Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted for Publication

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 42 Publicité

Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted for Publication

Télécharger pour lire hors ligne

Workshop facilitated by Maria J Grant, Editor-in-Chief of the Health Libraries and Information Journal at the 2012 Health Libraries Group conference, 12-13 July 2012, Glasgow: http://www.uhl-library.nhs.uk/hlg2012/

Workshop facilitated by Maria J Grant, Editor-in-Chief of the Health Libraries and Information Journal at the 2012 Health Libraries Group conference, 12-13 July 2012, Glasgow: http://www.uhl-library.nhs.uk/hlg2012/

Publicité
Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Diaporamas pour vous (20)

Similaire à Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted for Publication (20)

Publicité

Plus récents (20)

Publicité

Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted for Publication

  1. 1. Overcoming Challenges When Writing for Publication @MariaJGrant Editor http://bit.ly/9RMH6S
  2. 2. Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted @MariaJGrant Editor http://bit.ly/9RMH6S
  3. 3. A Bit About Me… • Editor of the Health Information and Libraries Journal • First publication in 1998 • Peer support writers group since 2006
  4. 4. How Many of You Write? http://bit.ly/Na7VRj
  5. 5. What Do We Mean by ‘Write’? • Mark (letters, words, or other symbols) on a surface, with a pen, pencil, or similar implement • Compose (a text http://amzn.to/LDA7Ng or work) in writing
  6. 6. Writing for publication perceived to be different from other forms of writing (Grant et al 2010)
  7. 7. Different Forms of Writing for Publication • Twitter • Facebook • Blogs • Newsletters • Book reviews http://bit.ly/pgUxaH • Journal articles • Practitioner accounts
  8. 8. Writing Academic Papers Is Different • Level of rigour when writing is higher • Expected to support statements with references • Contextualise what is known about the subject and any gaps in the evidence • The manuscript adds to the body of knowledge
  9. 9. What Are the Common http://bit.ly/NhZRBm Challenges When Writing? Finding Time Having an Idea Knowing When to Stop http://bit.ly/M8BJ1E http://bit.ly/NcaVQM http://bit.ly/OcL8pk
  10. 10. Finding Time… http://bit.ly/M8BJ1E
  11. 11. Making Time… http://bit.ly/M8BJ1E
  12. 12. Having an Idea http://bit.ly/NcaVQM
  13. 13. Working Titles 1. Brainstorming a range of draft working titles 2. Think creatively 3. Rate your titles 4. Shortlist no more than six http://bit.ly/NhZRBm (Race 1999)
  14. 14. Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
  15. 15. Enhancing Your Chances of Your Manuscript Being Accepted 1. Message 5. Published Papers 2. Audience 6. Setting the 3. Guidelines Context 7. Experienced 4. Editorial Team Colleagues http://bit.ly/Odoj4G
  16. 16. What is the ‘Take Home’ Message? • Not only what you want to say • What can the readers of your manuscript usefully apply to their own http://bit.ly/nS9QxS practice?
  17. 17. Consider Your Audience • Academic vs. Practitioner publications – HILJ vs. HLG Newsletter • Journals each have defined and unique scope • Imagine an individual http://bit.ly/qhUSlq you are writing for…
  18. 18. Author Guidelines • Read the guidelines… and then follow them • Guidelines will help you determine: – In scope – Structured abstract – Structure of the manuscript – Word count http://bit.ly/cv7S6j – Referencing style
  19. 19. Editorial Team • Not sure if your manuscript fits the scope of a journal…
  20. 20. Looks at Past Issues • Learn from people who have already been through the process http://bit.ly/qOaJWR
  21. 21. Setting the Context • Literature review – What is known about the subject area? – What are the gaps identified in the literature? – How does your manuscript address this http://bit.ly/n8ed3j gap? – International context
  22. 22. Experienced Colleagues • Learn from colleagues with publishing experience – Writing together – Editing and advising
  23. 23. Writing http://bit.ly/NhZRBm • Write for 5 minutes about the working title you ranked as the most important • Don’t self edit • Don’t re-read • If you don’t know what to write then write “I don’t http://bit.ly/N4gUGY know what to write” • Keep your pen or pencil flowing
  24. 24. Sandwich Filling http://bit.ly/NhZRBm • Take turns to share your writing idea with the person sitting next to you • Ask questions to clarify your understanding http://bit.ly/N4gUGY
  25. 25. Writing Sandwich http://bit.ly/NhZRBm • Re-visit your five minutes of writing • Rework it in light of the questions your partner asked http://bit.ly/N4gUGY
  26. 26. What is Peer Review? ‘Peer review is the process by which reports of, or proposals for, research are scrutinised by other researchers.’ (Committee of Publisher Ethics 2011)
  27. 27. What is the Purpose of Peer Review? • To ensure that only the best quality manuscripts are published • To provide constructive feedback on how a manuscript can be further developed
  28. 28. What Are the Potential Outcomes of a Peer Review? • Four potential outcomes – Accept – Minor revisions – Major revisions – Reject http://bit.ly/qKLDRq
  29. 29. Outcome 1: Accepted • A cause for celebration! • I’ve never known a peer reviewed manuscript be accepted at first submission • Usually a journey… http://bit.ly/o80w2e
  30. 30. Outcome 2: Minor Revisions “A recommendation of minor revision should be made if the manuscript is likely to be of interest to the HILJ readership but http://bit.ly/n3Uowg typographical errors or incomplete references are present.” (S1M 2011)
  31. 31. Outcome 3: Major Revisions “A recommendation of a major revision should be made if the manuscript is likely to be of interest to the HILJ readership but requires a reworking in terms of structure or the inclusion of additional materials.” (S1M 2011)
  32. 32. What To Do When You Receive Referee/s Comments? • Take a deep breath – Read the comments – Put the manuscript aside – Discuss them with your co- author/s – Respond positively to each point raised • Remember, very few manuscripts are accepted http://bit.ly/LBT2Ja without any revisions
  33. 33. Outcome 4: Rejected “A recommendation to reject a manuscript should be made if the manuscript is unlikely to be relevant/of interest to the HILJ readership or is not sufficiently rigorous to be suitable for publication in http://bit.ly/pT2Ess an academic journal.” (S1M 2011)
  34. 34. Reasons a Manuscript Might Be Rejected • Out of scope – Topic area or format • Insufficiently developed – Bullet points – May show promise… • Plagiarism http://bit.ly/pT2Ess • Not responding to referee/s comments
  35. 35. Plagiarism • “Take (the work or idea of someone else) and pretend it is one’s own.” (Fowler, Pocket OED 2002) • “Direct quotes” or in your own words http://bit.ly/ne6p4U but the source must be acknowledged
  36. 36. Research, Evaluation & Audit Key Steps in Demonstrating Your Value • Chapter 11: Writing for Publication • Co-written with Graham Walton, Editor, New Review of Academic Librarianship (Grant et al Forthcoming) http://bit.ly/MXt6LT
  37. 37. One Sentence… http://bit.ly/NhZRBm http://bit.ly/RVf3Gc
  38. 38. Writing Ideas Generated (1) • An Investigation into the Information-Seeking Behaviour of F1 and F2 Doctors. To investigate the information-seeking behaviour of F1 and F2 doctors in an Acute Trust in order to ensure their needs are being met and improve the existing knowledge on this subject. • Changing the Future Now. Using innovations to plan forward for a successful life audit for now and beyond… • Does Social Media Raise the Impact of Current Awareness Days? Measuring the impact of current awareness days in light of social media compared to before relying only on TV, radio and newspaper coverage. • Evaluating Uni Work of OLS in a Large Acute Trust on Patient Care. [No abstract] • From Conference First-Timer to Seasoned Networker. [No abstract] • Going for Gold. Encouraging more NHS staff & students to register for NHS Athens accounts during the 2012 Olympics. • [Untitled] Creating a long-term conditions NHS implementation service using a zero cost approach in collaboration with third sector organisations.
  39. 39. Writing Ideas Generated (2) • [Untitled] Library anxiety is an important issue for placement students that hospital librarians should understand and support through better collaboration with academic librarians. • [Untitled] My experience of the HLG 2012, in particular the Innovate or Wait session from Day 1, for the HLG Newsletter. • [Untitled] The research seeks to establish the availability of medical information resources in resource limited settings, the level of access and the utilization of the information. • What Are The Challenges of Providing Health Information to Patients Via Email? An article to address the challenges of responding appropriately to an email enquiry for health information by an NHS information service. • What Do Searches of Trials Registers Add to the Systematic Review Evidence Base? Searches of trails registers may add essential evidence to the SR process and compensate for potential bias, therefore we should search them despite challenges of basic search interfaces, lace of specificity & reference management issues. • “Where Do I Go From Here” A reflective discussion of the next step on the career ladder for an academic librarian.
  40. 40. Knowing When to Stop http://bit.ly/MNVdx0
  41. 41. References • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Written evidence submitted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (PR 34). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/w ritev/856/m34.htm • Fowler FG, Fowler HW (eds) Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 9th ed • Grant MJ, Sen B, Spring H (Eds) Research, evaluation and audit: key steps in demonstrating your value, London: Facet Publishing, forthcoming. • Grant MJ, Munro W, McIsaac & Hill S. Cross-disciplinary writers group stimulates fresh approaches to scholarly communication: a reflective case study within a higher education institution in the north west of England New Review of Academic Librarianship in press. • Race P, 1999, Tips for Lecturers, London: Routledge Falmer. Chapter 8. • S1M. Health Information and Libraries Journal on ScholarOne Manuscript. 2011 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hilj
  42. 42. Contact Details Maria J. Grant Editor – HILJ m.j.grant@salford.ac.uk +44 (0) 161 295 6423 @MariaJGrant @HILJnl

×