Professor Saichol Ketsa, Ph.D. Department of Horticulture Faculty of Agriculture Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand How to write a scientific paper for an international journal What is a scientific paper? A Scientific paper is written and published report describing original research results. It must be written in a certain way and it must be published in a certain way 1 ce on lica ti P ub n fere Con Good Scientist Research Fruits for a better life PUBLISH OR PERISH Why publish? If you publish, people understand that you can do your job If you publish, you have more chance for getting money (grants) If you publish, your experience does not get lost forever If you publish, your science will improve If you publish, you will be more happy 2 Please keep in your mind prior to publication of your work QUESTION : Does your manuscript contain new information that has not previously been presented or meet all the criteria required? PLEASE REMEMBER: Journals do not want to publish manuscripts that do not contain new information. How to publish a paper 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Choose the journal Prepare the manuscript The covering letter Correspondence to the comments Reading the proofs Marking the corrections Ordering reprints Where and how to submit the manuscript 3 Choosing the journal 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Scope The prestige factor The circulation factor The frequency factor Membership Publication fee Journal Rankings Time cited/Total citations for all years Impact Factor Impact Factor by Category Journal Impact Factor (IF) 1. IF is a measure of the frequency with which the ‘average article’ in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period 2. IF appeared in Journal Citation Report has been yearly done by Institute Scientific Information (ISI) sine 1975 4 How to calculate IF A = Number of citations in 1991 cited articles published in 1991 for such journal B = Number of all article published in 1991 by such journal IF = A/B IF = The ratio of citations to total items published Impact Factor of International Journals (2007) Journal Nature Science Plant Journal Plant Physiology FEBS Letter Functional Plant Biology Plant Molecular Biology Planta Plant Cell Environment J of Experimental Botany Physiologia Plantarum Plant Science Postharvest Biolol.Technol. Scientia Horticulturae IF 28.75 26.37 6.75 6.37 3.26 2.38 3.85 3.06 4.50 3.92 2.19 1.80 1.59 0.69 The Cost of Publication ¾ Free ¾ Not free 5 Publication Fee ¾ Membership required ¾ Non-membership required per page per accepted paper How to Write a Scientific Paper 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prepare the title List of the authors List of the addresses Prepare the abstract Write the introduction 6. Write the materials and methods 7. Write the results 8. Write the discussion 9. Cite the acknowledgements 10. Prepare the literature cited 11. Design effective tables 6 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Prepare effective illustrations Type the manuscript The review process The publishing process How to order and use reprints First Rule Chose a journal early in the writing process that is appropriate for the work you are conducting. Follow the author instructions for that journal EXACTLY Starting to Write Collect All Your Data • Draw all your figures and tables • Collect the methods used and source citations. • DO this as your research progresses PREPARE an OUTLINE • Heading and sub-headings • Failure to do so is the Biggest Mistake Arrange the outline items in a logical order. List the main conclusions to be made, this will impact the title Use End-note program 7 Structure of Scientific Paper Authorship Title Abstract Introduction Materials & Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References Tables Figures Introduction : What did they do? Why? Materials and Methods : How did you do it? Results : What did you find? Discussion : Your interpretation of your results. Conclusion : Statement of main findings. Acknowledgements : Who helped? References : Details of references cited. 8 Authorship Participated • Conceptually and materially. • Involved in research • Planning • Executing • Analyzing • Byline – adding name of individual not actually engaged in the reported research is considered by some to be unethical. How to List the Authors The order of the names Definition of authorship Definition of order Proper and consistent form How to Prepare the Title Importance of the title Need for specific titles Importance of syntax The title as a label Abbreviations and jargon Series titles 9 Title Reflects the factual contents. Few as words as possible (<10 words). Straightforward & Informative. Use keywords researchers and search engines will recognize. Title is the only part you can be sure will be read. Abstract Only what is new and interesting Only what is necessary to understand the essential of what you did Keep as short as possible Do not squeeze in any minor results Come to a general conclusion in the final sentence. “We conclude that ....” Introduction (1) Define the subject ¾ Why was this study performed? Provide background information and relevant studies ¾ What knowledge already existed about this subject? Outline scientific purpose(s) and/or objectives(s) – Rational for the study. ¾ What are the specific hypotheses and experimental design for investigation? 10 Introduction (2) Good Introduction ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Present the nature and scope of the study. Review the relevant literature to orient the reader. State briefly what methods were used and why they were chosen. Use only the present tense, since you are writing about what is already known Evaluate, rather than summarize Use primary reference sources, not secondary sources such as reviews. State the overall question being asked. Avoid unnecessary detail. Be brief. Materials and Methods (1) List the materials used, how they were used, and when and where the work was done. Explain in detail how the research was performed (research design) Use sufficient detail to allow a reader to: ¾ Judge the appropriateness of the results. ¾ Assess the validity of the results. ¾ Replicate the study. Materials and Methods (2) Methods published elsewhere, or if established, need only be cited. Any modifications of published methods need to be described in detail. Organize in the same order as to be used in the results. ORDER: Materials, measurements, procedures Use past tense as you are talking about what was done. 11 Results (1) Concentrate on general trends and differences and not trivial details. ¾ You not need to include everything. Report only those result from which significant conclusions can be drawn even if there is no significant difference. Do not selectively eliminate significant result Results (2) Summarize tabular and graphical informationdo not repeat it. Do not discuss the implications of the results. Use appropriate statistical analysis. Use past tense as you are reporting what has happened. Do not repeat methods. Tables Is there enough information to justify a Table? Controls come first, then Experimental results Units should come under the column heading Align numbers on decimal point Include standard deviation & significant differences if possible Use footnotes to explain methods, details, abbreviations 12 Figures Independent variable should be on the x-axis Dependent variable should be on the y-axis Each axis labelled with name of the variable and the units Different symbol shapes for different data sets Axes that are scaled appropriately Figure legends should be clear and self-explanatory Discussion (1) OBJECTIVE Explain the relevance of your results. Interpret the data; do not restate the results. Relate results to existing theory and knowledge; do not digress and speculate on areas for which there is no data. Explain the logic that allows you to accept or reject your original hypothesis;do not accept a null hypothesis based upon non-significant data. Discuss alternative interpretations. Discussion (2) Discuss shortcoming ;do not be labor shortcomings. Point out any exceptions. Show how your results and interpretations agree or disagree with previous work. Include suggestions for improvement in techniques or design, or clarify areas of doubt for future research. 13 Acknowledgements Research funding support Institution Individuals who helped, but were not major contributors Others Do’s and Don’ts in Discussion Interpret your results, referring to figures & tables of results Make explanations complete Give evidence for each conclusion Discuss possible reasons for expected and unexpected findings Do not just repeat the results again Do not review literature, since this was done in introduction Do not over-generalize Do not ignore deviations in your data or unexpected results Avoid speculation that cannot be tested in foreseeable future Results & Discussions can be combined to save space References Cite only references in your paper that are relevant and necessary This is not a general bibliography. Check that a reference is cited and vice versa. Alphabetize by the last name of the first author. Follow the recommended format for citations 14 Reference accuracy results* Total references in Vol. 30. 1990 References selected References unverified References checked References without errors References with errors Total number of errors Categories of errors: 1. ARTICLE/ BOOK TITLE ERRORS 2. ENTRY ERRORS VOL., YR, PAGE 3. AUTHOR ERRORS 4. JOURNAL TITLE ERRORS No. 1,503 301 30 271 176 95 126 48 35 42 1 % 20 10 65 35 38 28 33 1 * Environmental and Experimental Botany Number of error per reference Errors/reference 3 2 1 Number of reference 5 21 69 Submission of the paper 1. 2. 3. 4. Hard copy ? E-mail ? On-line Attached files (manuscript, covering letter, list of potential reviewers, etc.) 5. The covering letter 6. Follow up correspondence 15 On-line submission Select Article Type Enter Title Add/Edit/Remove Authors Submit Abstract Enter Keywords Additional Information Enter Comments Suggest Reviewers Oppose Reviewers Request Editor Login (PBT) Please Enter the Following 1. Username Password 2. Send Username/Password 3. Register Now Login Help Login(FPB) If you have previously been an author or reviewer for a journal published by CSIRO PUBLISHING, you may already be registered in OSPREY. Obtain your password by entering your email address into the 'Forgot Your Password?' box and click 'Send me my password'. User Log In Username Password Forgot Your Password? E-mail Address New User E-mail Address 16 Author Main Menu Author Main Menu New Submissions Submit New Manuscript Submissions Sent Back to Author (0) Incomplete Submissions (0) Submissions Waiting for Author's Approval (0) Submissions Being Processed (0) Revisions Submissions Needing Revision (0) Revisions Sent Back to Author (0) Incomplete Submissions Being Revised (0) Revisions Waiting for Author's Approval (0) Revisions Being Processed (0) Declined Revisions (0) Completed Submissions with a Decision (14) New Submission New Submission Select Article Type Enter Title ……. …….. Editor’s Responsibility Maintaining high standards of the journal. Selection of article that meet high scientific standards Form of the published articles. 17 Editor action Editor confirms receipt of the ms Editor sends to two referees (reviewers) who are specialists in the topic of your ms The referees write down what (they think) is good and what is bad in this ms Editor makes a decision Editor sends you the decision Decision is negative Decision is positive, but the paper needs a lot of revision Decision is positive, paper needs little revision Comments List of corrections Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] change to [email protected] Abstract line 4: were tested instead of was tested In abstract line 11, Indolylacetic acid should be Indole-3-acetic acid Page 2 left column line 5 under the subheading Auxin inhibitors and ethylene treatment, …..(α p-chlorophenoxy) isobutyric acid should be: 2-(p-chlorophenoxy)isobutyric acid Page 2 right column line 4 under the subheading of Flower removal and auxin treatment, 3-indolylacetic acid should be: indole-3-acetic acid Page 3 right column line 9 under the subheading of Combined treatment……..and ethylene production, 7nl g-1 hr-1 should be 7 nl g1 h-1 Page 5 left column line 1 below Fig 4, 18-daysexperiment should be 18 days experiment (space between days and experiment) Fig. 7 c-f needs to be shown a considerably bigger, otherwise the symbols will not be clear to the reader. Fig. 7, legend, line 2 polygalacturonase in the (e, f ) β-1,4-glucanase. Please change to: polygalacturonase and (e,f ) β-1,4-glucanase. Fig 7, legend, line 6 (IAA; ∗,∗) please change to (IAA; , ) 18 Letter sent to the Editor Dr. Peter Nick Editor-in-chief Protoplasma Dear Dr. Nick, Thank you for your letter of Sept. 29. 2009, regarding our manuscript PROTD-09-00067, entitled "Do mitochondria in Dendrobium petal mesophyll cells form vacuoles?” Herewith is our revised manuscript. We also include our response, one by one, of the points mentioned by the reviewers. We agree with the referees that the presentation of the manuscript had to be improved. In particular it should be made much more clear that two phenomena in mitochondria were investigated, one in cells with little vacuolar area which are not undergoing programmed cell death (PCD) in the course of the experiments, and the other in cells that die during the experiments. The first led to the hypothesis that mitochondria develop into vacuole-like organelles (as part of their normal turnover), whilst the second indicated that mitochondria undergo several ultrastructural changes during PCD. If you find the present revision more or less acceptable, there remain two issues on which we would like to ask your advise: 1) do you deem it necessary, as suggested by one of the reviewers, to include a graph showing how many mitochondria in thin sections had small electron-dense granules, and how many of these granules were at the periphery of the mitochondria or further towards the mitochondrial interior? and 2) Are the figures, in particular the scale bars, acceptable for publication in Protoplasma? With kind regards, Saichol Ketsa Response to the reviewer Reviewr #1 comments 1) The authors used the extent of the vacuolation as an index ofmaturation/aging of the petal mesophyll cells without any confirmation.Moreover, the comparison appears to be made between the cells in the petal ofthe same developmental stage (or without discrimination of developmentalstage). The authors should first examine whether the extent of vacuolation isused as a profitable index of developmental stages of mesophyll cells or not;for example, by examining the changes in the extent of vacuolation in the petalmesophyll cells at the same position within the organ during flower development. Response: We agree with the reviewer. We have now added further information on the time line of the vacuolation in mesophyll cells in the middle between vascular bundles, and made clear that cells at various degree of vacuolation and time to cell death are found when going from the vascular bundles to the area exactly in between these bundles. So there are two series of decreasing time to cellular death, one referring to the same cells in time, and one being cells at different places in the petal. The data on mitochondrial ultrastructure prior to cellular death were taken from the second series, but those in the first are the same. Accepted letter from the editor Ms. Ref. No.: POSTEC-D-08-00071R1 Title: The relationship between chilling injury and membrane damage in lemon basil (Ocimum x citriodourum) leaves Postharvest Biology and Technology Dear Saichol, I am pleased to inform you that your paper "The relationship between chilling injury and membrane damage in lemon basil (Ocimum x citriodourum) leaves" has been accepted for publication in Postharvest Biology and Technology. As soon as the accepted version your paper has been registered by Elsevier, you will be contacted again with further information about proofs, copyright, offprints, and how to obtain on-line information about the status of your paper, etc. Thank you for submitting your work to Postharvest Biology and Technology. Yours sincerely, Ian I.B. Ferguson Receiving Editor Postharvest Biology and Technology 19 Rejection (1) Most papers by new authors have a difficult time. A rejection does not mean that the research has no merit. It could be: • The wrong journal. • Poor manuscript preparation Review the editor and reviewers comments and suggestions. Rewrite and resubmit. Hold the manuscript and read it again later after your disappointment or anger has abated. Rejection (2) After rereading you may then see shortcomings that you did not see before, and can revise Additional experiments or observations may be needed. Unfair reviewer criticisms sometimes arise from a reviewer’s misreading of an unclear passage. Your colleagues may be able to help you in the reassessment. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture Source Submitted Accepted Reason for rejectionA OS BP PD PI NN/NS OT State Department : 3 0 0 1 0 0 12 18 Queensland 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 New South Wales 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 12 Victoria 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 Western Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 South Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 Tasmania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Territory 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 39 Universitites and Colleges 0 1 0 1 0 0 18 20 CSIRO 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 Other Government Departments 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Private Industry and Other B 1 1 0 7 0 7 3 20 Overseas 5 4 0 9 0 8 103 152 Total AOS, outside scope ; BP, bad presentation ; PD, poor design ; PI, poor interpretation ; NN/NS, not new and/or substantial ; OT ; other reasons for rejection (e.g. papers withdrawn or two papers combined). Boverseas papers originated from India (3), Pakistan (3), Spain (2), Papua New Guinea (2), Brazil (2), New Zealand (1), New Caledonia (1) Iran (1), Ethiopia (1), Argentina (1), Mexico (1) and South Africa (1). 20 Do what the editor says Read carefully what the referees say in their comments The referee is mostly right, so accept what he or she says Rewrite the paper carefully If the text has become changed: have it checked again by a native English speaker Send in your revised version Similar letter as before, but now include the reference number of the manuscript Explain what you improved in the ms Dear Dr. Johnson, I hereby include the revised version of manuscript 03.576. We have ....... Yours sincerely, What do Editors and Reviewers Look for in a Scientific Paper? Quality of Science- Originality • Experimentally and\or theoretical Excellence and Competence. Importance of the Science – Significance • Research of Major Significance and Novel Aspects. Technical Quality • New and Significant Contribution. • Sound Research. Presentation • Clear and Concise • Errors in Fact or Logic • Experimental Design and Data Evaluation 21 How to deal with the publisher 1. Sign the transfer of copyright agreement 2. Read the proofs 3. Order reprints Correction of the proofs Do not change anything substantial in the proofs Only check for errors of printing If you made a mistake, also correct it On-line corrections Suggestion from the experience 1. 2. 3. 4. New, innovation, not duplicate Materials and methods must be precise and clear Discussion must be based on your own result MS should be edited by a person whose English is a native language 5. Publish first in a local journal or low impact factor 6. A rejected paper can be revised and resubmitted to other journals 22 Summary: How to write The journal will only accept your paper if: Your data are new and interesting Everything in your paper is fine Your English is good Summary Preparation of manuscript Submission of manuscript Acceptance with and without revision Resubmission of revised manuscript Correction of the proofs Sign an agreement Order reprints Rejection Revision Submission to a new journal พระมหาชนก ผูทรงบําเพ็ญวิริยบารมี คติพจนกอนจบ มนุษยจะไมมีทางบรรลุ สูความเปนเลิศได หากปราศจากซึ่งความเพียรพยายาม 23 Thank you & Good luck 24