Getting Published Workshop, Howard Browman

‘Getting published!’Skills workshop for early career scientists

Howard I. BrowmanInstitute of Marine Research, Bergen

Editor-in-Chief, ICES Journal of Marine Science

Publications Oversight Committees

How to tell your story and in what order

Common errors - The Methods

• 1. Some methods reported are not used.• 2. Some methods are missing, thus not allowing

the reader to repeat what was done.• 3. Reports statistical methods incorrectly or

poorly.• 4. Described methods do not relate to the results.

• Common errors - The Results

• 1. Reports data incompletely.• 2. Contains results from another study.• 3. Information repeats what is shown in the

tables and figures.• 4. Includes discussion or methods.• 5. Too many Tables• 6. Too many Figures• 7. Figures not drafted to fit the Journal’s page

format

Common errors - The Introduction

• 1. Does not describe the purpose and objective of the study (context).

• 2. Does not mention the importance and originality of the study.

• 3. Contains material unrelated to the study.• 4. Contains material belonging in other sections

of the manuscript.• 5. Tries to review the literature.• 6. It is not interesting.• 7. Redundancies with the Discussion.• 8. Thinks it is the Discussion.

• Common errors - The Discussion

• 1. It is biased and omits findings from other studies and/or alternative explanations.

• 2. Does not explain key results.• 3. Does not describe the limitations of the study.• 4. Does not characterize speculation as such.• 5. Includes information unrelated to the study.• 6. Includes outdated references or misrepresents

them.• 7. Overstates the importance of the study.• 8. It is too expansive and lacks a logical flow.• 9. Engages in HARKing.

Common errors - The Discussion

• 10. Contains material unrelated to the study.• 11. Contains material belonging in other sections of

the manuscript.• 12. Tries to review the literature.• 13. Does not compare/contrast your results with

precedent• 14. Does not make any conclusions and/or

equivocates• 15. It is not interesting.• 16. Thinks it is the Introduction.

Common errors - The Title

• 1. It is too long or too short.• 2. Does not match the article or study design.• 3. Includes abbreviations, jargon, or attempts to

be witty at the expense of clarity.• 4. Is formulated as a question.• 5. Inadequately describes the study.• 6. Is redundant of the keywords

Common errors - The Abstract

• 1. It is not a summary.• 2. It is not complete.• 3. It contains vague statements (“We discuss our

results”).• 4. It includes abbreviations or jargon.

Phrases NOT to use

”It has been shown that tube worms are negatively affected by high pCO2 (Refs)”

”Tube worms are negatively affected by high pCO2 (Refs)”

Common errors - The Conclusion

• 1. Just restates the content of other sections of the manuscript.

• 2. Includes statements not supported by the study.

• 3. Does not clearly relate the findings to the purpose of the study.

• 4. Contains unnecessary information.• 5. Is full of equivocations.

Darwin’s Sentences, Well Scrambled

1. I had heard that insects were thus caught, but knew nothing further on the subject.

2. Through these observations, it was soon evident to me that the sun-dew plant was excellently adapted for the special purpose of catching insects, so that the subject seemed well worth investigating further.

3. Flies (Diptera) were captured much more often than other insects. 4. As sundew plants are extremely common in some districts, the number of

insects thus annually slaughtered must be prodigious. 5. During the summer of 1860, I was surprised by finding how large a number

of insects were caught by the leaves of the common sun-dew plant (Drosera rotundifolia) on a heath in Sussex, England.

6. On one of the 12 plants all 6 leaves had caught their prey, and on several plants very many leaves had caught more than a single insect.

7. To get more information, I gathered at random a dozen plants, bearing 56 fully expanded leaves, and on 31 of these found adhering dead insects or remnants of them.

From Darwin, C.D. 1875. Insectivorous Plants. University Press of the Pacific.

Darwin’s Sentences, Unscrambled5-1-7-6-3-4-2

During the summer of 1860, I was surprised by finding how large a number of insects were caught by the leaves of the common sun-dew plant (Drosera rotundifolia) on a heath in Sussex, England. I had heard that insects were thus caught, but knew nothing further on the subject. To get more information, I gathered at random a dozen plants, bearing 56 fully expanded leaves, and on 31 of these found adhering dead insects or remnants of them. On one of the 12 plants all 6 leaves had caught their prey, and on several plants very many leaves had caught more than a single insect. Flies (Diptera) were captured much more often than other insects. As sundew plants are extremely common in some districts, the number of insects thus annually slaughtered must be prodigious. Through these observations, it was soon evident to me that the sun-dew plant was excellently adapted for the special purpose of catching insects, so that the subject seemed well worth investigating further.

From Darwin, C.D. 1875. Insectivorous Plants. University Press of the Pacific.

How to get your storypublished

How to select an appropriate journal to which to submit your

manuscript?• International• Indexed by a major indexing organization• Recognized in your field• Has recently published related topics• You recognize some of the editors• REALISTIC match to the quality and generality of the

research• How fast is the review and publication process?• Production standards (copyediting? Colour?)• Be aware: journals have limited space• Availability of open access option

Mather et al. 2008. Fisheries 33(9): 444-453.

ICES JMS 650 60% 35%L&O 450 80% 35%MEPS 1300 80% 45%PLOS ONE 50000 95% 70%

Taylor et al. (2008) Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics

1668 journals=20% 6320

=80%23 journals= 0.3%

Not everyone can be an outlier

Predatory publishers

Cover letter

• Provide all statements asked for• Explain why the study is worth publishing

– this statement should be convincing, but not more than that (e.g. NEVER say “this is the first”)

• Suggest a member of the editorial board• Suggest reviewers • Be sure that the editor and reviewers you

suggest are not in conflict of interest)• Maximum of one page

Submitting a professionally prepared manuscript

• Read the journal’s instructions to authors• Actually follow the instructions• Be disciplined in terms of overall length• Invest the time to make the language a

clean and easy read• Be disciplined in terms of interpretations• Prepare the Figures so that they fit the

page format of the journal

What do editors expect from authors?

• A good cover letter• A carefully prepared manuscript• Realism in choice of journal• Suggest appropriate reviewers• Identify possibly hostile reviewers• Identify conflicts of interest• Disclose history of the ms

What are reviewers looking for?

• A carefully prepared and tight manuscript• An interesting, logically presented and

compelling story• Complete but succinct and easy to

understand methods• Intuitive figures and tables (disciplined #)• Interpretations that do not overstep or

overstate the results

Responding to the comments and criticisms made by reviewers and

editors

• Be professional, respectful, firm• Do not be afraid to stand up to reviewers

and/or editors• Provide a detailed description of the

changes made (or not) and clear responses to the comments

• Highlight strengths/admit weaknesses

Challenging a rejection decision

• Can you? Yes.

• Should you? Not always.

• If you do, be totally dry and professional

Insights into the game of science publishing

Scientific Publishing

A SERVICE industry

Important to distinguish between publisher and editor

QUALITY CONTROL – JOURNAL MANAGEMENT

Fast and efficient manuscript processing?Service-oriented?

In-house production (with scientists directly involved)?

Fast production (without loss of quality)?Led/managed by scientists?

Neff & Olden (2006) Bioscience 56: 333-340

That’s it? That’s peer review?

QUALITY CONTROL - CONTENT

Empowered subject editor model(merit-based appointment to EB)

Editorial (double) pre-screening

+2-3 reviewers

Floating rejection rate (case-by-case)

Transparent and fair

CHALLENGES

Maintaining a consistently high standard of quality control over an ever-increasing number

of technical documents

LOGISTICS FOR PLOS ONE

>45 000 submissions per year>250 000 requests for review

CHALLENGES

Reviewer fatigue

Economics (time and money) – why is open access so expensive?

Countering false perceptions of qualityin scientific publishing

What do editors do and what do they expect from authors?

Types of editor

• Editor in Chief• Associate Editor/Subject Editor• Managing Editor• Executive Editor• Copy Editor• Does the publisher = the editor?

Who are the editors?

Can you name the Editors-in-Chief of the top marine science or general

science journals?

--------------------------------------------------------------Science; Nature; PNAS; PLOS ONE; CJFAS;

Fisheries Research; ICES JMS; TAFS; L&O; MEPS; Marine Biology; JEMBE

Science = Jeremy BergNature = Philip CampbellPNAS = Inder M. VermaPLOS ONE = Iratxe PueblaCJFAS = Yong Chen & Keith TierneyFisheries Research = George RoseICES JMS = Howard BrowmanTAFS = Churchill Grimes, Derek Aday & Richard BeamishL&O = Robert HowarthMEPS = Myron Peck, Charles Peterson, Katherine

Richardson, Rory WilsonMarine Biology = Ulrich SommerJEMBE = Sandra Shumway, Steve Widdicombe

Note: Shumway is also EiC of J. Shellfish Res. & Harmful Algae & Reviews in Fisheries Science

Do you know how editors are selected?

Do you know if they are paid?(do you think that they should be?)

Do scientists get any credit for being Editors?(should they?)

Should one scientist be an editor of more than one journal? How many is a reasonable limit?

Plagiarism and other ethical issues in

science publishing

Resources of which you should be

aware

www.ease.org.uk

www.wame.orgwww.councilscienceeditors.org

http://publicationethics.org

COPE Case categories

Inappropriate authorship; changes in authorship; disputes over authorship; ghost authorship;

gift authorshipData manipulation, fabrication, falsification

Editorial decisions, misconductImage manipulation

Multiple simultaneous submissionsReviewer misconduct

Undeclared COI

Authorship of Articles The Council of Science Editors recommends the following criteria for authorship. ·         Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3. ·         Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship. ·         All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed. ·         Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Dealing with plagiarismOne sentence, one paragraph, one page?

Section of methods?Self-plagiarism (text re-use)?How do editors deal with it?

Should author’s response influence editor response?

When to inform employer

CITATION MANIPULATION - 1Coercion. At some point during the peer-review process, editors (or anyone else involved in the process) request that authors add citations from their own journal (or a journal from the same publisher).

Editorials. Editors write editorials in which a disproportionate number of articles from their own journal are cited.

Reviewers suggesting citations to their own work.

CITATION MANIPULATION - 2

Self-citation. Authors cite disproportionately large numbers of their own articles in all or most of their publications.

Citation swapping. A group of colleagues (perhaps students or research associates of a particular researcher) agrees to preferentially and regularly cite each other’s articles in all or most of their publications.

Reference Books

Scientific Style and Format. The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. 7th Edition  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. R.A. Day & B. Gastel

A short guide to writing about biology. Jan A. Pechenik

Scientific writing. A reader and writer’s guide. Jean-Luc LeBrun Writing with Style: Conversations on the Art of Writing. John R. Trimble Words into Type. Marjorie E. Skillin AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. JAMA & Archives Journals The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing). Scott L. Montgomery The ACS Style Guide: Effective Communication of Scientific Information (An American Chemical Society Publication). Anne M. Coghill

Selected articles

Murphy, E.J. 2011. Citations: the rules they didn’t teach you. Lipids 46: 307-309.

Murphy, E.J. 2013. Impact factor and science publishing: what impact should it have on selecting journals in which we publish? Lipids 48: 431-433.

Petersen, A., I. Pavlidis & I. Semendeferi 2014. A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science. Science Engineering Ethics 20: 923-945.

Saper, C.B. 2013. Academic publishing, part I: peering into the review process. Annals of Neurology 75: 175-177.

Saper, C.B. 2014. Academic publishing, part II: where to publish your work. Annals of Neurology 76: 1-4.

Saper, C.B. 2015. Academic publishing, part III: how to write a research paper (so that it will be accepted) in a high-quality journal. Annals of Neurology 77: 8-12.

http://fishlarvae.org