Scientific writing Publishing in Hydrobiologia

1. Scientific writing Publishing in Hydrobiologia Koen Martens (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium)

2. I will� Make this powerpoint available to all interested I am willing to look at draft manuscripts during my stay at this conference (till Thursday morning)

5. Content Types of journals Impact factors Publishing in Hydrobiologia Some tips for scientific writing

6. What level of publication to aim for with primary research papers? All good research is worthwhile! Difference between levels mostly related to research question : of general or of local interest descriptive or hypothesis testing qualitative or quantitative with or without replication, statistical analyses �.

7. Is my paper local, national or international ? International journals: also several levels (examples from the field of aquatic sciences) General top level (Science, Nature, PNAS) Of very wide interest (world press) Top research, but especially spectacular New discovery, new method, (within) new paradigm Biology, London office: 1/60 weekly IF= 25-30

8. Is my paper local, national or international ? 2. General international, intermediate level (e.g. Oecologia, L&O, Freshwater Biology,�, Hydrobiologia) Hypothesis-driven Required: Not purely descriptive Including replication, appropriate statistical analyses Of more than local/ national interest Of interest for a wide scientific audience

9. Is my paper local, national or international ? 3. More specialised international journals (Crustaceana, Aquatic Insects) More rigorous in scope, less difficult regarding general interest Depending on the field, pure descriptive work can be accepted For example: pure alpha-taxonomy, 1-year limnological cycles, 1-parameter models,�

10. Is my paper local, national or international ? National, Museum journals Eg.: inventories of nature reserves, pure alpha taxonomy, new species for national fauna,� Local Short notes on faunistic or floristic observations, general natural history,�

11. Same research, different way of presenting Exx: one year cycle of phytoplankton in a lake Description, no replica�s, no statistical analyses, only raw data presented National or local Replicate sampling, results of statistical analyses International specialised journal Hypothesis-testing (eg.: Hutchinsons paradox of plankton), multiple lakes, controlled field experiment International general journals (Hydrobiologia, L&O) Use of space craft and nuclear reactor: Nature or Science!

12. Why aim for high level publication? Higher dissemination, higher impact in scientific world Better use of research funding Senior researchers: Higher chances for research funding Students: higher chances to find positions Responsibility of supervisor!

13. The hierarchy of journals and publications Journal with peer reviewing, with IF Both national and international Some research institutions require Higher than a particular IF (eg > 2) Top 10 or 25% of your particular field Peer review, no IF National, museum journals,� No peer review, no IF Some local journals Some books, chapters in books Many webpages!!! Grey literature Abstracts for conferences (both oral and poster) Theses, reports,�

14. Other types of papers Opinion Reviews Target papers Short research notes News and views Book reviews, abstracts,�..

15. Excursus: Open Access Publishing Traditional way of publishing: authors publish in scientific journals, publishers sell these journals to libraries, access is limited to subscribing individuals/ institutions Libraries pay for access sometimes subscription + page charge� Traditional publishing at present Paper journals Paper plus electronic access Electronic access only => All access restricted to subscribers

16. Open Access Publishing Open access Authors publish in an electronic journal Authors pay for publication costs (> 1500 USD per accepted manuscript, depending on journal) OR: member institutes pay a fee Electronic journal is open access => no subscription restrictions

17. Open Access Publishing Sounded like a good idea initially > 400 institutions became member of BMC = BioMed Central = major open access publisher with 100s of journals PLOS = Public Library of Science Large movement of cancellation of traditional journals

18. Open Access Publishing http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ Budapest Open Access Initiative 2001 Since then, little more than 5000 signatures have been added to the petition Yale University withdrew its membership from BMC, others will follow: Too expensive Example: 1 journal costs 8000 USD/ yr to the library 10 authors publish in open access journal: It will cost 15,000 USD In addition, cost is unpredictable per year�

19. Open Access Publishing PRO Unlimited access of all papers to the scientific community Allows for full text mining CONTRA Will not reduce costs Scientific community continues to pay Apparently does not reach all that much larger an audience

20. Content Types of journals Impact factors Publishing in Hydrobiologia Some tips for scientific writing

21. Impact Factors

22. Institute for Scientific Information

23. The tyranny of the Impact Factors: Thomson Scientific(formerly ISI) Database with references & citations from 1000�s of journals Inclusion of journal = Subjective decision by ISI Products (Current Contents) Web of Science, Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Impact Factors, Immediacy Index, �

26.

27.

28. Impact Factors

29. High impact factors for � Very bad papers! Papers describing new methodology Review papers Opinion papers Papers in journals With fast publication Which are widely available AND widely read Electronic, web-based journals Attracting high level authors �.

30. Impact factors are unscientific TREE: IF cannot be used to compare Disciplines, Institutes, Individual Researchers,�. Garfield Eugene 2005 50% of papers in ISI database never gets cited 0nly 0.1% of papers > 200 citations IF = journal, not Individual paper Individual scientists => yet, IF are used to evaluate individual scientists, departments, etc�.

31. The h - factor Definition: A scientist has index h if h of his or her Np papers have at least h citations each The highest h-factor for physics was that of E. Witten (h= 110). This means Witten has 110 papers that are cited 110 times or more�

34. Content Types of journals Impact factors Publishing in Hydrobiologia Some tips for scientific writing

35. Hydrobiologia

37. Editorial Policy More focus on scope: Biology of aquatic habitats and biota No pure ecotoxicology, biochemistry,� Less strict for special issues, but show relevance of work for aquatic communities Trying to reach a wider audience: Writing for a wide, international audience, high scientific standard Not purely descriptive (taxonomy, ecology, limnology) Dealing with general biological question Quantitative/ statistical analyses Be respected by that audience: High technical standards Language Figures and tables

38. Hydrobiologia publishes taxonomy!!! Descriptive part OK, no page limitation But of course: as concise as possible But USE your new data! Quantitative phylogenetic analyses Quantitative biogeographical analyses Molecular vs morphological data Quantitative morphological comparisons � => Similar approach to ecological/ limnological papers

39. Your proceedings in Hydrobiologia? Why an A-level journal for proceedings? Book has no IF => Student in early stage of career MUST publish with IF Papers are rejected for journal, so no complete proceedings. => Books will also not give complete overview Also outreach to scientific community OUTSIDE of Copepoda Why Hydrobiologia? Tradition for copepod volumes Hydro (still) takes organism-based proceedings IF on the rise What are Developments in Hydrobiology? Hard cover spin off series of Hydrobiologia COULD include also papers rejected for Hydrobiologia�

40. Content Types of journals Impact factors Publishing in Hydrobiologia Some tips for scientific writing

42. Rule 1 ONE PAPER, ONE STORY!!!

43. Rule 2 KEEP IT SIMPLE �All big things have little names, such as life and death, peace and war, or dawn, day, night, love, home. Learn to use little words in a big way - It is hard to do. But they say what you mean. When you don�t know what you mean, use big words: They often fool little people.�

44. Rule 3 USE CORRECT LANGUAGE

45. Organisation of a primary research paper

46. Organisation of a primary research paper: IMRAD INTRODUCTION What did you do? Why did you do it? MATERIAL AND METHODS How did you do it? RESULTS What did you find? DISCUSSION What does it mean ? (CONCLUSIONS)

47. Organisation of a primary research paper Title (page) Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Discussion (Conclusions) Acknowledgements References Tables and Figures, including captions (Appendices)

48. Organisation of a primary research paper Title Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Discussion (Conclusions) Acknowledgements References Tables and Figures, including captions (Appendices)

49. How to choose a title? Correct and concise �Absence of allelic divergence shows that there is no Meselson effect in an ancient asexual ostracod� Catchy �No slave to sex�

50. How to choose a title?

51. How to choose a title? �Studies on�.� �Characterisation of �.� �Observations on�.� �Investigations into�.� Too descriptive, not catchy, not �. �If you are unable to think of a specific biological question which your study might begin to address, it may be time to consider an alternative career�..� (Martin Welch)

52. Abstract

53. Material and Methods Watch how you write things� �After standing in boiling water for an hour, I loaded the sample on a gel�..� Ouch. �The sample was kept at room temperature�� In London or Pataya ???? �Blood samples were taken from 48 informed and consenting patients�.. the subjects ranged in age from 6 months to 22 years.� (Pediatr. Res. 6:26 (1972)) Clever kids! Give exact origin of chemicals, biological materials � Use SI units throughout

54. The hardest rule of all� Do not put results in �material and methods� Do not put results in �discussion� Do not describe methods in �results� Do not describe methods in �discussion� Do not discuss results in �material and methods� Do not discuss results in �results�

55. Results: how not to do it� �In this experiment, one third of the mice were cured by the test drug, one third were unaffected by the drug and remained moribund, and the third mouse got away.� (Reputedly from a MS submitted to Infection and Immunity)

56. Discussion The �squid technique��. Here, the author, doubtful about his facts or reasoning, retreats behind a protective cloud of ink. Probably the easiest section to write, but the hardest section to get right�

57. Refereeing Editors send ms to referees (usually >= 2) Peer review Peers = your colleagues Suitability for specific journal Scientific content Technical quality (English, figures,�)

58. Refereeing Rejection is a fact of life.. Editors judge individual manuscripts, NOT personal standing, careers, � Referees try to help authors free of charge => Please respond respectfully

59. Conclusions One paper = one story Use simple words and phrases Use correct English Not purely descriptive For wide, international audience Use correct structure of manuscript guidelines of journal IMRAD Pay attention to Title and Abstract!