Download pdf - Scientific Papers and Presentations || Publishing in Scientific Journals

7 PUB LIS HIN G IN

SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS

"lch habe nichts dagegen wenn Sie langsam denken, Herr Doktor, aber ich habe etwas dagegen wenn

Sie rascher publizieren als denken." (I don't mind if you think slowly, Doctor; but I do mind

if you publish faster than you think.)

PAULI WOLFGANG

Almost all landmark publications, such as that of Watson and Crick on the structure of DNA, are the result of volumes of reports preliminary to putting that final piece into a scientific puzzle. That final piece often gets the publicity, but without the aid of past discoveries, the breakthrough would be impossible. Perhaps every scientist dreams of making a groundbreaking discovery in research and of publishing an article that will be considered the classic of the discipline. Not everyone can be that one-in-a-million scientist, but you certainly can provide reports that serve as the stepping stones toward that classic publication. The most common publication forum for written communication with other scientists is the scientific journal. Technology may be changing the forms for the communication, but the primary report remains essential for information transfer among scientists. Contributions to the journal literature can go far in building your professional reputation; however, not only must your discovery be new and valuable for others to read about but also the manuscript must be a well-written, clear disclosure of information.

85

86 Publishing in Scientific Journals

When data are collected and analyzed and the results of your research are ready to publish, you have several decisions to make. When can you finish the writing? Will you have coauthors? Who will give you helpful reviews? Which journal will you submit your manuscript to? How soon will it be published? What is the possibility for acceptance? How do you deal with editors? Most of these questions do not have simple answers, but some general ideas may help you to follow the process of writing for journal publication.

P L A N N I N G A N D W R I T I N G T H E P A P E R

Before you write the paper, determine who your coauthors will be and your position with them. Read about giving credit in On Being a Scientist (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 1995), and check what Bishop (1984) or style manuals such as the CBE Style Manual (1983) have to say ethical responsibilities for authorship and multiple authorship. Each author should have made a real contribution to the research, should be responsible for content of the manuscript, and should be involved in writing and reviewing the paper. Also, discuss with any coauthors the order in which the names will occur on the paper.

You and your coauthors should select the journal to which you will submit your manuscript before you write or by the time you have a rough draft written. The best journal or audience for one manuscript is not the best for another. Scan article titles to be sure you know what subjects are accepted by the journal. Read a few articles closely and examine their quality, style, and subject matter. Determine whether the paper will be refereed and who the publisher is. Papers that are refereed, or reviewed, are almost always better because of this process. You want your publication to be in good company; the reputation of the publisher could reflect on your own. Your own professional society probably publishes quality journals, and some other publishers are equally reputable.

When you have decided which journal to submit your manuscript to, acquire the "Instructions to Authors" from an issue of the journal, by writing to the editor, or from the journal's website. Many journals pulz-~:~h guidelines in at least one issue annually, and some have instructions in each issue. When you have studied the journal and its guidelines, write your first draft with the audience and the publication style of the specific journal in mind. If you later decide to submit to another journal, again study the publication guidelines and revise your paper to its style.

In selecting the journal to which to submit your work, you should consider circulation and the probable interval between submission and publication. Some journals are distributed worldwide, and the articles may be abstracted by

After the Paper is Written 87

national or international services and databanks. The subject of your particular manuscript may be better for a local, regional, or national publication. Many journals provide information in a footnote on the time from the receipt of the initial manuscript to its publication. This period can be measured at least in months, and often publication is well over a year or more from the time the editor receives the manuscript. Some publications are known for a rapid turn- around time, but they may or may not be refereed or known for discrimination in the manuscripts they accept.

Write the paper as you do the research. Now is the time to make good use of O'Connor (1991) or follow Day's (1998) recipe for writing a scientific paper for publication. Get background literature together and write a working title and a rough draft of the introduction before your results are available. Write a preliminary abstract without including results. This abstract will help to keep the justification, objectives, and main point in your mind when you begin to consider the results. Write the materials and methods section when you set up the experiment. Then, when results are ready, you can write the results and discussion section(s), the conclusion, and the revised introduction and title. Finally, revise the abstract by inserting results and a concluding remark and paring the whole thing down to size. Remember, every section of the paper will have to be revised several times before it is ready for publication. As a graduate student, you may be producing a chapter for your thesis as well as a manuscript for submission to a journal. Make whatever adjustments you need for the two documents.

A F T E R T H E P A P E R IS W R I T T E N

When you have written and rewritten your paper and every coauthor has reviewed and revised it, you will reach a point at which you cannot see how to make the communication any better. It's then time to ask for reviews from your peers, professors, or other colleagues. Most institutions or companies you work for and certainly the department in which you are doing graduate work will suggest or require that you obtain in-house reviews before submitting the paper to a journal. Many will require approval before submission and publication. Know the requirements of your department or employer before you submit a paper to a journal.

Whether or not in-house reviews are required, get opinions from colleagues, other than the coauthors, before you submit your paper for journal reviews. Choose your in-house reviewers carefully. It is good to have two or three. One may be someone who is very familiar with your work; he or she may see something important that you had assumed was obvious and failed to include in the text. Choose a second reviewer who knows nothing or very little about what you


have been working on but has expertise in similar scientific matters. This reviewer can best give an objective look at both the science and the communication. You may wish to ask for at least a partial review from someone with skills in a special area such as statistical analysis. In addition, an editor or other reviewer who may not be a scientist can often improve readability and organization.

Finally, with in-house reviews complete and with further revisions of the paper based upon these reviews, you are ready to submit your paper to the journal. Read again the instructions to contributors or other information that is available with the journal or from the publisher. That information will probably tell you about page charges and submission requirements for page size, line spacing and numbering, and other matters of form and style. Check all details carefully and perhaps consult the checklist in the CBE Style Manual (1983) before submitting the manuscript. It's easy to forget an important point.

Actually submitting the manuscript will depend on the publisher's prefer- ence. Many publishers require, prefer, or accept electronic submission. They will furnish you with guidelines for submitting the paper electronically through the Internet or by submitting a diskette. They may want a hard copy of the manuscript, and the editor may require three or more copies of the paper for reviews. Submit the original, except for figures or photographs, and send neat, clear copies. For figures and photographs, make clear copies and retain the originals until your paper has been accepted. You don't want a reviewer marking up your only original. Send them when the editor requests them, usually with a final version of your paper. Clear all these issues for submitting the manuscript by reading guidelines or talking with the editor.

Submit your paper to only one journal. Instructions for submission usually indicate that the paper will be considered only if no other journal is concur- rently considering it. You may think your chances for acceptance are better if you try two or three journals, but the publishing staff and reviewers can hardly afford to spend time and money reviewing and editing your paper only to have it published by another journal. Wait for a rejection from the first journal or ask that your paper be released by the first editor before you submit to a second. If you believe the first publisher is taking too long or asking for revisions that you cannot make, ask that the paper be released and send it to another journal, but until then, be patient.

When submitting a paper, follow the editor's instructions for electronic submission, or with your hard copy include a cover letter requesting that the manuscript be considered for publication in that journal and giving the editor a phone number and an e-mail address as well as the mailing address where you can be reached. To indicate the suitability of the manuscript for the journal, in your letter you can note briefly which section of the journal it is best suited for

The Editing and Reviewing Process 89

or describe the kind of research findings you are reporting. Most editors will send an acknowledgment that the paper has been received and sent to review. If you do not receive such information in about 3 weeks, call the editor to confirm that the manuscript was received. Then wait. If after about 2 or 3 months you have no word from the editor, call again to ask about the status of the paper. It may be lying on an absent-minded reviewer's desk. Your phone call may remind the editor to check with reviewers.

Acceptance of your paper depends not only on how good the research is and how well you write but also on the suitability of the subject and the acceptance rate of the journal. Acceptance can be influenced by the number of submissions to the journal. The rate of acceptance by many journals ranges between 65% and 75% of the manuscripts received, but some prestigious ones accept less than 15%, and for others the rate may be more than 80%.

T H E E D I T I N G A N D R E V I E W I N G P R O C E S S

Editors are human beings. As humans, they have all kinds of personalities; they are sometimes amiable and sometimes surly. Deal with them the way you do other humans; most will appreciate direct, open communication with you and will work with you and reviewers to produce the best possible paper. Don't be afraid to discuss and reject editorial changes that could result in a focus or meaning in your paper that you do not want, but listen closely to any criticism. The editors probably have more experience in both writing and publishing than you have. But ultimately the paper is yours. What is published appears not under the editor or reviewer's name but under your name.

Editorial staffs are organized in different ways. The journal's instructions to authors may outline the review and editing process used. Editors usually log in a manuscript when it is received. If the format and the subject matter are appropriate for the particular journal, that editor will then either seek reviews or send it to an associate editor who will seek reviews and communicate with you. Review processes also differ, but probably at least two other persons will review your paper. On the basis of the reviews and the editor's opinion, your paper will be accepted or rejected.

Seldom will a paper be accepted with no revisions suggested. If this rare event does happen in your life, you will simply be notified that your paper is accepted and going to press. More likely, your paper will be accepted, but revisions will be required. In this situation, your editor will evaluate the reviews, form an opinion, and send recommendations for revisions to you. You certainly may disagree with reviewers, but you should justify in writing to the editor any refusal to accept a recommendation. See Chapter 9 for more on reviewing and


O

F I G U R E 7-1 Don't despair when you get that rejection.

revising. You'll probably make most of the revisions suggested and send the new copy back to that editor. You may receive a second set of recommendations and have to revise yet again. But when he or she is satisfied that the paper is ready for publication, the editor will notify you and put the paper into the publication process.

If the reviewers and your editor believe the paper should be rejected, it will be returned to you. The editor will probably provide an explanation for why the paper has been rejected and recommend possible revision that would make the paper acceptable. Don't despair when you get that rejection; most of us have experienced the same (Fig. 7-1). You can certainly discuss the quality or subject matter in the paper with your editor, but don't argue about any recommendation or rejection. That's not professional behavior. If you believe your paper is worthy of publication, revise it again and resubmit it or try another journal.

The Editing and Reviewing Process 91

The following reasons overlap, but one or more of them may explain why your manuscript was unacceptable for publication:

1. The research was inappropriate for that journal or was poorly conceived and executed.

2. The manuscript was poorly written or did not follow the style of the journal.

3. The research results are inconclusive; you have insufficient data or erroneous interpretations.

4. Interpretation is missing or discussion is unwarranted. 5. The research is trivial or incomplete, or the information is not

new or is repetitious of earlier publications. 6. You have too much material; the paper is too long or padded with

unimportant data or discussion.

The publication process for professional journals is not perfect. Poor research and poor writing are sometimes published or good research and writing rejected by reputable publishers. However, the process may be as effective as human error will allow. If you familiarize yourself with review process during consid- eration of your paper, you will be less frustrated with editors and reviewers and with the time required to publish. Reviewers and editors can be very helpful, and your paper will usually be better if you take their advice. If you do not agree with a direct suggestion, you still need to consider it and determine whether you should make some adjustment in the text. Reviewers, who are usually not professional writers and editors, often know something is wrong but cannot identify the exact problem. Take their criticism of a point as an indication that the writing at that point is not clear. Most editors and reviewers are trying to make your paper better, not destroy it, with their suggestions.

Once your paper is accepted, you will have a few final chores to do before you see it in print or on a computer monitor. If you submit a diskette with the final version, be sure the version on the diskette and the hard copy are exactly the same. You may also be sent a copy of your manuscript called a galley, or galley proof, to be proofread in the form set up for printing. Proofread this galley with great care and have at le~:.~t one other person proof it. In addition, you may be asked to sign a sheet to give copyright privileges to the publisher. This signature may transfer your copyright to the publisher, or the publisher may simply be asking for permission to print and reprint your work. Read the fine print to determine whether you retain the copyright. A final chore may be payment of publication charges. Authors are usually charged a fee per page of publication. Your instructions to authors will probably tell you what these charges are.

Always consult a recent issue of the journal to which you submit your work and read the instructions to authors or other information about that publisher's


process. The steps and actions I have described are generalized, and they will continue to change as publishers update their technology to suit their conven- tions. Many changes are taking place with electronic publication, and you may see your publication on an electronic monitor rather than in a bound journal. Lessen your frustrations by keeping up with what's going on. If you are inter- ested in what has evolved in publication, you might start with Crawford et al. (1996). But keep in mind that the ease in electronic dissemination of information removes none of the responsibility from an author for submitting a concise, well-written report.

At least two outstanding books are available for detailed information on writing and publishing a scientific paper for a professional journal: Day's (1998) How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper and O'Connor's (1991) Writing Successfully in Science. O'Connor is not as concise as Day, but her book is thereby able to include more details. Still valuable with instructions and checklists for writing a paper for publication is Writing Scientific Papers in English (O'Connor and Woodford, 1976) Also, do not write your first scientific paper for publication without consulting the journal's notes and a style sheet or manual that a particular publisher uses. If you are a graduate student, your major professor or other faculty who have published repeatedly can answer many of your questions. Then, consult the journal editor about any questions that these sources do not answer for a particular journal.

References

Bishop, C. T. (1984). How to Edit a Scientific Journal. ISI Press, Philadelphia. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (1995). On Being a Scientist, 2nd ed.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Council of Biology Editors (CBE) (1983). CBE Style Manual, 5th ed. CBE, Bethesda, MD. Crawford, S. Y., Hurd, J. M., and Weller, A. C. (1996). "From Print to Electronic: The

Transformation of Scientific Communication.'" Information Today, Medford, NJ. Day, R. A. (1998). How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 5th ed. Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ. O'Connor, M. (1991). Writing Successfully in Science. HarperCollins Academic, London. O'Connor, M., and Woodford, F. P. (1976). Writing Scientific Papers in English. Elsevier,

Amsterdam.