Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Secrets of How To Publish Your Paper in The International Journals
The Secrets of How To Publish Your Paper in The International Journals
Copy editing
& production
Select 3 reviewers
Editor/AE
Scope/Cross check?
EiC
<5% >40%
Submit ms
Base camp –the results
Preparing your paper – What makes a good paper?
Every paper must have at least one clear key idea that advances knowledge.
Papers may be descriptive approaches to phenomena and processes, or purely
modeling or analytical treatments. Trend is to combined approaches and to
trans-disciplinary analyses.
A JGR paper is of more than local interest. Most studies take place in a particular
location, but they are publishable when the results and conclusions have a wider
importance in terms of processes or dynamics etc applicable to other regions.
The article should tell a story, set out to lead from one section to the next.
Preparing your paper –- Format
Preparing your paper - Grammar
Be sure to:
• when describing the details of an experiment (i.e., what was done), use
the past tense - “Velocity was measured with … “;
• general truths are expressed in the present – “Velocity is difficult to
measure precisely…”, as are conclusions – “In the MCC, maximum velocity
coincides with…”;
• recommendations often use future tense – “Modeling this velocity
structure will require…”
though the passive has been preferred in scientific prose, the active voice
is more vibrant, often briefer and should be used to highlight important facts
and to provide variety.
Avoid writing in the first person – repeated use of “I/we” can read as
pompous and tiresome.
Preparing your paper - Clarity
To convey unambiguous meaning:
Wrong journal
Dual publication
Bad preparation of ms
Weakly presented science
Incremental advance (< 1 lpu)
Localism
Lack of discussion
Insignificant conclusions
Poor response to reviews
Despite pitfalls, publication is
possible:
While the book has been criticized by linguistic experts of English language as
backward looking, inconsistent , eccentric and overly prescriptive, it remains an
excellent guide to anyone who aspires to write elegant, terse, and lively text.
Writing in English as a foreign language
Copying (or modifying) ideas, text, tables or figures from any source without
explicitly acknowledging that source, deliberate or not, is plagiarism.
Repeating ideas, text, tables or figures from your own published work without
citing the source is self-plagiarism.
To avoid plagiarism, always cite your sources for paraphrased passages and
place exact quotes inside quotation marks.
Copied figures should cite the source in the legend (and may need copyright
permissions).
Plagiarism, self-
plagiarism and dual
publication
Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and dual publication
Exceptions:
location maps for field work that gives rise to several papers;
Methodologies with identical instrumental set up in various studies;
introductory passages in related papers from a single study.
AGU policy "prohibits the submission of material for publication that has been
previously published in peer-reviewed scientific publication. "
EGU states Discussions papers "do not constitute peer-reviewed
publications. After interactive public discussion, it appears thus not
inappropriate to submit the same manuscript or an improved version for
peer-reviewed final publication elsewhere."
If you disagree,
explain exactly why in
a polite and detailed
manner
Papers can be
rejected because
authors do not
respond properly to
criticism
Understand what the
decision categories
mean before
responding
Dealing with reviews
Accept without revision – very rare for a first submission, but attainable after
one or more revisions.
Minor revisions – no serious problems with the paper, but points of detail
and inaccuracies that require attention. 21 days.
Major revisions – paper may be ultimately acceptable but there are some
significant problems that imply further or re-analysis, re-writing, changes to
figures, additions or deletions etc. 42 days.
Following introduction in
2001 of double-blind
review by Behavioral
Ecology, there was
7.9% increase in female
first-author papers.
Should female authors
use only initials?
Budden et al (2007) TRENDS in
Ecology and Evolution, 23, 1, 4-6
Results unsupported by
further research.
Women more often than
men lack resources
necessary to produce
high-quality work.
Ceci & Williams (2011) PNAS
108(8): 3157–3162.
Dealing with reviews
“We portray peer review to the
public as a quasi-sacred
process that helps to make
science our most objective truth
teller. But we know that the
system of peer review is biased,
unjust, unaccountable,
incomplete, easily fixed, often
insulting, usually ignorant,
occasionally foolish, and
frequently wrong.”
R. Horton, editor of The Lancet
On the other hand, no one has suggested anything better and it is demonstrably
superior to tradition, received authority, revelation and intuition as a means of
approximating “truth”.
Options like open reviewing and double blind reviewing are being explored but as
yet do not appear convincingly superior. See academia.edu researchgate.net etc.
With the move to Open Source publishing, there will undoubtedly be changes.
Dealing with reviewers
The Editors’
Hate scale for
reviewers who
say
You know
where you fit!
I personally am
Impressed by the diligence shown by some reviewers and
Dismayed by the number of invitees who deign not to reply
Reviewing aids writing
Be a conscientious reviewer! It is time well spent that will benefit your writing.
Unofficial reviews
On the internet everyone can be an expert
and every opinion is regarded as valid.
Any result that attracts public attention or
affects vested interests may provoke
comment by tweets or blogs.
Check the popularity of key words with Google, but beware that the most
searched terms will throw up most competitors, while specific long-tailed
keywords may find your interest group more efficiently.
Also, cite your related publications and those that cite your work.
However, Higgs’ 3170 cites for his 1964 boson paper did not use these means.
ISI stats show 47% of all papers are never cited.
Remember Sturgeon’s Law!
Summary
There are no secrets. The necessary information is all freely available. Read the
manual before writing!
The pitfalls on the road to publication can be overcome by careful preparation and
attention to detail.
Courteous, considered and detailed responses to the reviews are essential.
We should recognize our reviewing debt to the community. For every paper
published we owe at least two. We should be diligent and timely in returning our
reviews.
Though peer review can be robustly criticized as inadequate, it is still the best we
have, and should be supported while improvements are sought.
In this age of instant communication, “unofficial” or uncontrolled review and
criticism of controversial results will inevitably occur outside the learned bodies and
journals.
Science stands or falls on its reproducibility, openness and honesty and so these
developments should be accepted and welcomed.
Thank you!