1. No category

Techniques/methods towards
publishing in ISI journals
Saeed Zarein-Dolab PhD
Associate Professor
Shahid Beheshti Medical University
Tehran-Iran
Outline of the workshop
• Participation in scientific world
– The reasons
– how
• Types of paper
– What is a paper
– What editors/reviewers consider a paper
• How to search internet databases
– How to find relevant papers
– How to evaluate journals
• Isi
• Impact factor (IF)
– Pros and cons
•
•
•
•
JKR
the immediacy index
cited half-life
aggregate impact factor
– Criteria for the selection of a Journal
• IF
• Quarterline
– How to evaluate an article
• Citations
– How to evaluate an author
• H-index
How to search Internet
different search engines
PubMed
Scopus
Thieme
Proquest
– How to arrange the paper
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
title
Introduction
Materials and methods
Results/findings
Discussion
Acknowledgement
references
• Integrity in a paper
– Title/question/findings/answer in the
discussion/conclusion
• References and their relation to the journal
• The process of submission
– Timetable from submission
• The process of reviewing the paper
– Acceptance
– Rejection
– Revisions
• The process of revision
– The letter
– The corrections
Participation in publication
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Publish or perish
Dissemination of information
Scientific Development
Graduation
Employment
Promotion
Competition
Self satisfaction
Publish and perish
• Plagiarism
Types of papers
• Original research
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interventional/hypotheses testing/experimental paper
Descriptive paper
Method paper
Epidemiological paper
Review article
Case report
Letter to the editor
Short communication
New perspectives
Editorials/ from the editor
What is considered as a
paper/article
• Paper or article?
• A research which contributes to
– Pushing the frontiers of science a bit further
– Strengthening and confirming what is not well
established
– looking at an issue from a new angle
– Proposing a new/previous technique for a particular
purpose
– Widening/narrowing the application of something
What editors and reviewers look for
in a paper
• Originality – what’s new about subject, treatment or results?
• Relevance to and extension of existing knowledge
• Research methodology – are conclusions valid and
objective?
• Clarity, structure and quality of writing – does it
communicate well?
• Sound, logical progression of argument
• Theoretical and practical implications (the ‘so what?’
factors!)
• Recency and relevance of references
• Adherence to the editorial scope and objectives of the
journal
• Checking the integrity:
– The title, the purpose, the answer and the
recommendations
– The listing: sequence of information
– The words and their relation to the type of the
study:
• Hypothesis paper: (unknown/problematic)
examine, find out, to test,
• Descriptive paper: define, describe, clarify
• Method paper: develop, design, provide, make,
manufacture, offer,
• Epidemiological paper: report the
incidence/prevalence, find out,
• The integrity between type of the study
and the title
– The effect of
– The comparison, relation, correlation,
– a method for
– The prevalence date location
Parallel ideas in parallel forms
Structure check up
•
•
•
•
•
Clarity in English
Tenses
Passive or active
Subjectivity
Words in the appropriate place
Being published means
• Your paper is permanent – published material
enters a permanent and accessible knowledge
archive – the ‘body of knowledge’
• Your paper is improved – through the
interventions of editors, reviewers, sub-editors
and proof-readers
• Your paper is actively promoted – it becomes
available to a far greater audience
• Your writing is trustworthy – material which has
been published carries a QA stamp. Someone
apart from the author thinks it’s good
Types of journals
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research journals
Scientific journals
Research/scientific journals
News journals
News letters
Pamphlets
Research journals
•
•
•
•
•
•
Daily
weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Biannual
Annual
Selection of a journal
• Using internet
– Internet search
Free sites for search
• www.irandoc.ac.ir
» search\search engin search.ppt
•
•
•
•
•
www.findarticle.com
www.scirus.com
www.scholar.google.com
www.doaj.org
Eric search (education)
– 2577 (770 searchable at full article level)
– 127233 articles
• www.bookfinder.com
• Library
PubMed search\PubMed search.ppt
Scopussearch\Scopus.ppt
Thiemesearch\thieme - workshop.ppt
ProQuestsearch\sandy proQuest
presentation.ppt
Search Engines in Iran search\sterategy
search.ppt
The situation of Iran in ISI journals
• 2005
5500 articles
Pros and cons: What influences IF
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Review articles cited more often
Case reports rarely cited
Rapid publication time >
Self-citations >
Bias towards rapidly evolving fields
Cites not counted after 2 years
Specialty journals have < IF
Certain important points before
sending the paper
“Many papers are rejected simply because they don’t fulfil journal
requirements.
They don’t even go into the review process.”
• Identify a few possible target journals/series but be realistic
• Follow the Author Guidelines – scope, type of paper, word length,
references style, etc
• Find where to send your paper (editor, regional editor, subject area
editor). Check a copy of the journal/series or the publisher’s web site
• Send an outline or abstract and ask if this looks suitable and
interesting (or how it could be made so)
• Confirm how an editor would like a submission, e.g. e-mail; hard
copy
• Read at least one issue of the publication – visit your library for
access
ISI
http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/
essays/journal_selection_process/
• Thomson Scientific is a subsidiary of the
Thomson Group and is based in Philadelphia,
USA
• Thomson Scientific’s ‘ISI Web of Science’
database scores 9,000 selected journals with
‘Impact Factors’ based on journal citations
• The latest Thomson Scientific statistics were
published in June 2008 for the year 2007
• What is commonly referred to by academics as
‘ISI’, ‘SSCI’ or ‘Impact Factors’ is actually
Thomson Reuters now, and more specifically,
its ‘Journal Citation Reports’ (JCR)
• These reports index and rank the journals it
has on its ‘ISI Web of Knowledge’ and is a
collection of bibliographic information of over
9,000 evaluated scholarly journals
• Journals are ranked in the JCR
depending on how many times the
articles included in that journal are cited
in other ISI-ranked journals. The ranking
is published every June and corresponds
to the previous year’s data.
• ISI uses a calculation of citation data
over a three year period to produce an
Impact Factor for a given year.
How to evaluate journals
1. ISI: Impact Factor (IF)
• The Impact factor was devised by Eugene
Garfield, the founder of the Institute for
Scientific Information, now part of
Thomson, a large worldwide US-based
publisher. Impact factors are calculated
each year by Thomson Scientific for those
journals which it indexes, and the factors
and indices are published in Journal
Citation Reports.
How to calculate IF
A = the number of times articles published in 20078 were cited in indexed journals during 2009
– B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles,
reviews, proceedings or notes; not editorials and
letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2007-8
– 2009 impact factor = A/B
– (note that the 2009 impact factor is actually published
in 2010, because it could not be calculated until all of
the 2009 publications had been received.)
• Figure 3: Calculation for impact factor
revised to exclude self-citations. A=
citations in 1992 to articles published in
1990-91 B= 1992 self-citations to articles
published in 1990-91 C= A - B = total
citations minus self-citations to recent
articles D= number of articles published
1990-91 E= revised impact factor (C/D)
Journals ranked by JCR impact factor:
calculated without self-citations:
Journals ranked by an impact factor
1
BIOL REPROD
3.257
BIOL REPROD
2.757
2
J REPROD FERTIL
2.211
J REPROD FERTIL
1.852
3
MOL REPROD
DEV
2.003
OXFORD REV
REPROD B
1.765
4
AM J REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.931
MOL REPROD
DEV
1.644
5
OXFORD REV
REPROD B
1.765
AM J REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.466
6
SEX PLANT
REPROD
1.659
HUM REPROD
1.328
7
REPROD FERT
DEVELOP
1.493
J REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.232
8
J REPROD
IMMUNOL
1.442
REPROD FERT
DEVELOP
1.223
9
HUM REPROD
1.328
SEX PLANT
REPROD
1.195
10
INVERTEBR
REPROD
DEV
0.899
INVERTEBR
REPROD
DEV
0.826
11
REPROD TOXICOL
0.859
REPROD TOXICOL
0.576
12
ANIM REPROD SCI
0.701
ANIM REPROD SCI
0.554
13
REPROD NUTR
DEV
0.579
REPROD DOMEST
ANIM
0.536
14
REPROD DOMEST
ANIM
0.565
REPROD NUTR
DEV
0.510
15
EUR J OBSTET
GYN R B
0.449
EUR J OBSTET
GYN R B
0.399
16
SEMIN REPROD
ENDOCR
0.347
SEMIN REPROD
ENDOCR
0.347
2. immediacy index
 the immediacy index: the number of
citations the articles in a journal receive in
a given year divided by the number of
articles published.
3. cited half-life
 the cited half-life: the median age of the
articles that were cited in Journal Citation
Reports each year. For example, if a
journal's half-life in 2005 is 5, that means
the citations from 2001-2005 are half of all
the citations from that journal in 2005, and
the other half of the citations precede
2000.
4. Aggregate impact factor
 the aggregate impact factor for a subject
category: it is calculated taking into
account the number of citations to all
journals in the subject category and the
number of articles from all the journals in
the subject category.
How to evaluate journal
important points
• Aspects to consider (. I)
• 1. Contrasted Scientific Quality
•
Peer reviewed.
•
High Impact Factor
•
Scientific editorial committee.
• 2. Contrasted formal Quality
•
Celarity of process.
•
Priority of discovering assigned.
•
Accomplish publication time release.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3. Appropriated field of knowledge covered.
4. Wide dissemination over scientific information
channels.
5. Types of works accepted.
6. Copyright issues.
Owned by editorial?
Owned by author?
7. Fees.
Author fee?
Subscription fee?
Free?
Steps on selecting an academic
journal
•
•
•
•
•
1. Get into a bibliometric database.
2. Choose field of knowledge.
3. List by Impact Factor or other bibliometric parameters.
4. Determine journals’ quartiles.
5. Select the journals within the first quartile.
6. For all journals selected before visit their website and:
– A. Check type of works accepted.
– B. Check type of copyright used.
– C. Check type of fees implanted.
• 7. Select any of these journals if you agree with these
• conditions.
Bibliometric database
• Journal+impact+factor_files\How to
publish in Academic Journals02.pdf
How to evaluate the author
• H-index
– The H -index quantifies both the scientific productivity
and the scientific impact of a scientist. The index is
based on the set of the scientist's most quoted papers
and the number of citations that they have received in
other people's publications. The index can also be
applied to the productivity and impact of a group of
scientists, such as a department or university or
country. The index was suggested in 2005 byJorge E.
Hirsch as a tool for determining theoretical physicists'
relative quality and is sometimes called theHirsch
index or Hirsch number. The h -index has yet to
supplant older metrics.
How to calculate h-index
• http://www.epidemiologic.org/2006/12/hindex-calculator-of-scientist-impact.html
• Simply write the name of the authour in
the web site and click on compute h-index
Concerns and issues related to IF
1. ISI's inadequate international coverage. Although Web of Knowledge
indexes journals from 60 countries, the coverage is very uneven.
Very few publications from languages other than English are
included, and very few journals from the less-developed countries.
Even the ones that are included are undercounted, because most of
the citations to such journals will come from other journals in the
same language or from the same country, most of which are not
included.
2. The failure to include many high quality journals in the applied
aspects of some subjects, such as marketing communications,
public relations and promotion management and many important but
not peer-reviewed technical magazines. This editorial comment [1]
of the Asian EFL Journal complains of Thomson / ISI's failure to
even consider rating certain superior journals.
3. The failure to incorporate book publications including textbooks,
handbooks and reference books into the calculations of the impact
factor.
 4. The number of citations to papers in a particular
journal does not really directly measure the true quality
of a journal, much less the scientific merit of the papers
within it. It also reflects, at least in part, the intensity of
publication or citation in that area, and the current
popularity of that particular topic, along with the
availability of particular journals. Journals with low
circulation, regardless of the scientific merit of their
contents, will never obtain high impact factors in an
absolute sense, but if all the journals in a specific subject
are of low circulation, as in some areas of botany and
zoology, the relative standing is meaningful. Since
defining the quality of an academic publication is
problematic, involving non-quantifiable factors, such as
the influence on the next generation of scientists,
assigning this value a specific numeric measure cannot
tell the whole story.
5. The temporal window for citation is too short, as
discussed above. Classic articles are cited
frequently even after several decades, but this
should not affect specific journals.[4]
6. In the short term - especially in the case of lowimpact-factor journals - many of the citations to a
certain article are made in papers written by the
author(s) of the original article.[5] This means
that counting citations may be independent of
the real “impact” of the work among
investigators.
7. The absolute number of researchers, the average
number of authors on each paper, and the nature of
results in different research areas, as well as variations
in citation habits between different disciplines,
particularly the number of citations in each paper, all
combine to make impact factors between different
groups of scientists incommensurable.[6] Generally, for
example, medical journals have higher impact factors
than mathematical journals and engineering journals.
This limitation is accepted by the publishers; it has never
been claimed that they are useful between fields--such a
use is an indication of misunderstanding
8. By merely counting the frequency of citations
per article and disregarding the prestige of the
citing journals, the impact factor becomes
merely a metric of popularity, not of prestige.
9. HEFCE was urged by the Parliament of the
United Kingdom Committee on Science and
Technology to remind Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE) panels that they are obliged to
assess the quality of the content of individual
articles, not the reputation of the journal in which
they are published
Misuse of impact factor
• The impact factor is often misused to predict the importance of an
individual publication based on where it was published.[7] This does
not work well since a small number of publications are cited much
more than the majority - for example, about 90% of Nature's 2004
impact factor was based on only a fourth of its publications.[8] The
impact factor, however, averages over all articles and thus
underestimates the citations of the top cited while exaggerating the
number of citations of the average publication.
• Academic reviewers involved in programmatic evaluations,
particularly those for doctoral degree granting institutions, often turn
to ISI's proprietary IF listing of journals in determining scholarly
output. This builds in a bias which automatically undervalues some
types of research and distorts the total contribution each faculty
member makes.
• The absolute value of an impact factor is meaningless. A
journal with an IF of 2 would not be very impressive in
Microbiology, while it would in Oceanography. Such
values are nonetheless sometimes advertised by
scientific publishers.
• The comparison of impact factors between different
fields is invalid. Yet such comparisons have been widely
used for the evaluation of not merely journals, but of
scientists and of university departments. It is not possible
to say, for example, that a department whose
publications have an average IF below 2 is low-level.
This would not make sense for Mechanical Engineering,
where only two review journals attain such a value.
• Outside the sciences, impact factors are relevant for
fields that have a similar publication pattern to the
sciences (such as economics), where research
publications are almost always journal articles, that cite
other journal articles. They are not relevant for literature,
where the most important publications are books citing
other books. Therefore, ISI does not publish a JCR for
the humanities.
• Even in the sciences, it is not fully relevant to fields, such
as some in engineering, where the principal scientific
output is conference proceedings , technical reports, and
patents.
• Since only the ISI database journals are used, it
undercounts the number of citations from
journals in less-developed countries, and lessuniversal languages.
• Even though in practice they are applied this
way, impact factors cannot correctly be the only
thing to be considered by libraries in selecting
journals. The local usefulness of the journal is at
least equally important, as is whether or not an
institution's faculty member is editor of the
journal or on its editorial review board.
Manipulation of impact factors
• Increasing IF by not improving quality but
consciously increasing:
– Review article publications
• Self citing
• Skewness
– Only 25% of nature journal articles are highly
cited
• Use in scientific employment
– It measures popularity not productivity
How to search in ISI
• Finding the articles written by an author
• Finding the articles published in a country
• Searching the ISI data base to find how
many articles in one university an author
has published
• ISIWorkshop_webpages.ppt
Submitting a scientific contribution
the process
• Follow Academic Publishing Steps (I)
• 1. Author submits manuscript to an academic
journal editor.
• 2. Editor determines if the manuscript has
sufficient merit to be reviewed.
• 3. If merit, manuscript is sent to reviewers, if not,
is sent back to the author with a rejection letter.
• 4. Reviewers return the manuscript to the editor
with comments and recommendations.
• 5. Editor sends manuscript back to the author
with either a rejection letter or a request for
revisions.
• 6. Author revises manuscript and resubmits to
editor.
• 7. Editor sends revised manuscript back to
external reviewers again.
• 8. Repeat steps 4 and 5.
• 9. Author provides editing or proofing of final
copy before
• 10. Paper is eventually published in journal
Timetable from submission to initial
feedback to authors
• The Editor(s) do an initial read to determine if the subject
matter and research approach of the manuscript is
appropriate for the journal (approximately 1 week)
• The Editor(s) identify and contact two reviewers for the
manuscript (approximately 1 week)
• Reviewers are usually given 6-8 weeks to complete their
reviews
• The Editor(s) assess the reviewers' comments and
recommendations and make a decision on the
manuscript (approximately 2 weeks)
• Expected time from submission to review feedback:
3 - 3.5 months
Process of acceptance for a
journal – just one example
•
Submission checklist
It is hoped that this list will be useful during the final checking of an article
prior to sending it to the journal's Editor for review. Please consult this
Guide for Authors for further details of any item.
Ensure that the following items are present:
One Author designated as corresponding Author:
• E-mail address
• Full postal address
• Telephone and fax numbers
All necessary files have been uploaded
• Keywords
• All figure captions
• All tables (including title, description, footnotes)
Further considerations
• Manuscript has been "spellchecked" and "grammar-checked"
• References are in the correct format for this journal
• All references mentioned in the Reference list are cited in the text, and
vice versa
• Permission has been obtained for use of copyrighted material from other
sources (including the Web)
• Color figures are clearly marked as being intended for color reproduction
on the Web (free of charge) and in print or to be reproduced in color on the
Web (free of charge) and in black-and-white in print
• If only color on the Web is required, black and white versions of the figures
are also supplied for printing purposes
For any further information please visit our customer support site at
http://epsupport.elsevier.com.
Important point
• If you are asked to choose a peer
reviewer:
– Be fair
– Choose someone in your field; specially
someone in the references
– Not someone in your country
• Use of the Digital Object Identifier
The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) may be used to cite
and link to electronic documents. The DOI consists of a
unique alpha-numeric character string which is assigned
to a document by the publisher upon the initial electronic
publication. The assigned DOI never changes.
Therefore, it is an ideal medium for citing a document,
particularly 'Articles in press' because they have not yet
received their full bibliographic information. The correct
format for citing a DOI is shown as follows
• (example taken from a document in the journal Physics
Letters B):
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071
When you use the DOI to create URL hyperlinks to
documents on the web, they are guaranteed never to
change.
Revising the paper
• Acknowledge the editor and set a revision
deadline
• Clarify understanding if in doubt – ‘This is
what I understand the comments to mean…’
• Consult with colleagues or co-authors and
tend to the points as requested
• Meet the revision deadline
• Attach a covering letter which identifies, point
by point, how revision requests have been met
(or if not, why not)
The letter for revision
•
Dear editor
•
I would appreciate the revisions done by the reviewer on my manuscript titled, “the effect of X on Y in Z”. I have
followed all the comments and revised the manuscript which is attached. The revisions are as follow:
•
•
•
•
1. The title is changed into “the effect of X on Y in Z” and the word comparison is omitted.
2. line one in the introduction is changed into “CCCCCCCC”.
3. In line 10, the word “modified” is changed into “altered” as revised by the reviewer.
4. In Line 11, the ambiguous sentence “AAAAAAAA” was deleted and replaced by the following sentences
“CCCCCCCC”.
5. In line 16, Sentence “ CCCCC” was added to clarify the idea.
6. In line 18 of the methodology, the justification for the selection of the participants was added.
7. In line 22, “CCCCC” was added to justify the method and explicit the reason for the selection of the method.
8. I am afraid the change suggested by the reviewer in line 35 was not confirmed by the co-authors, for the
following reasons:
•
•
•
•
–
–
–
Aaaaaaa
Bbbbbb
Ccccc
•
I am looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
•
Sincerely yours
•
Saeed Zarein-dolab PhD
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dear Professor Lombard
Thank you for your letter of October 22nd inviting re-submission of the above
manuscript. I have now extensively revised the discussion, figures and presentation
to address the reviewer’s comments as well as those of the journal.
My responses to the comments are outlined below.
Referee 1 (comments shown in bold)
1. No change in the low MW thiol pool was detected during infusion of SNO-alb.
However the authors propose that this pool is critical for this activity (Fig 9).
This seems inconsistent and alternative explanations should be considered:
We agree with all of the points (see above and below) made by the reviewer, and
have revised the discussion in the manuscript as shown below to address each of the
specific points.
a) the measurement of thiols may not be sufficiently accurate to detect the
change in thiol over the time of infusion. Eg 4uM over 20 min may result in
relatively little change given that the reductive pathways may keep pace.
“There are several potential mechanisms to explain this. For example, the
measurement of plasma thiols over the time of infusion may not be sufficiently
accurate to detect the changes in plasma thiol concentration, particularly if the
reductive pathways which lead to the maintenance of extra-cellular thiols keep pace
with the changes induced by SNO-albumin infusion.”
What to do when the paper is
rejected
• Ask why, and listen carefully!
Most editors will give detailed comments about a rejected
paper. Take a deep breath, and listen to what is being said
• Try again!
Try to improve the paper, and re-submit elsewhere. Do
your homework and target your paper as closely as
possible
• Don’t give up!
At least 50% of papers in business and management don’t
get published. Everybody has been rejected at least once
• Keep trying!
Publishing in open access
• open access.ppt
Letters
• Dear Editor
• Please, find enclosed three copies of my
manuscript titled: “ the effect of X on Y in
Z” for inclusion in your accredited journal
of Ophthalmic Research.
Dear Editor
Enclosed please find a copy of my manuscript titled “the effect of X
on Y in Z" for publication in your accredited journal : ‘American
Journal of Ophthalmology” .
The justification for the publication of the manuscript in your
accredited journal is that:
1.
2.
3.
This submission is original, not under consideration for publication
elsewhere, and we are aware of the submission process and
guidelines and agree to its publication.
Sincerely yours
Saeed Zarein-Dolab PhD
Letter for the submission
•
•
Dear Editor
Enclosed please find three copies of my article titled : the effect of X on Y in Z” for
publication in your accredited journal of “ ophthalmic research”. I understand that the
submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published
previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or
academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its
publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible
authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be
published elsewhere including electronically in the same form, in English or in any
other language, without the written consent of the copyright-holder.
•
I am looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
•
Sincerely yours
•
Saeed Zarein-dolab PhD
• All authors are requested to disclose any
actual or potential conflict of interest
including any financial, personal or other
relationships with other people or
organizations within three years of
beginning the submitted work that could
inappropriately influence, or be perceived
to influence, their work.
•
Dear Ms.
Manuscript ID: LAR-11-089
Manuscript title: A comparative study of the effects of topical application of Aloe vera, thyroid hormone and silver
sulfadiazine on skin wounds in Wistar rats
We are pleased to inform you that your paper has been reviewed favorably. As you can see from the reviewer
comments, some revisions are suggested to improve the paper. We would be happy to publish your work if you
can revise your manuscript to take account of the points raised.
If you decide to submit a revised version, please enclose a point-to-point reply to the reviewers' comments (page,
line paragraph, etc.) and underline all changes made in the text. Please send your reply and the revised version to
the Editorial Office online within 2 weeks. Should you not be able meet the deadline, please notify the Editor-inChief via email.
To submit the revision, click
Here: http://submission.kalas.or.kr
I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript soon.
Best wishes,
• Dear Editor
• All the authors confirm that there is no actual or
potential conflict of interest including any
financial, personal or other relationships with
other people or organizations that could
inappropriately influence, or be perceived to
influence, their work.
• Saeed ZArein-Dolab PhD
• Correspondent author
•
Title. Concise and informative. Titles are often used in information-retrieval systems.
Avoid abbreviations and formulae where possible.
• Author names and affiliations. Where the family name may be ambiguous (e.g., a
double name), please indicate this clearly. Present the authors' affiliation addresses
(where the actual work was done) below the names. Indicate all affiliations with a
lower-case superscript letter immediately after the author's name and in front of the
appropriate address. Provide the full postal address of each affiliation, including the
country name, and, if available, the e-mail address of each author.
• Corresponding author. Clearly indicate who will handle correspondence at all
stages of refereeing and publication, also post-publication. Ensure that telephone
and fax numbers (with country and area code) are provided in addition to the email address and the complete postal address.
• Present/permanent address. If an author has moved since the work described in
the article was done, or was visiting at the time, a "Present address" (or "Permanent
address") may be indicated as a footnote to that author's name. The address at which
the author actually did the work must be retained as the main, affiliation address.
Superscript Arabic numerals are used for such footnotes.
Abstract
The manuscript
•
•
•
•
Types of papers
Title
Names
Affiliations
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Materials and methods
Results/findings
Discussion
Abstract
•
Acknowledgement
•
References
Types of paper
Types of titles
1.
2.
3.
4.
Titles for Hypotheses testing papers
Titles for descriptive papers
Titles for method papers
Titles for epidemiological papers
1. Titles for Hypotheses testing
papers
• The effect of X on Y in Z
• The impact of X on Y in Z
• Influence of X on Y in Z
Checking the accuracy
• Title: A method for purifying the
glycoprotein IIb-IIIa complex in platelet
membrane
• Question: The purpose was to develop a
method for the purification of the ….
•
Reference Style
Text: All citations in the text should refer to:
1. Single author: the author's name (without initials,
unless there is ambiguity) and the year of publication;
2. Two authors: both authors' names and the year of
publication;
3. Three or more authors: first author's name followed by
'et al.' and the year of publication. Citations may be
made directly (or parenthetically). Groups of references
should be listed first alphabetically, then chronologically.
List: References should be arranged first alphabetically
and then further sorted chronologically if necessary.
More than one reference from the same author(s) in the
same year must be identified by the letters "a", "b", "c",
etc., placed after the year of publication.
•
Examples:
Chhokar, J.S., Wallin, J.A., 1984. Improving safety through applied behavior
analysis. Journal of Safety Research 15, 141-151.
Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T., Peracchio L., 1990. Quasi experimentation. In:
Dunnette, J.D., Hough, L.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, pp. 491-576. Consulting Psychologists Press,
Palo Alto, CA.
Hale A.R., Hovden J., 1998. Management and culture: the third age of
safety. A review of approaches to organizational aspects of safety health
and environment. In: Williamson, A., Feyer, A.-M. (Eds.), Occupational
Injury: Risk, Prevention and Injury. Taylor & Francis.
Harborview Medical Center Injury Prevention and Research Center, 1997.
Systematic Reviews of Childhood Injury Prevention Interventions.
http://weber.u.washington.edu/_hiprc/index_left.html (Oct. 22, 1997).
Lipsey, M.W., 1990. Design Sensitivity. Sage Publications, Newbury Park,
CA.
Harvard style APACitationMethods-1.pdf
Journal abbreviations source
• Journal names should be abbreviated
according to
Index Medicus journal abbreviations:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/tsd/serials/lji.html;
List of serial title word abbreviations:
http://www.issn.org/2-22661-LTWAonline.php;
CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service):
http://www.cas.org/sent.html.