Which points are important forEditors and Reviewers?*
Prof. Dr. Süleyman Kaplan
1
Scientific papers are often poorly constructed and written
Many scientists do not enjoy writing
So familiar with the material they have difficulty seeing it from the readers perspective
Result: loss of dissemination of critical (and expensive) information to the scientific community
2
Reasons effective writing is difficult for many scientists
They don’t enjoy writingEnglish is not their native languageTime constraints limit their time
Yet, publication is absolutely essential for a scientist
3
To assist with writing
Prepare the data and gather the key references
Prepare an outline of major issues to be covered
Supplement this outline with additional details
First write the sections of the report with which you are most comfortable, e.g., results
Plan a specific writing session
4
Factors Influencing Acceptance of a Paper
Importance of topicOriginalityScientific strength of dataClarity of presentationCompleteness of written expressionPotential interest to readership
Journals survive on the basis of their impact factor
5
Politely reply to reviewers’ comments (even though you
may strongly disagree)(reviewers do make errors)
Rarely is a paper accepted without change
Explanation or changes made/not made (required changes versus suggestions !!!)(Referees are constructing a bridge between you and editor…)
6
Journal Rejection Rate
Varies widely among journals
Usually higher among high impact factor journals
Not uncommonly as high as 75%, or greater
Rejection rate increases as impact factor becomes higher
7
Reasons for rejectionLack of novelty, e.g., use of a different species
Primarily confirmatory
No mechanisms defined
Does not advance state of science (observational)
Poorly prepared(Guide to Authors exists for a reason)
Methods outdated
Outside the interest of the journal (triage; a good thing)
8
Sometimes papers are rejected becausethey are too revolutionary, they are “ahead of their time”
Witness, Barry Marshall, Nobel Prize winner
For the same reason, truly revolutionary papers are not cited until years after their publication
Witness, discovery of melatonin in plants
The nice thing about science is that truth eventually prevails9
A reviewer often makes a decision if a paper will be accepted/rejected
on the basis of his/her first impression
Reviewer reads the remainder of the paper looking for a support for the original decision
10
Factors Leading to Rejection of a Paper
Merely extends previously known information to another species
Provides no fundamental advance in biology/medicine
Paper is purely descriptive Lacks mechanistic insights Large data sets that fail to highlight biological
significance
Failure to follow Instructions for AuthorsPaper not neat (cannot be over emphasized)
14
Little Things may Make a Big Difference
Font size (most journals require at least 12 point)
Font type (common are Times New Roman, Arial, Calibri) Avoid exotic font types, e.g., Gaudy Stout, Old English, etc.
Do not justify left-hand margin
Number pages
Make it as easy as possible for editor/reviewers
15
When publishing
Conflicts of interest must be specified (in the event of potential bias)
Transparency by all co-authors
Conflicts of interest are potentially more commonwhen research is supported by a pharmaceutical company
Thus, the judgment of the researcher may be influenced by the likelihood of continue financial support
16
http://researchedu.med.miami.edu/x18.xml
Definition Plagiarism is the intentional use of someone else's words
(e.g., direct quotes), thoughts (e.g., paraphrased quotes), ideas (e.g., charts, data), or internet materials in your own writings/presentations without acknowledging their source.
Plagiarism is the theft of intellectual property and is not unlike stealing from a commercial business.
A special case of plagiarism is the unacceptable practice is "self plagiarism" in which an author will use segments of his/her own published material (e.g., methods section of a scientific paper) in a new publication without reference.
Plagiarism
17
PLAGIARISM IN SCIENCE(unfortunately more common than you think)
Editors/reviewers and granting agencies
considers plagiarism to be scientific
misconduct
This is a consideration in publishing and in
grant applications
Reviewers must treat applications and
manuscripts confidentially (not borrow ideas) 18
Penalties for plagiarismand scientific misconduct
Embarrassment
Lost of scientific reputation
Disbarment from applying for grants
Financial penalties
Incarceration
20
Journal Impact Factors depend on research field
Journals in some fields permit many citations (biochemistry/molecular biology) while others greatly limit
number of cited articles (mathematics)
In highly dynamic fields where data quickly becomes obsolete (biochemistry/molecular biology), most citations occur soon after publication
These citations are used to calculate the Impact Factor
21
Does Open Access have advantages over Conventional publication
In first year, Open Access articles get more downloads and reach a broader audience
However, they do not get more citations (within the first 3 years)
The groups that benefit most from Open Access publishingare organizations that use the knowledge, but do not publish, and the companies that publish these articles
23
The fact that neither Editors nor Reviewers are perfect (or may have a conflict of interest)
should motivate authors of rejected papers to resubmit,
after due consideration of the suggestions of the reviewers,
their paper to another journal
24
Even for the “best” journals, reviewers are often hard to find
Some journals have unqualified reviewers on the Editorial Board
The best known scientists are often too busy to review a paper (often younger scientists are the best reviewers)
Sometimes suggested reviewers are fraudulent(on occasion the suggested reviewer is an author of the paper using an unrecognized e-mail)
25
Peer Review of Scientific Papers is not without Flaws
In October, 2013, John Bohannon’s spoof paper
This fraudulent paper had serious flaws:
1. No approval to use human subjects 2. Glaring errors in presentation of results3. Irrelevant conclusions
Accepted by 157 of 304 Open Access journals to which it was submitted
Oter S, Wellington G. Universal ethics in scientific publishing. J Exp Integr Med 2014; 4(1), 1-2
26
Your goals in science should be identified
Never too early to establish goals
Short-term goals
Long-term goals(e.g., in 10 years)
Randomness is not a method that ensures success
(don’t watch things happen, make things happen)27
No one said it would be easy (competition makes a better scientist)
Rejection is not an excuse for quitting (rejection makes a better scientist)
Education is expensive (having done it, exploit it)
28
I thank you for this opportunity
and wish all of you success in
your scientific endeavors
29
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
* By courtesy of Prof. R. Reiter30