How to Get Published Author Workshop Antiviral Research

Thursday, March 13th 2014, Blankenberge, Belgium
How to Get Published
Author Workshop
Powered by Antiviral Research
Presented by: Alina Helsloot, Executive Publisher Immunology & Microbiology, Elsevier B.V.
E-mail: [email protected]
Contents
1. Why do scientists publish?
2. Why is it important to submit a good manuscript?
3. What is a good manuscript?
4. How to write a good manuscript
- Preparations before starting
- Construction of an article
- Language
5. Revision and response to reviewers
6. Ethical Issues
7. Summary: what leads to ACCEPTANCE
8. Accepted! What’s Next?
Questions
2
1. Why do scientists publish?
… to share with the science community something that
advances knowledge in a certain field.
A research study is meaningful only if…
It is clear/ understood/ reproducible
it is used
Your paper is your passport
to your community
3
2. Why is it important to submit a good manuscript?
Before submitting an article make sure it is as good as you
can make it. Because:
it makes YOUR life easier
Your chances of acceptance will be increased.

… but also the life of the Editors and Reviewers
Editors and Reviewers are often overloaded. Incomplete manuscripts can create
great frustration.

4
3. What is a good manuscript?
A good manuscript makes readers grasp the scientific significance EASILY
Important are both
…the CONTENT – useful and exciting
…and the PRESENTATION – clear, logical
E  mc2
5
4. How to write a good manuscript
Preparations before Starting
Ask yourself WHY you want to publish your work
6

Have you made a contribution/solved a problem in your field?

Put your work into perspective with existing data

Know the latest results
Ask yourself in What FORM you want to submit your work

Full articles / Original articles
 the most important papers; often substantial completed pieces of research that are of
significance.

Letters / Rapid Communications / Short Communications
 usually published for the quick and early communication of significant and original
advances; much shorter than full articles (usually strictly limited).

Review papers / Perspectives
 summarize recent developments on a specific topic; highlight important points that
have been previously reported and introduce no new information; often submitted on
invitation.
7
Ask yourself to Which AUDIENCE you
want to submit your work

Identify the sector of readership/community
for which a paper is meant. Identify the
interest of your audience Which journals are
read by this community?

Choose the right journal!




8
Aims and scope
Accepted types of articles
Readership/Community
Current hot topics (go through the
abstracts of recent publications)
TIP: Articles in your references will
likely lead you to the right journal.
Does the Journal offer Open Access options?
What is the Author Processing Charge ($500- $5000)?
Is there Green OA via funding body agreements?
What about the copyright and user licenses?
Antiviral Research supports Open Access
Direct link to all OA-articles
9
The Impact Factor (IF)

In addition 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 divided by the number of recent items
(published in a 2 year period) in a journal:
Citations in 2010 to items published in 2009 & 2008
_________________________________________= 2010 impact
factor (published in 2011)
Total # of items published in 2009 & 2008
10
What influences the IF?


The turnover of research in a certain field influences the IF as more recent citations will be
made in a very “fast” area like genetics (bare in mind the IF window of two years).
The article type influences the IF, reviews are generally better cited. See graph below.
Journals publishing only review
articles have a very high IF.
11
Construction of an Article
Apply the Guide for Authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft.
Is there a Manuscript Checklist ?
12
The general structure of a full article





Title
Make them easy for indexing and
Authors
searching! (informative, attractive,
Abstract
effective)
Keywords
Main text (IMRAD)








13
Journal space is precious. Make your
Introduction
article as brief as possible. If clarity can
Methods
be achieved in n words, never use n+1.
Results
And
Discussion (Conclusions)
Acknowledgements
References
Supplementary material
The process of writing – building the article
This is a very individual process, and you should do it in the way that
suits you best. Many find it easiest to start spinning the story starting with
figures/tables, the actual data.
4.
3.
2.
1.
14
Title & Abstract
Conclusion Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Figures/tables (your data)
The final article
GENERAL
SPECIFIC
GENERAL
15
Introduction
Methods, Results
Discussion, Conclusion
The title
“Virus-like particles as a highly
efficient vaccine platform:
Diversity of targets and production
systems and advances in clinical
development”
Is this a good title?
What do you expect from this
article?
Is it specific enough to tell you
what the article is about?
Is it concise enough to generate
your interest?
The title is your opportunity to attract the reader’s attention.
Keep it informative and concise.
Avoid technical jargon and abbreviations if possible.
16
Abstract
17

This is the advertisement of your article. Make it catchy, and
easy to be understood without reading the whole article.

Be accurate and specific

Keep it as brief as possible

A strong abstract encourages the reader to further consider your
article. Spend some time on it, and seek advice from your peers
Introduction – to convince readers that you clearly know
why your work is useful
Give overall picture –
keep it brief
(no history lesson)
Current state
of
knowledge
What is the problem? Are there any existing solutions?
What are their main limitations? And what do you
hope to achieve?
18
Methods – how was the problem studied
19

Include detailed information, so that a knowledgeable reader can
reproduce the experiment.

However, use references and Supplementary Materials to
indicate the previously published procedures.
Results – What have you found?
20
Results
21

Tell a clear and easy-to-understand story,
highlighting your main findings  RED THREAD

Be structured (sub-headings)

Only representative results – but do not hide results…

Only results of primary importance (essential to the Discussion)
-add Supplementary Materials for data of secondary importance.
Discussion – What the results mean

This is your opportunity to SELL your data

Discussion should correspond with the results, not repeat them

Put your results into perspective with previously published data
DON’T ignore work in disagreement with yours
– confront it and convince the reader that you are correct
22
Discussion: Watch out for the following

Don’t exaggerate

Be specific (say “48 degrees” instead of “higher temperature”)

Avoid sudden introduction of new terms or ideas

Speculations on possible interpretations are allowed, but use caution

Check logic and justifications
23
Conclusions – How the work advances the field from the present state
of knowledge
Provide a clear scientific justification for your work
ATTENTION: DON’T repeat the abstract
What have you
shown?
24
Indicate possible
applications and extensions,
if appropriate
What does it
mean for the
field?
References

Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based

Do not inflate the manuscript with too many references

Avoid excessive self-citations

Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region
30-40 references are appropriate for a full text article
25
Cover letter

View it as a job application letter; it is your chance to speak to the Editor
directly

WHY did you submit the manuscript to THIS journal?


26
Do not summarize your manuscript, or repeat the abstract
Mention special requirements, e.g. if you do not wish your manuscript to be
reviewed by certain reviewers.
Language
27

1. Grammar
 UK or US spelling? Be consistent!

2. Style
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler” (Einstein)
 Be clear
 Be objective
 Avoid imprecise language (nowadays - currently)
 Be brief
Suggest potential reviewers

Usually 3-6

Authors in your subject area (see your references)

International
NOT collaborators or friends

28
The Peer Review Process
technical
support
Associate
editor
Assesses scientific
quality on the basis
of referee reports
Reviewer 1
Reviewer 2
Submission workflow for AVR
29
29
Journal
manager
Final acceptance of
Manuscript
Oversees the
production process
Accept
OK
Checks for basic
manuscript
requirements
Editor in
Chief
Reviewer 3
5. Revision and response to reviewers

Prepare a detailed letter of response


State specifically what changes 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 scientific response to the comment you accept; or a convincing, solid and
polite rebuttal to the point you think the reviewer is wrong.

Revise the whole manuscript


not just the parts the reviewers point out
Minor revision does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision.

30
Copy-paste reviewer comments and address one by one. Don’t miss any point.
Do not count on acceptance, but address all comments carefully
… and if the paper has been rejected
• Remember: it happens to everybody
• Try to understand WHY, consider reviewers advice
• Be self-critical
• If you want to submit to another journal, begin as if you are going to
write a new article.
• Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal
31
6. Ethics Issues in Publishing
Scientific misconduct

Falsification of results
Publication misconduct

Plagiarism







32
Different forms / severities
The paper must be original to the
authors
Duplicate submission
Duplicate publication
No appropriate acknowledgement
of prior research and researchers
No appropriate identification of all
co-authors
Conflict of interest
33
The article of which the authors committed plagiarism: it won’t be
removed. Everybody who downloads it will see the reason of
retraction…
7. Conclusion: What leads to acceptance ?










34
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 research
Critically evaluate your own manuscript
Ethical rules must be obeyed
Accepted! What’s Next?
Cite Alert & Usage Alert
Author Feedback Programme
Highlighting Your Paper
Tell Your Research Story!
Example of Article Usage Dashboard for
Authors
35
Antiviral Research:
Key Facts
For further information
please visit:
www.elsevier.com/authors
The pre-eminent journal for research on the prevention and
treatment of viral diseases
Impact Factor: 3.925
Free webcast tutorials on
getting published:
www.elsevier.com/training
webcasts
36
Editor-in-Chief: Mike Bray (USA)
Associate Editors: Dale Barnard (USA)
David Durantel (France)
Jose Este (Spain)
Johan Neyts (Belgium)
Mark Prichard (USA)
Subhash Vasudevan (Singapore)
Hui-Ling Yen (Hong Kong)
Questions?
37