Presentation given at MASDAR on 26th March 2013 on how to prepare manuscripts for peer reviewed academic journals (with a slight focus on engineering).

1. Good morning!
And thanks for inviting us to MASDAR.

2. Getting published in a
peer-reviewed journal
Christopher Leonard
Editorial Director - QScience.com

4. What was a journal?
Journal des sçavans & Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society both started in 1665
Late 1800’s see the emergence of ‘theory-
experiment-discussion’ structure of articles
1980’s see IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results
and Discussion) adopted widely as a reflection of
the process of scientific discovery
Print only, limited readership, limited number of titles

5. What is a journal?
Electronic-only, or e-leading, peer-reviewed
selection of articles judged to be of a certain
quality within a certain, narrow, field.
Many papers publicly available via open access or
PubMed/arXiv
>20,000 active journal titles
>5,500 papers per day published (2m/year)

6. Article types
Review articles
Editorials
Commentaries
Research papers

7. Editorials
Written by Editor or invited guest
Short, select and narrowly focused

8. Commentaries
Commentaries may be narrative reviews, but
somewhat more opinionated.
Little research methodology, biased synthesis of a
collection of articles.
Usually there to provoke controversy or academic
debate.

9. Review articles
A comprehensive narrative synthesis of previously
published information, often summarising each
key article.
Bibliographic research methodology frequently a
part of narrative reviews (although is not strictly
required). Reputable sources only.
Will provide in-depth snapshot of a field, convey a
clear message and draw conclusions supported
by data analysis.

10. Preparing to write a
research manuscript

11. Target journal
Think about this before you start to write.
Best journal for your article may not necessarily be
best in the field.
Has similar work been published in that journal?
Check the I4As
Tyranny of the Impact Factor.

12. CHRONICA HORTICULTURAE VOL.48 NO.2 2008 PP.3-4

13. Authorship
Sort this out before writing the manuscript*.
Consult with coauthors, gather their ORCIDs.
Otherwise, preferred name listing and affiliation.
Usually listed in decreasing order of their
contribution (although this can vary)
Determine who is the corresponding author
* READ THIS: Liz Wager’s excellent guide “Recognition, reward and repsonsibility: why the
authorship of scientific papers matters” Maturitas 2009; 62:109-12

14. Ethical issues
Fabrication of data
Duplicate publication
Plagiarism
Misuse of statistics
Manipulation of images
Inadequate or false citations
READ THIS: HTTP://PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG/ MAINLY FOR EDITORS AND
PUBLISHERS, BUT GIVES A GREAT INSIGHT INTO PROBLEMS SOME PAPERS FACE

15. Writing the manuscript

16. Title
Title is THE most important part of the paper.
Decide on best title after writing the manuscript.
Should be descriptive, not cute, and match the
abstract. Not too general, not too much jargon.

17. Examples
GOOD TITLE
A study of thrombocytopenia in hospitalized
vivax malaria patients
BAD TITLES
Physics of waves
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
Gravity
Read more about this at http://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/

19. Abstract
In Web of Science/Scopus/Google Scholar.
Think of it as a ‘teaser’ or ‘trailer’ for your paper.
DON’T make it too long. Shorter is ALWAYS better
DON’T introduce and define lots of acronyms
DON’T include references to citations
DO pitch it to non-specialists in your broader field
DO write (or rewrite) it at THE END.

20. Background information
Bibliographic research to set research question in
context.
Make sure it is up-to-date (consider revising if first
draft is more than 3 months old) - reviewers get
very suspicious about missing citations.
Papers over 10 years old, use with caution.

22. Abstract
Context
Question or purpose
Methodology/Results
Interpretation
Conclusions
ALL IN 250 WORDS OR LESS

23. Passage from the Wikipedia article on "The English Language"
The following paragraph has a Gunning Fog Index of 24.4.
As a result of the military, economic, scientific, political, and cultural
influence of the United Kingdom from the 18th century, and of the United
States since the mid 20th century, it has become the lingua franca in many
parts of the world, and the most prominent language in international
business and science. It is used extensively as a second language and as
an official language in the European Union and many Commonwealth
countries, as well as many international organisations.
Analysis
■There are 79 words in two sentences.
■The 17 italic words are considered complex.
■0.4 ((79/2) + 100(17/79))
■0.4 x ( 39.5 + 12.79)
■Fog index = 24.4

24. The same passage simplified
The following paragraph has a Gunning Fog Index of 7.07.
English has become the standard language around the world. This was
the result of many factors. In the 1700s, the British affected English
with the army, economy, science, politics and culture. In the mid-1900s,
the United States caused change. It is the most used language in world
business and science. It is a famous second language and an official
language in most of Europe and in Commonwealth countries. It is also
the case in groups around the world.
Analysis
■There are 79 words in seven sentences.
■The 5 italic words are considered complex.
■0.4 ((79/7) + 100(5/79))
■0.4 x ( 11.28 + 2.5)
■Fog index = 7.07

26. Introduction
Introduce topic to readers in an accessible way
Should be short and focused
Aim for 3 paragraphs only.
PARA1: Question or issue, context, relevance [What is known]
PARA2: Importance of problem/unclear issues [What is unknown]
PARA3: Rationale, hypothesis, main objective [Why study was done]
Can be written at any point, but good to revisit at
the end.

27. Materials and methods
Details required to replicate the study
Should include; study design, data collection
details, analysis principles and rationale.
Describe sample selection and exclusion criteria
Ethical considerations and a description of the
randomization or group assignment.

28. Results
Organised presentation of the collected data.
Should be a distant semantic description with no
interpretation or opinions.
Include negative results and reasons for non-
collection of information on important non-
measured variables
OConnor, T. R., & Holmquist, G. P. (2009). Algorithm for writing a scientific manuscript.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(6), 344-348. doi:10.1002/bmb.20329

29. Discussion
Explain the meaning of the results, structured as a
natural flow of ideas.
Key findings should be linked to study objectives,
along with an acknowledgement of the strengths
and weaknesses of the study
Describe logically, links between results and
mechanistic interpretations of cause and effect.
Are results consistent with other studies? If not,
why not?

30. Discussion
Don’t repeat yourself.
Don’t present results not documented in Results
Don’t overstate importance of results
Do feel free to criticise study limitations
Don’t repeat yourself.

31. Conclusion
It’s not another Abstract or Introduction.
Keep it short
‘Take home’ message
Do not write: ‘further study is needed’ or any
variation thereof.

32. Acknowledgements etc.
Contributors who do not qualify for author status
Conflicts of interest
Financial support for the research
Group name if appropriate
Author contributions

33. References
Keep a good reference library (Mendeley/Zotero)
Make sure references adhere to journal style
Avoid abstracts and ‘personal communications’
Exclude articles ‘in submission’
Authors responsibility to make sure they do not
refer to retracted articles.

34. A word on figures
Please, please use your own figures
They are easy to generate with sufficient data
points and standard desktop software. Develop
your own style/colour scheme.
Difficult and expensive to get rights to figures
published by other publishers (>$150/figure)
Scans and photos should be highest possible
resolution. Don’t just embed in Word - we need
source files.

35. After submission

36. Reviews & revisions
View peer reviewers as collaborators rather than
enemies
They often make constructive remarks which
should improve the quality of the paper
Good editors will shield you from performing more
experiments (unless it’s Nature or Science)
For each point the reviewer makes, provide a brief
note explaining how you have incorporated their
remark, or a rebuttal.

37. After publication

38. Promotion
You are the marketer of your own work (usually)
Link to your article from your facebook/twitter/
linkedin/orcid page
Departmental website, institution PR department?
Mendeley, scribd, list-servs, other discussion
boards and lists

41. A brief note on
open access

43. WHAT ABOUT IMPACT FACTORS/PROMOTION/TENURE/
WHAT MY FACULTY/COAUTHORS EXPECT?
READ: HTTP://WWW.MICHAELEISEN.ORG/BLOG/?P=911

44. Thanks. And good luck.

45. More reading:
https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/
ssocolofsky/downloads/
paper_how-to.pdf

46. cjamesleonard@qf.org.qa
www.qscience.com
www.twitter.com/qscience