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

Publishing in Wiley Materials Science Journals - Wiley (February 2015)

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 22 Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Diaporamas pour vous (20)

Similaire à Publishing in Wiley Materials Science Journals - Wiley (February 2015) (20)

Publicité

Plus par HKBU Library (20)

Plus récents (20)

Publicité

Publishing in Wiley Materials Science Journals - Wiley (February 2015)

  1. 1. Publishing  in  Wiley   Materials  Science  Journals   Dr.  José  Oliveira   Wiley   (By  Taking  A  Closer  Look  at  Editorial  Processes  and  Decisions)   Hong  Kong   February  2015   How  to  Maximise  Your  Success  
  2. 2. Outline   Wiley  –  An  Overview   Journals:  The  Editorial  Process   Conclusions  &  Discussion  
  3. 3. The  Role  of  ScienOfic  Journals   RegistraOon   Recording  author  precedence  and  merit   DisseminaOon   Sharing  results  and  methods   Peer  Review   Quality  control  and  improvement   Archiving   Maintaining  records  of  publica:on   +  Search*  &  NavigaOon   In  the  Internet  Age                      Raising  the  discoverability   Journals  tradiOonally  fulfill  4  criOcal  funcOons:   Other  systems   of  publicaOon   do  not   necessarily  offer   all  four   funcOons  (e.g.,   open  archives)   Increasingly   important:   *)  Actually,  people  don't  want  to  search,  they  want  to  find.  
  4. 4. Organisers   • Correspondence   • Queries   • Administra:on   • System  Maintenance   • Repor:ng   • Support  Func:ons   Editor-­‐in-­‐Chief   (Peer  Review  Editors)   • Manuscript  Assessment   • Review  Solicita:on   • Decisionmaking   • Journal  Strategy   • Acquisi:on   • Scien:fic  Community   Interac:on   • Scien:fic  Ethics   • News  &  Portals   Technical  Editors   • Technical  Management   (Workflows)   • Manuscript  Handling   • Copyedi:ng  &  Language   Polishing   • TypeseUng  Coordina:on   • Proofs  &  Revisions   • Liaison  with  Content   Management   • News  &  Portals   Content   Management   • Service  Provider   Management   • Electronic  Publica:on   • Print  Publica:on   Editorial  Office   ProducOon     'Internal'  Editorial  Office  Structure   Publisher  
  5. 5. 'External'  Editorial  Office  Structure   Organisers   • Correspondence   • Administra:on   • System  Maintenance   • Repor:ng   • Support  Func:ons   Managing  Editor   • Chief  Administrator   • Sets  Managerial  Policy  Only   • Does  NOT  Decide    on   Manuscripts   • Liaises  with  External  Editor-­‐in-­‐ Chief   Technical  Editors   • Technical  Management   (Workflows)   • Manuscript  Handling   • Copyedi:ng  &  LP   • Proofs  &  Revisions   Author  Liaison)   • Liaison  with  Content   Management   • News  &  Portals   Content  Management   • Supplier  &  Provider   Management   • Electronic  Publica:on   • Print  Publica:on   Editor-­‐in-­‐Chief   (possibly  several   regional  or  topical   editors)   Editorial  Office   ProducOon     Publisher   Professors,   Experts,   Specialists  
  6. 6. What  Editors  Look  For  (Suitability)     Stage  1:  iniOal  screening   Might  be^er  fit  a   sister  journal  ...   Too  long  –  should  this  be  a   Full  Paper  instead?   Scope?   Does  the  topic  fit  my   journal?   Format?   CommunicaOon,  Full   Paper,  Review,  ...?   “Make  sure  the  journal  of  your  choice   publishes  the  arOcle  type  of  your  paper!”  
  7. 7. Is  the  novelty   high  enough?   What  Editors  Look  For  (Manuscript  Suitability)   Difference  to   prior  work?   Important  to  the   whole  readership?   Important  to   researchers   in  this  field?   Ader  the  iniOal  check  for  scope  and  length  is  done,   the  manuscript  is  examined  more  closely:   the  most   important   hurdle!   „Publishing  space  is   limited  –  choose  a  journal   whose  readership  will  be   keen  to  see  your  results!“  
  8. 8. Where  Will  The  Editor  Look?   While  reading  new  manuscripts,  editors  will  especially  look  at:                 Cover  le^er  
  9. 9. •  Why  is  this  topic  important?   •  Why  are  these  results  significant?   •  What  is  the  key  result?  (breakthrough!)   •  Why  is  it  an  advance  on  previous  work?   •  Why  are  you  submiUng  to  this  journal?   •  Why  will  this  journal’s  readers  read  it?   •  Provide  reviewer  sugges:ons   Maximising  Success:  WriOng  the  Cover  Le^er   Together  with  the  conclusions  secOon  of  your  paper,  the   cover  le^er  is  one  of  the  first  things  the  editor  will  see,  so   make  it  count!   Tip:  Keep  the  le^er  as  short  as  possible  –  the  longer  it  is,   the  easier  it  becomes  to  overlook  something  important.    
  10. 10.               Conclusions  secOon  of  manuscript   Where  Will  The  Editor  Look?   While  reading  new  manuscripts,  editors  will  especially  look  at:                 Cover  le^er   “If  I‘m  interested,  my   readers  will  be,  too!ˮ           Keywords         Literature  references             Visual  informaOon         Abstract  
  11. 11. Double  Blind     -­‐  Author  iden:ty  concealed   -­‐  Referee  iden:ty  concealed   -­‐  Advantage:  No  bias  towards  or  against  authors   (but  iden:ty  o^en  obvious)   -­‐  Disadvantage:    Referees  cannot  check   publica:on  history  of  author   Types  of  Peer  Review   Single  Blind     -­‐  Author  iden:ty  revealed   -­‐  Referee  iden:ty  concealed   -­‐  Advantage:  Referees  can  be   honest  without  fear  of  reper-­‐   cussions   -­‐  Disadvantage:    Referees  can   hide  personal  agenda  behind   anonymity   Non-­‐Blind     -­‐  Author  and  referee  iden:ty  revealed   -­‐  Advantage:  Transparent  and  authors   are  aware  if  there  is  a  conflict  of   interest   -­‐  Disadvantage:    Referees  may  not  be   totally  honest,  concerns  about   conflict  and  retalia:on   Open     -­‐  Paper  open  to  public  refereeing   -­‐  Advantage:  Transparency  and   community  involvement   -­‐  Disadvantage:    Open  to  abuse,   comments  by  non-­‐specialists,  true   specialists  may  choose  not  to   comment.    
  12. 12. SuggesOons  from   authors     Very  helpful!   Not  just  the  biggest   names  please  –  others  as   well   List  people  with  conflicts   of  interest  who  should   not  be  asked  to  review     SelecOng  Reviewers   Quality  of  peer  review  depends  on  good  reviewer  choices   Our  reviewer  database     >  30,000  ac:ve  reviewers     Are  found  via  keywords,   interests,  own  publica:on   history,  or  reviewing  history   “You  can  help  keep  decision  Omes  short   with  good  keywords  and  reviewer   suggesOons!ˮ   SuggesOons  from  our  Advisory   Board  Members     Especially  in  difficult  cases,  appeals   or  disputes  we  are  supported  by   our  board  members   SuggesOons  from   other  reviewers     Can  provide  leads  to   further  candidates   Editor‘s  own  knowledge  of   the  community     Contacts  from  conferences,   prominent  scien:sts,  regular   authors,  etc.  
  13. 13. Is  the  moOvaOon   important?   What  We  Ask  Our  Reviewers  To  Look  For   Quality  of  peer  review  depends  also  on  clear  reviewer  reports   Is  the  moOvaOon  clear?   “Besides  your  general  opinion,  please  give   clear  reasons  for  rejecOon  or  acceptance!ˮ   Is  the  work  novel   and  original?   Are  the  conclusions   supported  by  the  data?   Are  the  results  important?   (are  they  interesOng?)   Are  there  any   ethical  quesOons?   Is  the  presentaOon  clear?   Were  any  flaws  or   mistakes  found?   Should  anything  be   added  or  removed?  
  14. 14. •  Falsifying  data   •  Fabrica:ng  data   •  Plagiarism   •  Mul:ple  concurrent  submissions   •  Image  manipula:on   •  Authorship  misrepresenta:on   •  Duplicate  publica:on   Ethical  Misconduct   Examples  of  ethical  misconduct  that  must  not  be  tolerated:   All  of  the  above  can  have  serious  consequences  for  the  author,   ranging  from  a  le^er  of  reprimand  all  the  way  up  to  criminal   proceedings  (e.g.,  Jan  Hendrik  Schön,  Woo  Suk  Hwang)  
  15. 15. Plagiarism  DetecOon   Text  Overlap:  What  Is  Acceptable  and  What  Isn't  
  16. 16. Journal  Impact  Factor  isn‘t  everything!   What  are  the  implicaOons  of  your  research?   How  important  will  others  find  your  research?   In  your  field?  In  related  fields?   Where  do  you  read  papers   related  to  your  research?   Which  journal  does  your   community  like  the  most?   What  is  the  scope  and  format   of  your  candidate  journal?   Whose  a^enOon  and  interest     will  your  work  have  to  win?   Where  were  your  literature   references  published?   Whom  do  you  want  to  reach   with  this  publicaOon?   Where  did  you  publish  your   earlier  work  on  this  topic?     Finding  the  Right  Journal   Ask  yourself  quesOons  ...   8  potenOal  journals  for  a  polymer  paper   2008  IF   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
  17. 17. Carefully  consider  reviewer  comments   Not  all  changes  that  the  reviewers  want  have  to  be  made…   Prepare  revision   Revise  manuscript   Highlight  changes  in  manuscript!   Point-­‐by-­‐point  response  to  all  reviewer  issues   Changes  made  and  why  which  changes  were  not  made!   Response  will  likely  go  back  to  reviewers!   Revisions  Requested:  How  Should  I  Revise?   …but  you  need  convincing  arguments  for  changes  not   made   Need  to  convince  editor  and  reviewers!  
  18. 18. Usually,  no   Risk  of  long  :me  to  publica:on   Good  papers  are  no:ced  and   cited  no  maier  where  they   are  published   Editors  and  referees  know   journal   Cri:cism  may  be  valid!   Occasionally,  yes   Importance,  impact  or  novelty   missed  by  the  editor  /  referees   (Need  for  a  good  cover  leier!)   Factual  errors  in  referee   reports  that  led  to  rejec:on   Decisions:  Should  I  Appeal?  
  19. 19. Press  releases,  reprints,   cover  posters     Please  contact  us  if  you  would   like  our  support  for  drawing  up   a  press  release,  ar:cle  reprints   or  your  cover  as  a  60×40  or   85×60  cm  size  poster       When  Your  Manuscript  is  Accepted   Please  carry  out  quickly   any  revisions  requested!     The  earlier  we  receive  your   final  version,  the  faster  we   can  publish  your  paper!   “CongratulaOons  on  your  results!   Please  send  us  more  of  your  excellent  work!ˮ   HighlighOng  on    our  online  news    service     All  Advances  in   Advance  and  Very   Important  Papers  as   well  as  further  papers   selected  by  the  editors  are    highlighted  on    MaterialsViews.com  for  beier  discoverability     See  also   www.twitter.com /materialsviews for  announcements  of   ar:cles  published  &  more   MaterialsViews.com  
  20. 20.     Your  place  for  the  latest  materials  science   news  and  opinion:       -  Breaking  news  and  research  highlights   from  across  the  field   -  Opinion  arOcles  from  figures  in   research  and  industry   -  Jobs  and  careers  informa:on  from   Wiley  Job  Network   -  Book  reviews,  conference  updates,  and   product  informa:on   -  Weekly  updates  via  email  
  21. 21. •  Structure  your  research  with  future  papers  already  in  mind!   •  Unpublished  work  is  lost!   •  Scien:fic  output  is  growing  fast,  crea:ng  more  publica:ons   and  more  compe::on  for  journal  space   •  Wiley  puts  great  effort  into  making  its  content  stand  out   visibly  in  the  growing  „crowd“   •  Reader  interest  and  discoverability  are  the  keys  to   manuscript  dissemina:on  and  consequently,  cita:on   •  The  USA  and  Europe  are  s:ll  very  strong,  but  Asian   countries  are  growing  fast  and  have  caught  up  impressively   •  CompeOOon  is  tough,  so  make  your  work  stand  out!   Conclusions  
  22. 22. 谢谢! Thank  You!   QuesOons?   问题?

×