1 Writing For ISI journals Hamid R. Jamali [email protected].

1

WritingWritingFor ISI journalsFor ISI journals

Hamid R. JamaliHamid R. [email protected]@gmail.com

An ISI article: Ingredients

motivation, the more the better enthusiasm, the more the better Something to say Patience, as much as required

Types of articles

Research article Review article Point of view Work in progress Letter …

Sections of article

Title Abstract Keywords Introduction Aims and objectives Literature review Methods Results Discussion and conclusion

5

Title

Keep it short and attractive Use as many keywords as possible Start with keyword if possible

Essential hypertension: The effect of Avoid using words like

“Studies on….” “Characterisation of ….” “Observations on….” “Investigations into….”

6

Title: declarative

Descriptive (neutral): Impact of open access on citations received by articles.

Question: Do open access articles receive more citations?

Declarative: Open access articles receive more citations.

7

Questions

Sometimes if there is no clear answer to question

For review articlesHow long is a giant sperm? (Nature)

8

Use verbs instead of abstract nouns

Treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome

How to treat . . . (this is more dynamic)

9

Avoid abbreviations in the title

OCs o-t-c? (editorial in Lancet, 1993) Maybe exception: Oral contraceptives

over-the-counter?

10

Abstract

Usually structuredBackground/aimsMethodResultsConclusion

Avoid abbreviation Make it informative

11

Introduction

New England Journal of Medicine (1975)

Most medical communications are

difficult to read. To determine why, contributions to three issues of the New England Journal of Medicine were studied and the prose analyzed.

12

example

Nose bleeds in adults are the commonest reason for emergency admission to an otolaryngology ward, but the cause of the condition remains unknown. Case reports suggest an association between nose bleeds and regular, high alcohol consumption.

We conducted a prospective case-control study to compare the alcohol habits of adults with nose bleeds with those of controls being treated for other otorhinolaryngological conditions.

13

Literature review

Show that you know the literatureUse the literature; Citation is not

enough Show your research will contribute

to knowledge in this field What is the gap you are trying to fill

Method

Provide the information a reader needs in order to understand (and replicate) your research

E.g., clear explanation of the sample, procedure

Others should be able to repeat your research

Results

Do the necessary, relevant analyses to test the research question, hypotheses

Make sure the analyses are appropriate

Do not discuss the results in results section

Discussion

Giving a summary of findings is not enough

Address the research question/s Integrate the relevant literature State your contribution Acknowledge limitations What’s the conclusion?

17

What tense, Past or present?

Use tense to show the status Summary and abstract: past Introduction: present Methods & Results: past Discussion: past & present For facts and generalization: present

18

Present perfect

For repeated observation…: present perfect

These drugs have been shown to produce significant elevations in blood

pressure.

19

Past

Use past tense to discuss results that cannot be generalized

Barber (1980) reported that 28% of the 396 wasps in his study showed signs of parasitism.

Use the past tense for unpublished results

In the study presented here, the drug killed 95% of the tuberculosis bacilli.

20

Present

Use the present tense to refer readers to your figures and tables

Antibodies occurred in 11% of our mice, as Table 1 indicates.

21

Abbreviation

Use the standard form Be consistent PhD or Ph.D Don’t overuse Use the full form the first time

22

Avoid jargons

23

Keep it short and simple

At this point in time use Now

Due to the fact that Because

High degree of accuracy Accurate

Employ, utilize Use

In the event that If

Make a decision Decide

Make a choice Choose

Formulate a plan Plan

Have a discussion Discuss

Implement Do

24

Avoid gender bias

Instead of: Each technician must be sure that s/he signs his/her time card.

Better but awkward: Each technician must be sure to sign his or her time card.

Better yet: Each technician must be sure to sign a time card.

25

American or British?

Just be consistent ..ization, ize (isation, ise) Favor, color (colour, favour) Center (centre)

26

Rules for simple writing

Use the active voice Use articles wherever possible Use simple verb tenses Use language and terminology

consistently Avoid lengthy compound words Use relatively short sentences

Ask yourself

So what? Who cares?

Collaboration

Try to co-author your first paper with an experienced author

Collaboration increases the quality and chance of acceptance

Always make the order of authors clear in the beginning

Plagiarism

Don’t submit to two journals simultaneously

Don’t copy text without quoting ….

30

Selecting the Selecting the target journaltarget journal

31

When to choose?

Choose journal early in the writing process

32

What to look for?

Where does your supervisor publish? Where do your colleagues publish? Which journals are you reading? Which journals do you cite? Check recent editorial notes for any

changes in direction

32

33

Factors to consider

Significance of your work, be realistic Target audience Journal scope statement Articles on a similar topic

33

34

Review and publication

Speed of review Speed of publication Cost of publication (e.g. color pages) Access policy (Open Access)

34

35

Journal Website

Find the websiteScope statementEditor and contact informationTime to publicationAuthor fees

Look for “Calls for Papers”

35

36

Final Decision

Discuss with your supervisor Discuss with your collaborators Select 1st and 2nd choice journals

36

37

Overshooting and Undershooting

Seek the advice of colleagues If you overshoot, be prepared for

rejection Don’t undershoot to guarantee

publication

37

38

ISI Journals

Check Journal Citation Reports

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Search for a specific journal

52

53

54

Journal Immediacy Index

مقاله يك كه دفعاتي تعداد متوسطاستناد مورد خود انتشار سال در

. گيرد مي قرار The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an

article is cited in the year it is published. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly

articles in a journal are cited. The Immediacy Index is calculated by dividing the

number of citations to articles published in a given year by the number of articles published in that year.

Frequently issued journals may have higher II and vice versa

Useful for comparing journals in cutting-edge research

55

Journal Impact Factorدو ت منتشرشده مقاالت به ارجاعات عداد

ارزیابی مورد سال در مجله قبل سال IF is the average number of times articles from the

journal published in the past two years have been cited in the JCR year.

The Impact Factor is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the two previous years.

E.g. IF=2.5 means that, on average, the articles published one or two year ago have been cited two and a half times.

Citing articles may be from the same journal

56

Cites in 2007 to articles published

in: 2006 = 525 

Number of articles published in: 2006 = 602  

2005 = 753  2005 = 462 

Sum: 1278 Sum: 1064

Calculation:

Cites to recent articles 1278  = 1.201 

Number of recent articles 1064 

Impact Factor 2007 Hydrobiologia

57

5-Year Journal Impact Factor

is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year. It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the five previous years.

It is available only in JCR 2007 and subsequent years.

58

Aggregate Impact Factor

The aggregate Impact Factor for a subject category is calculated the same way as the Impact Factor for a journal,

The Impact Factor mitigates the importance of absolute citation frequencies. It tends to discount the advantage of large journals over small journals because large journals produce a larger body of citable literature. For the same reason, it tends to discount the advantage of frequently issued journals over less frequently issued ones and of older journals over newer ones. Because the journal impact factor offsets the advantages of size and age, it is a valuable tool for journal evaluation.

59

Median Impact Factor

is the median value of all journal Impact Factors in the subject category.

60

Prior to SubmissionPrior to Submissionand Submissionand Submission

61

Instructions for Authorsor Author guidelines

Locate on journal website Read carefully Instructions for preparing the

manuscript Ethical policies and standards

AuthorshipPre-publication

61

62

63

64

Submitting Your Manuscript

How to submit (usually electronically) Review process Time frame for review Forms needed for copyright and

permissions

64

65

Before You Submit Proofread the manuscript, tables and figures

one more time Accuracy Spelling/grammar (read on paper) Double-check the correctness of the

figures/tables vs. manuscript Double-check the references (20%) Have your colleagues read the paper scope, type of paper, word length, references

style, etc Cite relevant articles published in that journal.

65

66

Cover Letter Disclosures

Prior publication • Published in abstract form• Published as draft on web site (give

location)• Published another paper that is similar

(give citation)

Figure adjustments Reviewer suggestions or exclusions Thank the editor

66

67

Add the Additional Forms

Final version of manuscript Final versions of figures/tables Letter to editor (Cover letter) Correct forms (submission form,

copyright, conflict of interest, etc.) Payment (if applicable)

67

68

Experience Issues

Suggesting reviewers Excluding certain reviewers Querying Journal Editor

68

69

What Happens Next?

Peer review

69

Review Review and and

the resultthe result

Peer review

Normally 1-3 referees, normally 2 Double-blind 20 days – a few months

Review results

You have waited a few months and now you receive a decision letter from the editor

Accept, reject, conditional… Rejection is a fact of life, everybody

has got rejected once

73

Example: an Emerald Journal

29% published55% rejected16% withdrawn

Reviewers look for

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

Referees

Their comments are not personal They are helping you for free Listen to their suggestions, unless you

really have a good reason not to do so

results

Pure accept

Revise minor problems and resubmit

Revise major problems and resubmit

Rejected but will entertain a resubmit

Rejected and dismissed

Rejected by editor

77

What if rejected?

Don’t get disappointed examine why make changes, find another target, or make significant change? Improve and submit somewhere else Maybe even to a better journal

The most common mistakes, as reported by reviewers This is the wrong journal for this manuscript This paper has no (or inadequate) theoretical

foundation Proof-reading errors The manuscript does not follow the style for this

journal the article is too long

Writing style: verbose, vague, unclear; too many ‘bullet points’; lack of justification of claims, generalisations;

The most common mistakes (cont.)

‘Key’ references are not cited References are cited but has the author actually

read them? The manuscript structure is illogical, difficult to

follow What is the author really trying to test? Inadequate argument leading to hypotheses I cannot understand or do not approve of the

research method The research analysis is inappropriate / inadequate The discussion misrepresents the findings So what? Does this paper make a contribution?

How to handle a ‘revise & re-submit’

Be polite (it’s a small world) Follow the recommendations as much

as possible (referees volunteer their time, they are trying to be helpful!)

Follow the editor’s advice, instructions Address each of the points made by

each referee Return the revised MS as soon as

possible