Dai
Shanghai Jiao Tong University; Associate Editor Solar Energy

31 October 2017 – SWC/SHC Abu Dhabi

Today we aim to cover
§  How do peer-reviewed journals work?
§  Are you ready to publish in this highly-competitive
field?
§  Selecting the right journal for your research
§  Tips: making sure your actual paper is as good as it
can be
§  Getting your paper noticed and keeping track of its
reach
Why do people publish
• First peer-reviewed journal founded in 1665 by Royal Society
• Journal publishing has evolved dramaLcally since, but its core
funcLons remain:
- RegistraLon of new research findings
- Quality assurance through peer review
- DisseminaLon globally
- Archiving in perpetuity
 Global output of scientific articles
World production of scientific literature continues to grow, at 4% per year

Number of Scientific Journals*

50 38 39 40
37
Thousands

40 32 34 35
27 28 29 31
30 22 23 23 24 25 26
20
10
-
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016
Number of Articles Published**
3,000
Thousands

2,000

1,000

-
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Sources: * Ulrich Journal Database; **Scopus
 Who is fueling the growth?

Who is publishing more? Who is publishing less?

•  China’s global share of arLcles rose from 3% to 11%. •  United States’ share dropped from 30% to 26%
•  Brazil and India’s global share also grew by about 1% •  Japan’s share fell from 9% to 6%.

0.9
United States
0.8 China
United Kingdom
0.7 Germany
Ar0cles (Millions)

India
0.6 China Japan
0.5 France
Canada
0.4 Spain
Italy
0.3 Korea, Republic of
Australia
0.2
Brazil
0.1 Iran, Islamic Republic of
Netherlands
0 Saudi Arabia

Source: Scopus. Projections based on 2008-2012 CAGR

Source: 2014 edition of the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators
 | 6

Academic publishing

30-60
Solicit &%
rejected
manage by
> 17,000
submissions
editors

>900 million
downloads by
Publish &
>12 million 700,000
Manage +
Disseminate
researchers in Peer Review
reviewers
>120 countries!

14 million
Production
400,000
Edit &
articles articles
prepare
available accepted
 | 7

Planning your article

Are you ready to publish?

Origin
al
results
or
metho
ds
Outda
ted
work
Duplic Signific
ation ant e
of pub
lished of pub nhancemen
work lished t
work
Incorre
ct con Up-to-
clusion da
s review te
subjec of a
t or fie
ld

Not ready Ready

Work has no scienLfic interest Work advances the field
Are you ready to publish?
You should consider publishing if you have information
that advances understanding in a specific research field

This could be in the form of:

•  Presenting new, original results or methods
•  Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results
•  Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field

If you are ready to publish, a strong

manuscript is what is needed next
 | 9

Planning Your Article

What makes a strong manuscript?

§  Clear and useful message

§  A logical manner
§  Readers grasp the research

Editors, reviewers and readers all want to receive well

presented manuscripts that fit within the aims and
scope of their journal.
 | 10

Planning your article

Types of manuscripts

Full articles
•  Substantial, complete and comprehensive pieces of research
Is 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 top
•  Often submitted by invitation

Your supervisor or colleagues are also good sources for advice

on manuscript types.
 | 11

Choosing the right journal

Best 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 suggesLons
§  Shortlist a handful of candidate journals, and invesLgate them:

•  Aims
•  Scope
•  Accepted types of arLcles
•  Readership
•  Current hot topics

ArLcles in your reference list will usually lead you directly to the right journals.
 | 12

Choosing the right journal

What about the Impact Factor…?

§  the IF can give guidance but should NOT be the sole reason to submit to a
journal.
§  The IF indicates the cites to recent items / number of recent items (published
in a 2 year period) in a journal

© Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, 2015

 A ratio between citations and recent citable items published in a journal;
the average number of citations received per published article.

Year -2 Year -1 Citing year

To all items Only source items

(regardless of type) (‘articles’ and ‘reviews’)

Citations to non-source items (editorials, letters, news

items, book reviews, abstracts, etc) may inflate the IF
 14

"There is no form of
prose more difficult to understand and more tedious to
read than the average scientific paper."

Francis Crick, 1994

 | 15

Preparing your manuscript

Guide for Authors

§  Find it on the journal homepage of the publisher, e.g. Elsevier.com

§  Keep to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript
§  It will save you time
 | 16

General structure of a research article

§  Title
§  Abstract
§  Keywords

§  Introduction
§  Methods
§  Results and Discussion

§  Conclusion
§  Acknowledgements
§  References
§  Supporting materials
 | 17

The process of writing –

building the article
Title, Abstract, and Keywords

Conclusion Introduc0on

Methods Results Discussion

Figures/Tables (your data)

- Title

Adequately Does not use

Fewest possible Identifies main
describes rarely-used
words issue
content abbreviations
 - Title – some examples
Original Title Revised Remarks
Preliminary Effect of Zn on Long title distracts readers.
observations on the anticorrosion of zinc Remove all redundancies such as
effect of Zn element plating layer “observations on”, “the nature of”, etc.
on anticorrosion of
zinc plating layer
Action of antibiotics Inhibition of growth Titles should be specific.
on bacteria of mycobacterium Think to yourself: “How will I search for this
tuberculosis by piece of information?” when you design the
streptomycin title.
Fabrication of carbon/ Electrospinning of “English needs help. The title is nonsense. All
CdS coaxial carbon/CdS coaxial materials have properties of all varieties. You
nanofibers displaying nanofibers with could examine my hair for its electrical and
optical and electrical optical and electrical optical properties! You MUST be specific. I
properties via properties haven’t read the paper but I suspect there is
electrospinning something special about these properties,
carbon otherwise why would you be reporting them?”
– the Editor-in-chief
 | 20

Effective manuscript titles

Articles with shorter titles get more citations (The Australian, 09/09/2015)

Twitter, YouTube and sound bite politics may have compressed the attention span of the
average punter and now a new study has unearthed the same phenomenon in the cerebral
world of academic publishing. (Researchers from the University of Warwick)
- Abstract
A clear abstract will strongly influence whether
or not your work is further considered...

–  Brief - one paragraph

–  Advertisement of your article (freely
available through A&I)
–  Easy to understand (without reading the whole
article)
–  Must be accurate and specific!
–  Say what has been done and what were the
main findings
 | 22

Abstract
§  Frames the 3Ps of an article – Purpose, Procedure and Principal
Findings
§  Summarize the problem, methods, results, and conclusions in a
single paragraph
§  Make it interesting and understandable
§  Make it accurate and specific
§  A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your work
is considered
§  Keep it as brief as possible

Take the Lme to write the abstract very carefully. Many authors write the
abstract last so that it accurately reflects the content of the paper.
- Keywords

Used by indexing and abstracting services

•  Labels/tags
•  Use only established abbreviations (e.g. DNA)
•  Check the ‘Guide for Authors’

Article Title Keywords

“Silo music and silo quake: granular
flow-induced vibration”
“An experimental study on evacuated
tube solar collector using supercritical
CO2”
Silo music, Silo quake, stick-slip
flow, resonance, creep, granular
discharge
Solar collector; Supercritical CO2;
Solar energy; Solar thermal
utilization

23
 - Introduction

Provide context to convince readers that you

clearly know why your work is useful

•  Be brief
•  Clearly address the following:
§  What is the problem?
§  Are there any existing solutions?
§  Which solution is the best?
§  What is its main limitation?
§  What do you hope to achieve?
•  Try to be consistent with the nature of the journal
24
 - Methods
Describe how the problem was studied
•  Include detailed information
•  Do not describe previously published procedures
•  Identify the equipment and describe materials used

Source: Yasui et al, 2012.

Icarus 221,646-657
25
- Results – what have you found?
•  Tell a clear and easy-to-understand story.
•  Include:
§  Main findings
§  Results of the statistical analysis
§  Present only results that are essential to the
discussion
- Results – figures and tables
–  Graphs: un-crowded plots; restrict data sets
(symbols to distinguish); well-selected scales; axis
labels; label size.

–  Tables: succinct.

–  Photos: scale marker.

–  Use colour ONLY when necessary e.g. if different

line styles can clarify the meaning, use this instead
of colour. Figure should be visible and
distinguishable when printed out in black & white.

–  Do NOT ‘selectively adjust’ any image to enhance

visualization of results.
 Requires a Figure or Table!

Taken from: C. Dant – WriLng the biomedical manuscript. Found at

hkp://www.dhslides.org/general/grant090209/
 Does NOT Require a Table

Growth medium aeration was essential for the growth of

S. coelicolor. At room temperature (24°C) in stationary
cultures, bacterial growth was not measurable, whereas
in aerated cultures, substantial growth was evident (78
Klett units).
Taken from: C. Dant – WriLng the biomedical manuscript. Found at
hkp://www.dhslides.org/general/grant090209/
 Take
care of
how
you
present
your
data

hkp://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-5-step-guide-to-data-visualizaLon
- Discussion

What the results mean

•  Most important section

•  Make the Discussion correspond to the Results

•  You need to compare published results with yours

31
- Conclusion

How the work advances the field from the

present state of knowledge

•  Should be clear

•  Justify your work in the research field

•  Suggest future experiments

32
 - References
Cite the main scientific publications on which
your work is based
•  Do not use too many references

•  Always ensure you have fully absorbed material you are

referencing and do not just rely on checking excerpts or
isolated sentences

•  Avoid excessive self-citations

•  Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same

region

•  Conform strictly to the style given in the Guide for Authors

33
- Acknowledgements

Ensures those who helped in the research are

recognised

Include individuals who have assisted with your study, including:

•  Advisors
•  Financial supporters
•  Proofreaders
•  Suppliers who may have given materials

34
- What is a typical paper?

•  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
§  Introduction
§  Methods
§  Results and Discussion
§  Conclusions
§  Figures
§  Tables
§  References
1 paragraph
1.5-2 manuscript pages (double-spaced, 12pt)
2-4 manuscript pages
10-12 manuscript pages
1-2 manuscript pages
6-8
1-3
20-50

•  Letters or short communications have a stricter size limitation

§  e.g. 3,000 words and no more than 5 figures/tables
35
Special attention
- Authorship
General principles for who is listed first
•  First Author
ü  Conducts and/or supervises the data generation and analysis and the
proper presentation and interpretation of the results
ü  Puts paper together and submits the paper to journal
•  Any other author
ü  Makes intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contributes to
data interpretation
ü  Reviews each paper draft
ü  Must be able to present the results, defend the implications and discuss
study limitations

Avoid
•  Ghost Authorship
– leaving out authors who should be included
•  Gift Authorship
– including authors who did not contribute significantly
- Conflicts of interest
•  Conflicts of interest can take many forms:
–  Direct financial
•  Employment, stock ownership, grants, patents
–  Indirect financial
•  Honoraria, consultancies, mutual fund ownership, expert testimony
–  Career & intellectual
•  Promotion, direct rival
–  Institutional
–  Personal belief

•  The proper way to handle potential conflicts of interest is through

transparency and disclosure
•  At the journal level, this means disclosure of the potential conflict in your
cover letter to the journal editor
Manuscript Language – Sentences

•  Write direct An and

exampleshortofsentences
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
•  that
be One SLNidea or piece
with mean diameter of information
of 46nm perfrom
is greatly different sentence
emulsion withis
mean sufficient
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.”
•  Avoid multiple statements in one sentence
A possible modification:
“It was expected that the intravenous administration via emulsion would have a
higher retention concentration. However, the experimental results suggest
otherwise. The SLN entered the tumor blood vessel more easily than the emulsion.
This may be due to the smaller aperture of the SLN (46 nm) compared with the
aperture of the emulsion (65 nm).”
Submission
- Final checks

•  Revise before submission

•  Vet the manuscript as thoroughly as possible
before submission
•  Ask colleagues and supervisors to review your
manuscript

39
- Covering letter

Your chance to speak to the editor directly

•  Submitted along with your manuscript

•  Mention what would make your manuscript

special to the journal

•  Note special requirements (reviewers, conflicts

of interest)

40
 Final approval from all
authors

Explanation of importance
of research

Suggested reviewers
The review process
from Nearing-Zero by
Nick D. Kim
 Demystifying the ‘black hole’
Author Editor Reviewer
START

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]

Michael Derntl. Basics of Research Paper Writing and

Publishing. ACCEPT
44
http://www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/meth-se.pdf
Types of review SUBMIT TO A JOURNAL REVIEW ON A JOURNAL

Less likelyMore likely Less likelyMore likely

Single Blind

Double Blind

Open Peer Review

(Reviewer known to author only)

Open Peer Review

(Reviewer name next to article)

Open Peer Review

(Reviewer report posted but NO name)

Open Peer Review

(Reviewer’s name and report posted)

Post-publication assessment
(Peer reviewed before publication)

Post-publication assessment
(No peer review before publication)
45
What do editors/reviewers look for?
§ Appropriateness for the targeted journal and specific
secLon of the journal
§ The importance of the work to the journal's readers
§ Its scien0fic soundness
§ Its originality
§ The degree to which conclusions are supported
The paper‘s organizaLon and clarity
§ The cohesiveness of argument
§ The length relaLve to the informaLon content

46
 Example Reviewer Checklist
Confidential checklist meant for editor’s eyes only
Yes No
Is the article within the scope of the journal?

Would the article be more appropriately published in a specialist journal?

Can the article be condensed?

•  If so, where: Figures Figure legends Tables Text

Is the language acceptable?

Are there portions of the manuscripts which require further clarification?

•  If so, where? ________________

On a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (outstanding), how do you rate 1 2 3 4 5

•  New knowledge in pharmaceutics Poor Outstanding
•  Experimental design
•  Evaluation of data
•  Discussion of results
•  Clarity of presentation

The article should be

Accepted without change Accepted after minor revision Accepted after condensation Reconsidered after major revision Rejected

Confidential comments to the editor: [free text]

47
Reviewers/Editors comments

• The purpose of peer review is to criLcally evaluate your work

and someLmes it will be just that – criLcal of your work

• Cut and paste each comment by the reviewer. Answer it directly
below. Do not miss any point.

• State specifically what changes (if any) you have made to the
manuscript. Give page and line number.
A typical problem – Discussion is provided but it is not clear
what changes have been made.

• Provide a scienLfic response to the comment you accept; or a
convincing, solid and polite rebukal to the point you think the
reviewer is wrong.

• Write in a way that your responses can be given to the reviewer –
be collegial
Reviewers/Editors comments

• The purpose of peer review is to criLcally evaluate your work

and someLmes it will be just that – criLcal of your work

• Cut and paste each comment by the reviewer. Answer it directly
below. Do not miss any point.

• State specifically what changes (if any) you have made to the
manuscript. Give page and line number.
A typical problem – Discussion is provided but it is not clear
what changes have been made.

• Provide a scienLfic response to the comment you accept; or a
convincing, solid and polite rebukal to the point you think the
reviewer is wrong.

• Write in a way that your responses can be given to the reviewer –
be collegial
Why papers may fail peer review

•  paper covers areas which already been published extensively about

•  No new insights, or failure to provide new interesLng results
•  Discussion too speculaLve/too long
•  Materials and methods not adequately described
•  Incomplete/confusing models
•  Basic fundamental technical errors
•  Cannot judge the science as the paper is not wriken well
•  Poor referencing
•  Inadequate study design descripLon

What makes a good paper

Notes from an Editor

To be a good paper, it should contain three key points;
1)  the problem is interesLng,
2)  the problem is hard to solve, and
3)  the authors solved the problem.





“If your paper is rejected, don’t be discouraged or offended. Many good papers are rejected.
For example, the first paper on quasicrystals by D. Shechtman, 2011 Nobel prize laureate in
Chemistry, was rejected by the Journal of Applied Physics without being sent for a review.
In most cases, the reviews offer an opportunity to improve the work, and so you should be
very grateful for a rejection. It is much better for your career if a good paper appears at a
later date, rather than a poor paper earlier or a sequence of weak papers”
(Nack Joon Kim, Scripta Materialia editor)

 | 52

Promoting your article

Conferences
§  Prepare to network
§  Also connect online
§  Online poster
Media relations
§  Your institution’s communication’s channels
Share links to your article
§  Customized short link with free access for 50 days (share with
colleagues, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Mendeley)
§  Link from university website to boost SEO
Social Media
§  Share your article on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and/or Mendeley
§  Use images to make it stand out
 | 53

Write a lay summary

Lay summaries:
§  Are short summaries of an academic
article
§  Explain complex concepts and focus
on the results and impacts
§  Describe research in plain English
§  Can be used in funding applications
§  Make research accessible to a wide
audience
§  Improve public engagement with
science to benefit wider society
 | 54

Rejection - not the end of the world

Reality: 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 seriously!
§  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.
§  Some journals also offer an article
transfer service to another Elsevier
journal, saving you time and effort – no
need to reformat or resubmit
Ethical Issues
 | 56

Why do we need originality and ethical conduct?

Unethical behavior by Researchers degrades the scientific record and
the reputation of science and medicine in the broader community.
It can unfairly affect the reputation and academic record of individual
researchers/authors.
What is unethical behaviour?

§  Fabrica0on of data or cases

§  Wilful falsifica0on of data FFP

§  Plagiarism
§  No ethics approval
§  Not admiKng missing data
§  Ignoring outliers QRP

§  No data on side effects

§  GiN authorship
§  Redundant publica0on
§  Inadequate literature search
57 QRP= Ques)onable Research Prac)ce; FFP = Falsifica)on, Fabrica)on, Plagiarism
 | 58

Plagiarism – what is it and how to avoid it

Plagiarism is serious but easily avoidable

“Plagiarism is the
appropriation of Correct cita0on is key
another person’s
ideas, processes, Credi0ng the work of others (including your
results, or words advisor’s or your own previous work) by
without giving cita0on is important for at least three
appropriate credit, reasons:
including those
obtained through •  To place your own work in context
confidential review •  To acknowledge the findings of others on
of others’ research which you have built your research
proposals and •  To maintain the credibility and accuracy of
manuscripts.”* the scienLfic literature

*Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999

 | 59

Can you plagiarise your own work? Text re-cycling/self-

plagiarism
This is a grey area, but best to err on the side of caution: always
cite/quote even your own previous work

For example
You publish a paper and in a later paper, copy your Introduction word-
for word and perhaps a figure or two without citing the first paper…….

Editors may conclude that you intentionally exaggerated your output

- Multiple submission

•  Multiple submissions waste editor and reviewer

time
•  The editorial process of your manuscripts will be
completely stopped if the duplicated submissions
are discovered
•  Competing journals constantly exchange
information on suspicious papers
•  DO NOT send your paper to a second journal until
you receive the final decision from the first

60
 61

Authorship Disputes

Must be resolved by Authors

Editors cannot adjudicate or act as judge

Delay publication: Editor has to get agreement

from all Authors about any changes

After publication, can be published as a correction,

but needs agreement from all Authors with
justification
 Consequences

Source: hkp://www.ithenLcate.com/
research-misconduct-infographic
A summing up
•  Choose the right journal.
•  Make sure your abstract is crystal-clear about what and
why. Don’t assume people will understand.
•  Spend quality time on your title, abstract, results,
discussion.
•  Share your data and consider audio slides etc.
•  Use easy to understand charts and
professional illustrations to support your message.
•  Use clear and correct manuscript language.
•  Be respectful to your co-authors, reviewers, and editors.
•  After publication, keep promoting your paper and monitor
its uptake.
63
 | 64

Further Reading – Elsevier Publishing Campus

 | 65

QUESTIONS?
Thank you
Elsevier Publishing Campus
www.publishingcampus.com
Information about publishing in
journals
www.elsevier.com/authors

Connect with me
d.logan@elsevier.com