This lecture is very useful for paper write up and journal selection and publication

1. Mr.
Muhammad
Imran (IBBT)
JOURNAL SELECTION AND FAST
TRACK PUBLICATION
0923338405663

3. Content Part 1
1. Covering letter and Title
2. Abstract writing (Heart)
3. Introduction writing skills
4. Methodology writing Skills
5. Results Demonstration
6. Discussion section (Most Important)
7. Conflict of interest
8. Acknowledgement
9. References

4. Content part 2
• Selection of Journal
• Elsevier Journal Finder
• Springer Journal suggester
• Other publishing centers
• Fast track publication
• Paper style
• Ethical standards
• Conflict of interest

5. Cover letter
Convince the
editor
• Why the paper fits the journal’s scope
• Why readers would find it important
• Why the paper is important for the field
• Originality of the research
Highlight
novelty and
impact
• Give a brief, largely non-technical summary
• Put the work in context
• Explain briefly the specific advances over
previous research and potential applications
# 3.1.16

6. • Submission type (article, review, report, etc.)
• Unique submission
• Agreement of all co-authors
• Potential conflict of interest
• Co-authors contact details
• History of the manuscript
• Independent reviewers suggestion (or
exclusion)
Other
statements
Cover letter
Address • Directly to the Editor in Chief
# 3.1.17

7. Paste the abstract
Avoid typo and
spelling errors
Exceed two
pages
Use acronym and
too technical
terminology
Over-interpret
your findings
Speak negatively
about other studies or
researchers
Complain about
previous rejection
Cover letter
Provide the correct
journal’s title and
editor’s name

8. Letter: 1st Paragraph

9. Letter: 2nd Paragraph

10. Title and Authorship
• Who can be an author?
• Responsibilities of first author
ownership
submission and communications

11. Letter: Suggested Reviewers

12. Title
• Describes the paper’s content clearly and precisely including keywords
• Is the advertisement for the article
• Do not use abbreviations and jargon
• Search engines/indexing databases depend on the accuracy of the title - since they use the
keywords to identify relevant articles

13. Components of a PaperSection Purpose
Title Clearly describes contents
Authors Ensures recognition for the writer(s)
Abstract Describes what was done
Key Words (some journals)
Ensures the article is correctly identified
in abstracting and indexing services
Introduction Explains the problem
Methods Explains how the data were collected
Results Describes what was discovered
Discussion Discusses the implications of the findings
Acknowledgements
Ensures those who helped in the research
are recognised
References
Ensures previously published work is
recognised
Appendices (some journals)
Provides supplemental data for the expert
reader

16. Abstract
• What was done?
• What were the specific results?
• What are the significant conclusion?
Specific
details
General
significance

18. Introduction
• Clearly state the:
• Problem being investigated
• Background that explains the problem
• Reasons for conducting the research
• Summarize relevant research to provide context
• State how your work differs from published work
• Identify the questions you are answering
• Explain what other findings, if any, you are challenging or extending
• Briefly describe the experiment, hypothesis(es), research question(s); general experimental
design or method

19. Introduction: Last Paragraph
What samples collected
What was measured
Why? What results
did we hope to achieve?

20. Introduction

21. Methods
• Where were samples collected?
• What were the conditions under which they were taken?
• What were the analytical or experimental procedures?
• Provide the reader enough details so they can understand and replicate your
research.
• Explain how you studied the problem, identify the procedures you followed,
and order these chronologically where possible

22. Methods
Cite the methods of other researchers wherever relevant

23. Results
• Objectively present your findings, and explain what was found
• Show that your new results are contributing to the body of scientific knowledge
• Follow a logical sequence based on the tables and figures presenting the findings
to answer the question or hypothesis
• Figures should have a brief description (a legend), providing the reader sufficient
information to know how the data were produced

24. Results
• Data only—not interpretations
• Show patterns
• Show sample locations
• Discuss errors
• Label axes

25. Discussion/Conclusion
• Describe what your results mean in context of what was already known about the subject
• Indicate how the results relate to expectations and to the literature previously cited
• Explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward
• Do not extend your conclusions beyond what is directly supported by your results - avoid undue
speculation
• Outline the next steps for further study

26. Conclusion
• Explain the broader significance
• Review the main conclusions
• Offer more speculative interpretations (cautiously)
• Point to the direction of future research

27. Acknowledgments
• Funding sources (include grant number HEC PSF with number)
• Colleagues who helped
• Laboratory technicians
• Family or friends (not usual, but sometimes done)

28. Acknowledgments

29. Appendices (optional)
• Detailed methodology
• Data tables
• Algorithms
• Other useful detail not required in main text
• Check the journal’s guidelines
• May be electronic or printed

30. Figures and Captions
• Figures should be numbered in the order that they appear in the text
• Figure captions should only explain the figure content (all interpretations
and discussion should be in the text)
• Figures will usually be reduced in size when printed
• Figures will usually be printed in grey tones unless you pay for color

31. References
• Whenever you draw upon previously published work, you must acknowledge
the source
• Any information not from your experiment and not ‘common knowledge’
should be recognized by a citation
• How references are presented varies considerably - refer to notes for authors
for the specific journal
• Avoid references that are difficult to find
• Avoid listing related references that were not important to the study

32. Writing Successful Manuscripts
• Selecting a journal
• Thinking ahead during research
• Understanding the publication process
• Writing the manuscript
• Submitting the manuscript
• Responding to reviews
• Publication
• Avoiding common errors

33. Avoid Common Mistakes
• Read and follow all formatting guidelines
• Be sure the journal is suitable for the research
• Keep in good communications with co-authors
• Keep the paper clearly organized and place information in the correct
location
• Be sure you know the existing research and cite it correctly

34. Ethical Issues
• Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
• Acknowledgment of funding sources
• Image manipulation guidelines
• Online submission - supplemental information (datasets, videos)
• For Health Sciences
• Submission of a Clinical Trials to a Central
Registry
• Institutional Review Board approval

35. Publication Process
• Submission
• Acceptance of submission
• Reviews submitted
Accepted for publication as written
Accepted if revised
Rejected
• Response to reviews
• Re-submission of edited manuscript

36. Publishing Tips
Editors and reviewers are looking for original and
innovative research that will add to the field of study;
keys are:
• For research-based papers, ensure that you have enough numbers to justify sound
statistical conclusions
• For a larger study, it may be better to produce one important research paper, rather
than a number of average incremental papers

37. Rejects
without
review
Sends out
the MS
for review
Assesses
reviews
Prepares
proofs for
authors
Publishes
the final
version
Sends the
revised MS
to reviewers
Sends reviews
+ asks for
additional
revisions
Sends
reviews
+ rejects the
revised MS
START
EDITOR
EDITOR
REVIEWER EDITOR
EDITOR
Sends reviews
+ rejects or
encourages
resubmission
Submits the
manuscript
(MS abbrev.)
AUTHOR Reads the
revised MS
+ writes
review report
Reads the
MS
+ writes
review
report
Sends reviews
+ asks for
a first round
of revisions
Sends
reviews +
accepts
the paper for
publication
Submits the
revised MS
AUTHOR
EDITORAssesses
reviews
EDITORREVIEWER
Sends
reviews
+ accepts
the paper for
publicationJOURNAL
PRODUCTI
ON
DPT
DEAD
END
DEAD
END
DEAD
END
JOURNAL
PRODUCTI
ON
DPT
The peer review process
1
2
A
7
3 4
8
9
11
12
2B 10 C
5
A
5
C
6
5B
10 B
10 A
HAPPY
END

38. Inappropriate
scope and
audience
Limited impact
and urgency
Incorrect
formatting
Reasons for REJECTION
Lack of novelty
Premature
publication
Inadequate
literature citation
Conclusion not
supported by the
data
Flaws in
methodology
Lack of
interpretations
(Self-)Plagiarism
Text + Image
“Salami” science
Research data
not available

39. Deciding What (or When)
to Publish
• Some factors to consider: quality of the work, extent of the work, interest to others
• Suggestions:
• Seek guidance in this regard from others in your field who are more experienced in
publishing journal articles.
• Present your work orally first. Doing so can help in deciding whether the work is
publishable and in shaping the paper.

40. Identifying a Target Journal
• Decide early (before drafting the paper). Do not write the paper and then look for a
journal.
• Look for journals that have published work similar to yours.
• Consider journals that have published work that you will cite.

41. Using the Journal’s Instructions
• Read the instructions to authors before starting to prepare your paper.
• Consult the instructions while preparing your paper.
• Check the instructions again before submitting your paper.

42. Some Questions the Instructions May Answer
• What categories of article does the journal publish?
• What is the maximum length of articles?
• What is the maximum length of abstracts?
• Does the journal have a template for articles? If so, how can it be accessed?
• What sections should the article include? What are the guidelines for each?

43. Some Questions (cont)
• What guidelines should be followed regarding writing style?
• How many figures and tables are allowed? What are the requirements for them?
• In what format should references appear? Is there a maximum number of references?
• In what electronic format should the paper be prepared?

44. Submitting the Paper
• Traditional submission (by mail)—now rare
• Electronic submission
• Commonly via online submission system
• Sometimes as e-mail attachment
• Inclusion of a cover letter (conventional or electronic)
• Completion of required forms

45. Some Categories of Editors at Journals
• Helpful to know because you might interact with each
• Main categories:
• Editor-in-chief (and sometimes associate editors etc)—concerned mainly with content
• Managing editor(s)—concerned mainly with administration of the journal
• Manuscript editor(s)—improve the writing and maintain a consistent style

46. Initial Screening by the Journal
• For appropriateness of subject matter
• For compliance with instructions
• For overall quality (sometimes)

47. Peer Review
• Evaluation by experts in the field
• Purposes:
• To help the editor decide whether to publish the paper
• To help the authors improve the paper, whether or not the journal accepts it

48. The Editor’s Decision
• Based on the peer reviewers’ advice, the editor’s own evaluation, the amount of space in
the journal, other factors
• Options:
• Accept as is (rare)
• Accept if suitably revised
• Reconsider if revised
• Reject

49. Referees’ reports: what the author sees
(and what the editor sees)
What does the author see? What does the editor see?
Reviewer Number 1 Reviewer Number 2
Title XXX Title XXX
Authors YYY Authors YYY
Quality of the Science Quality of the Science
Mostly competent, suffering from serious flaws Experimentally and/or theoretically excellent,
reliable data, no flaws
Importance of the Science Importance of the Science
Important research on topic of broad
significance; novel aspects
Important research on topic of broad significance;
novel aspects
Quality of Science Rating 3 Quality of Science Rating 4
Importance of Science Rating 3 Importance of Science Rating 4
Overall Assessment Overall Assessment
Reject in present form, but encourage
submission of new manuscript
Accept after minor revision; no further referee
assessment
Reduction in Length Reduction in Length
Yes No

50. Revising a Paper
• Revise and resubmit promptly.
• Indicate what revisions were made.
• Include a letter saying what revisions were made. If you received a list of requested
revisions, address each in the letter.
• If requested, show revisions in Track Changes.
• If you disagree with a requested revision, explain why in your letter. Try to find a
different way to solve the problem that the editor or reviewer noted.

51. Answering Queries
• Queries: questions from the manuscript editor
• Some topics of queries:
• Inconsistencies
• Missing information
• Ambiguities
• Other
• Advice: Respond promptly, politely, and completely yet concisely.

52. Responding to referees’ reports
• Read the editor’s letter first for instruction
• Take a deep breath: proceed to the reports
• Put them aside for a day, or two, a week…
• Re-read reports and discuss with coauthors …
• Revise paper and prepare response document
• Remember –
• Even comments that seem aggressive or ignorant can be helpful
• Always view this as a chance to improve the paper

53. Good response to referees’ reports are ….
• Well organised
• Address common themes at start
• Use a ‘quote and response’OR numbering system of points raised by each referee
• Informative
• Provide full explanations
• Do not overlook or ignore any points
• Assertive (and polite)

54. • Questions going through the editor’s mind:
• How good is the science in this paper?
• Is an important issue/area of study being addressed?
• Is the experimental design appropriate and adequate?
• Are the analyses appropriate and competently done?
• Has the study been put in context?
• Does the paper contribute significantly to the literature?
• Does the paper tell an interesting story?
• Will it be read and cited?
The decision:
accept, re-review, reject

55. The decision
• Remember –
• The editor will make a final decision based on how well the referees’ reports have
been dealt with, so …
• Revise with care
• Respond fully to each of the referees’ comments
• Present cogent and complete arguments if you have not followed a referee’s
recommendation
• Make the editor’s job as easy as possible!

56. Reviewing Proofs
• Proofs: typeset material to check
• Review the proofs promptly.
• Some things to check:
• Completeness (presence of all components)
• Accuracy (absence of typographical errors in text and references)
• Placement of figures and tables
• Quality of reproduction of figures
• Note: This is not the time to rewrite the paper.

57. A Final Step
Celebrate Publication of
Your Paper!

58. Impact Factors
Impact Factor =
no. of citations
total no. articles
calculated over the last 2
years
This looks simple. Is it too simple?

59. Impact Factor
Nature art. publ. cited in 2014
2013 860 29,753
2012 869 41,924
TOTAL 1,729 71,677
IF2014 =
71,677
= 41.456
1,729
Are you a good researcher
if you publish in a top journal?
# 3.4.1

60. How could you (ethically) increase
the visibility of your paper ??
You published an excellent article last year.
But, for now, it hasn’t received many citations…

61. Deposit your
paper in
INFOSCIENCE
*
Mention your
paper on
Twitter Cite your paper
in further
publications**
Share your
datasets
Talk about
your paper
in your blog
Disseminate
the news
through EPFL channels
Add your paper
on academic social
networks*
* within the limits of your contract **when relevant
# 3.4.8
Present your
work in
conferences

62. Summary
• Writing for successful publication means
• having a well designed, original study to write about
• selecting an appropriate outlet/journal
• knowing what you want to write
• writing clearly
• making the story interesting
• highlighting the significance of the results
• responding carefully and positively to referees’ reports

63. Ten rules for getting published (1)
1. Read many papers, and learn from both the good and the bad ones.
2. The more objective you can be about your work, the better the work
will ultimately become.
3. Good editors and reviewers will be objective about your work.
4. If you do not write well in the English language, take lessons early; it
will be invaluable later.
5. Learn to live with rejection.

64. Ten rules for getting published (2)
6. Understand what makes good science and what makes good science writing: be
objective about them.
7. Start writing the paper the day you have the idea of what questions to pursue
8. Become a reviewer early in your career.
9. Decide early on where to try to publish your paper.
10. Quality (not quantity) is everything.

65. Practical demonstration
of paper submission

66. Questions