This document provides guidance on getting scientific work published. It discusses common errors to avoid in manuscript sections like the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. It also covers choosing an appropriate journal, writing a cover letter, responding to reviewer feedback, and dealing with ethical issues like plagiarism. The presenter recommends preparing a carefully written manuscript that follows the target journal's instructions and suggests resources for writing and publishing scientific papers.

1. ‘Getting published!’
Skills workshop for early career scientists
Howard I. Browman
Institute of Marine Research, Bergen
Editor-in-Chief, ICES Journal of Marine Science

4. Publications Oversight
Committees

7. How to tell
your story and
in what order

8. 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.

10. • 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

11. 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.

12. • 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 Includes outdated references or misrepresents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.

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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)”

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Darwin’s Sentences, Unscrambled
5-1-7-6-3-4-2
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.

20. How to get
your story
published

21. 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

22. 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%

23. Taylor et al. (2008) Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics
1668 journals
=20% 6320
=80%23 journals
= 0.3%

24. Not everyone can be
an outlier

25. Predatory publishers

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Challenging a rejection decision
• Can you? Yes.
• Should you? Not always.
• If you do, be totally dry and
professional

32. Insights into the game
of science publishing

33. Scientific Publishing
A SERVICE industry
Important to distinguish between
publisher and editor

34. 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?

35. Neff & Olden (2006) Bioscience 56: 333-340
That’s it? That’s peer review?

36. 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

37. 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

38. CHALLENGES
Reviewer fatigue
Economics (time and money) – why is
open access so expensive?
Countering false perceptions of quality
in scientific publishing

39. 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?

40. 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

41. Science = Jeremy Berg
Nature = Philip Campbell
PNAS = Inder M. Verma
PLOS ONE = Iratxe Puebla
CJFAS = Yong Chen & Keith Tierney
Fisheries Research = George Rose
ICES JMS = Howard Browman
TAFS = Churchill Grimes, Derek Aday & Richard
Beamish
L&O = Robert Howarth
MEPS = Myron Peck, Charles Peterson, Katherine
Richardson, Rory Wilson
Marine Biology = Ulrich Sommer
JEMBE = Sandra Shumway, Steve Widdicombe
Note: Shumway is also EiC of J. Shellfish Res. & Harmful Algae &
Reviews in Fisheries Science

42. 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?

43. Plagiarism and other
ethical issues in
science publishing

44. Resources of
which you
should be
aware

45. www.ease.org.uk
www.wame.org
www.councilscienceeditors.org

46. http://publicationethics.org

47. COPE Case categories
Inappropriate authorship; changes in
authorship; disputes over authorship; ghost
authorship; gift authorship
Data manipulation, fabrication, falsification
Editorial decisions, misconduct
Image manipulation
Multiple simultaneous submissions
Reviewer misconduct
Undeclared COI

48. 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.

49. Dealing with plagiarism
One 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

50. CITATION MANIPULATION - 1
Coercion. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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

53. 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.

54. http://fishlarvae.org