Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

International Publishing

A training workshop that assists authors with the process of writing, submitting, editing, and reviewing manuscripts.

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

International Publishing

  1. 1. Dr. Dalia El-Shafei Assist.Prof., Community Medicine Department, Zagazig University http://www.slideshare.net/daliaelshafei
  2. 2. A training workshop that assists authors with the process of writing, submitting, editing, and reviewing manuscripts. Writing Submitting Editing Reviewing
  3. 3. 1- I know how to choose a right journal to my manuscript Stronglyagree Agree Donotknow Disagree Stronglydisagree 2- I understand the manuscript processing steps from preparation till proof reading 3- I can write the cover letter, research highlights, and practical applications. 4- I can choose the suitable reviewers to my articles. 5- I can write point-by-point response to reviewers comments. 6- I understand how journal impact factor & h-index be calculated 7- I know how to market my published research
  4. 4.  To contribute to global knowledge.  Research is not complete until it has been published.  To help collaborations & team work.  To help advance your career.  Prestige!!  Financial incentives.
  5. 5. Ranking Quality of writing Prizes Grants & Scholarships •Main factor for ranking universities. •Revision process always improve the quality of writing. •Universities & other associations provide prizes. •Increase opportunities.
  6. 6. 18030 38
  7. 7. Cost Time
  8. 8. Pre-writing 1- Develop outline of manuscript 2- Select a Target journal 3- Read Author’s Guidelines Writing 1- Methodology 2- Results 3- Discussion 4- Introduction 5- Abstract 6- Graphical abstract. 7- Research highlights. 8- Title 9- Proof reading 10- Internal review Post-writing 1- Write cover letter. 2- Select potential Reviewers 3- Submission to journal. 4- Revision-resubmission. 5- Acceptance. 6- Approval of gallery proof 7- Marketing of published paper
  9. 9. Pre-writing 1- Develop outline of manuscript 2- Select a Target journal 3- Read Author’s Guidelines Writing 1- Methodology 2- Results 3- Discussion 4- Introduction 5- Abstract 6- Graphical abstract. 7- Research highlights. 8- Title 9- Proof reading 10- Internal review Post-writing 1- Write cover letter. 2- Select potential Reviewers 3- Submission to journal. 4- Revision-resubmission. 5- Acceptance. 6- Approval of gallery proof 7- Marketing of published paper
  10. 10.  Develop outline of manuscript “Deciding WHAT or WHEN to publish”.  Select a Target journal  Read Author’s Guidelines.
  11. 11.  Quality of the work  Seek guidance from others in your field who are more experienced in publishing.
  12. 12. Original Research “Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just Article” Short reports or Letters “Brief communications or Research note” Review article
  13. 13. Peer-reviewed, support open access Peer-reviewed, Open access
  14. 14. International publishing housesElsevier Springer Wiley Taylor & Francis SAGE
  15. 15.  Scope of the journal  Target Audience.  Types of articles published.  Open access option.  Impact factor.  Journal indexing.  Acceptance Rate & Speed.  Publication Speed & Frequency.
  16. 16.  Journal guide https://www.journalguide.com/  JANE http://jane.biosemantics.org/  Elsevier journal finder https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/  Springer journal suggester https://journalsuggester.springer.com/
  17. 17. The Journal IF is published each year by Thomson Reuters. Measure no. of times an average paper in a particular journal is referred to.
  18. 18.  Journal Homepage
  19. 19. Bulletin of Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University 3.075 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 1.558 Journal of Immunology Research 1.352 Neural Plasticity 1.348 Journal of Cancer Epidemiology 1.301 Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1.270 Cardiology Research and Practice 1.237 PPAR Research 1.204 Advances in Orthopedics 0.922 Sarcoma 0.898 Prostate Cancer 0.890 International Journal of Genomics 0.868 Journal of Skin Cancer 0.840 HPB Surgery 0.824 Dermatology Research and Practice 0.806 Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science 0.803 Journal of Advanced Research 0.741 Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 0.683 AEJ - Alexandria Engineering Journal 0.604 Advances in Pharmacological Sciences 0.591 Ain Shams Engineering Journal 0.589 Journal of Advanced Transportation 0.581 Complexity 0.531
  20. 20. Pre-writing 1- Develop outline of manuscript 2- Select a Target journal 3- Read Author’s Guidelines Writing 1- Methodology 2- Results 3- Discussion 4- Introduction 5- Abstract 6- Graphical abstract. 7- Research highlights. 8- Title 9- Proof reading 10- Internal review Post-writing 1- Write cover letter. 2- Select potential Reviewers 3- Submission to journal. 4- Revision-resubmission. 5- Acceptance. 6- Approval of gallery proof 7- Marketing of published paper
  21. 21. Methods Results Discussion & Conclusion Introduction Abstract “Summery” Research highlights Practical applications “industrial relevance” Title
  22. 22. IMRaD refers to the standard structure of the body of research manuscripts (after the Title & Abstract):  Introduction  Materials & Methods  Results  Discussion & Conclusions
  23. 23.  Fewest possible words “adequately indicate the contents of the paper”.  No EXTRA words “Study of” or “Observations on”.  Specific  No Abbreviations.
  24. 24.  Short version of title (50 characters or fewer, including spaces) “appears at tops of pages” The article title was: Patient's Perspective of Blow-out Fractures of the orbit. The running title was: "Is My Eyesight Gone", which was a quote from one of the participants.
  25. 25.  Intellectual contributions to the work  Often listed largely from greatest contributions to least  Best to list one’s name the same way on every paper.
  26. 26.  Title: concise & informative  Author names & affiliations  Corresponding author: Handle correspondence at all stages. “Telephone & fax no. “with country & area code”, e-mail address & complete postal address”.  Present/permanent address: If an author has moved since the work was done, or was visiting at the time, a “present address” or “permanent address: may be indicated as a footnote to that author’s name.
  27. 27. Commonly “250-300” words. Sometimes with standardized headings: • Background (2 sentences) • Methods (2 sentences) • Results (5 sentences) • Conclusion (1 sentence) Keywords  Represent content of manuscript  Be specific to your field or sub-field  Usually (3 – 10) keywords.
  28. 28. Specifications: • Include 3 - 5 highlights. • There might be a maximum of 85 characters, including spaces, per highlight. • Only the core results of the paper. • Should be submitted in a separate file.
  29. 29. Single, concise, pictorial & visual summary of the main findings of the article. - Concluding figure from the article Or - Figure that is specially designed.
  30. 30.  Short description (max. 150 words) of the practical applications of research.  Should highlight the uses of the research.
  31. 31. Typically should be (Funnel-shaped) moving from general to specific (1-1.5 pages) Citations should be: Well Balanced, Current, Relevant.
  32. 32. Helpful to use papers published in the same journal as models. Check the ‘Instructions for Authors’ for your target journal to see how manuscripts should present the Materials & Methods.
  33. 33. Use the same format for all tables . • CORE of the paper. • Use subheadings to separate the results of different experiments. • Should be presented in a logical order & in order of importance. • Use the past tense to describe your results; however, refer to figures and tables in the present tense. • Do not duplicate data among figures, tables, and text. Follow the journal’s instructions.
  34. 34. • Typically should move from specific to general (Opposite to introduction) • In some journals, is followed by a (Conclusion) section. • In some journals, is combined with the results section. • In some short papers, is called (Comment) rather than (Discussion)
  35. 35.  Strengths of the study For example, superior methods, extensive data.  Limitations of the study - For example: small sample size, incomplete data, and problems with experimental procedures. - Better to mention limitations than for peer reviewers & readers to think that you're unaware of them.
  36. 36.  Often optional.  A place to thank people who helped with the work but did not make contributions deserving authorship.  Permission should be obtained from people you wish to list.  Sometimes the place where sources of financial support are stated. “If you need to include funding information, list the name(s) of the funding organization(s) in full, and identify which authors received funding for what”
  37. 37.  To give credit to others for their work  To add credibility to your work by showing that you used valid information sources  To help readers find further information.
  38. 38.  Authenticity “not fabricated”  Accuracy • Providing complete data “not only those supporting one’s hypothesis” • Avoiding manipulation of image. • Using statistical procedures.  Credit: plagiarism software  Ethical ttt of humans & animals: IRB approved. Authenticity & Accuracy Originality Credit Ethical ttt of humans & animals
  39. 39. Pre-writing 1- Develop outline of manuscript 2- Select a Target journal 3- Read Author’s Guidelines Writing 1- Methodology 2- Results 3- Discussion 4- Introduction 5- Abstract 6- Graphical abstract. 7- Research highlights. 8- Title 9- Proof reading 10- Internal review Post-writing 1- Write cover letter. 2- Select potential Reviewers 3- Submission to journal. 4- Revision-resubmission. 5- Acceptance. 6- Approval of gallery proof 7- Marketing of published paper
  40. 40. It could be the difference between a manuscript sent for external review & one rejected without further consideration!
  41. 41. Be sure that:  Manuscript follows the Instructions for Authors.  You have contact information for all authors.  You have written a persuasive cover letter.  All files are in the correct file format & of the appropriate resolution or size.  The spelling & grammar are correct.
  42. 42.  Help Editor to move manuscript to review stage more efficiently  Find potential reviewers & their contact details from articles in your specific subject area (e.g. References)  Reviewers should represent at least 2 regions of the world “Not your supervisors or close friends”.  Be prepared to suggest 3-6 potential reviewers.
  43. 43.  Select the best manuscript for the journals.  Improve the quality of the published papers.  Determine the importance of findings.  Determine the originality of the manuscript.  Ensure that previous work is acknowledged.  Detect plagiarism  Detect fraud. Reviewers are NOT asked to detect plagiarism, fraud and other ethics issues But it would be great if they could & would !!
  44. 44.  Technical Screening is a process to solve ‘technical’ problems such as poor English.  Manuscripts that do not meet standard are returned to the corresponding author, with a check-list of missing or insufficient items.  Authors can resubmit the paper after attending to these technical insufficiencies.
  45. 45.  Journals have different assessment forms for reviewers.  Reviewers should consider different points & write confidential comments.
  46. 46. Your article might be  Acceptedas it is.  Acceptedafter minorrevision  Acceptedafter majorrevision  Rejected& couldbe resubmitted  Rejected
  47. 47. Incorrect journal “out of scope” Incorrect type allocation Incorrect format Bad language Plagiarism Unsound work Unoriginal work Previous rejection Bad response to reviewers’ comments.
  48. 48. The decision might be frustrating & enraging, but remember that in most cases the decision is not a personal but a professional one (& in many cases the reviewers' comments improve the next versions of the manuscript).
  49. 49. Appeal the rejection Revise & Resubmit to the same journal Make changes & submit to a different journal Make no changes & submit to another journal File the manuscript away & never resubmit it
  50. 50.  Base your appeal on logic & not emotion.  Be sure you have strong evidence or new data before trying to change the editor’s mind.  Include a point-by-point response to any reviewer comments.
  51. 51. Do not make appeals personal attacks on the editors or reviewers. Editors make decisions on manuscripts using a variety of criteria, if one of your manuscripts is rejected it does not mean the journal or the editor won’t be willing to consider your work again in the future. Appeals based on the scope of journal or perceived impact of your work are unlikely to succeed
  52. 52. Journal may reject your initial offering but invite you to resubmit later after addressing the reviewers’ concerns. If you are strongly interested in publishing in that journal, this option may be your top choice. “Remember that some journals will inform you that they are not interested in accepting any future versions of the manuscript”; you should respect this decision & try a different journal
  53. 53. Be sure to adjust details before resubmission:  Cover letter,  Reference format,  Other journal-specified details
  54. 54. Not a good idea • New reviewers are likely to pick up on several of the same issues; you now have a chance to address them ahead of time. • Manuscript may actually be reviewed by some of the same people at new journal.
  55. 55. It can be easy to decide that your paper simply isn’t worth the trouble of resubmission.  Finally, you can post your work to a site like figshare or Dryad, where it will be citable and freely accessible.
  56. 56. There may be cases when you want to submit to another journal prior to receiving a decision. For example, if your results are time sensitive, the review process is taking much longer than normal for that journal, and the editors cannot speed up the process. In this case, it is important to notify the editors that you are withdrawing your manuscript, and get confirmation that this it has been withdrawn, before you submit it to a different journal.
  57. 57.  Take a deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep breath!  Read the comments verrrrrry carefully!!  Discuss them with co-authors.  Respond POSITIVELY to each point “Point by Point Response letter”  Be Polite & Say “Thank you” to each reviewer.  Provide scientific reasons with your rebuttal.  If a reviewer makes SUBJECTIVE comment about language style, just change it to make him/her HAPPY.  Return within DEADLINE, or it will become a new submission.
  58. 58. Dear Editor in chief It is my pleasure to send you the revised version of my/our article entitled “Article title” to be considered for publication in your journal. Thanks for the careful revision that been done to my/our article. The comments and suggestion highlighted by reviewers have been considered in the revised manuscript. The modifications, additions and corrections are appeared in red color within article. Hoping that the changes introduced improve the manuscript in satisfactory way, I remain With my best regards Sincerely yours,
  59. 59. The following is an example as to how to respond to a reviewer comment: Reviewer comment: “In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results. Response in agreement with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function does make it impossible to fully interpret the data in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in its current form, we agree it would be difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We have therefore re-analyzed the data using a Gaussian fitting function.” Response disagreeing with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer that a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies. However, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al, 1998]. We have added two sentences to the paper (page 3, paragraph 2) to explain the use of this function and Smith’s model.
  60. 60.  Attention to details  Check & double check your work  Consider Reviewers’ comments  English must be as good as possible  Presentation is important  Take your time with revision  Acknowledge those who have helped you  New, original work  Critically evaluate your manuscript  Ethical rules must be obeyed.
  61. 61.  Proof-reading is the reading of a proof to detect & correct production-errors of text.  Before publication authors receive page proofs via e-mail, together with a sheet including instructions. Corrections must be returned within 48 hours.
  62. 62. -An index that attempts to measure both the productivity & impact of the published work of a scientist or group of scientists, such as a department or university or country.
  63. 63. 49
  64. 64. 231
  65. 65. 1- I know how to choose a right journal to my manuscript Stronglyagree Agree Donotknow Disagree Stronglydisagree 2- I understand the manuscript processing steps from preparation till proof reading 3- I can write the cover letter, research highlights, and practical applications. 4- I can choose the suitable reviewers to my articles. 5- I can write point-by-point response to reviewers comments. 6- I understand how journal impact factor & h-index be calculated 7- I know how to market my published research

×