1 / 30

Turning Your Research Into Publications or What I Wish I Knew When I Was a Graduate Student

Discover essential insights on publishing processes, ethics, and effective manuscript preparation. Learn to choose journals wisely and utilize helpful tools for research success.

ison
Download Presentation

Turning Your Research Into Publications or What I Wish I Knew When I Was a Graduate Student

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Turning Your Research Into PublicationsorWhat I Wish I Knew When I Was a Graduate Student Paul Montagna Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M Univ.-Corpus Christi Co-Editor in Chief, Estuaries and Coasts Paul.Montagna@tamucc.edu

  2. TOPICS • Why publishing matters • Navigating the world of publishing • What publishers, editors, and reviewers want • How to choose a journal • How to prepare a manuscript (format, figures, tables) • How to submit a manuscript • How to revise a manuscript • Ethics in publishing  • Authorship • Double-publication • Plagiarism detection (using iThenticate) • If time permits, a little bit about reviewing

  3. Why Does Publishing Matter? The 5 C’s • Completeness: • If no one sees it, it was never done • Competence: • You prove you are smart and persistent enough to see something all the way through to the end • Courage: • You prove you have the maturity to expose yourself and your ideas to criticism • Competitiveness: • You are proving that you have the gumption to compete for resources • CV: • You are building a record of accomplishment

  4. But, Those are Just “Job” Reasons • The most important reason is that it is self-fulfilling, it just feels good • Sense of self accomplishment • Immortality, it will always be there

  5. Navigating the World of Publishing • Not to discourage you, but submitting a paper is harder than you might imagine • It takes a lot of preparation • Find the right journal • Understand what the publisher wants • Organize your files • Requires navigating a publisher’s website

  6. You Should Join Social MediaNo, Not Facebook Or Twitter • ORCID • https://orcid.org/ • ResearchGate • https://www.researchgate.net/ • Mendeley • https://www.mendeley.com/ • Google Scholar • https://scholar.google.com • Academia.Edu • https://www.academia.edu/

  7. You Need an ORCID Accounthttps://orcid.org/ • Orcid is one social media website for authors • It connects you with publishers and other authors • It assigns you a unique authors ID

  8. My Orcid Id is: 0000-0003-4199-3312 • This translates into a unique website: • http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4199-3312

  9. Avoid Predatory Journals Source: Machacek and Srholec (2017) http://idea-en.cerge-ei.cz/files/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus/mobile/index.html#p=2 • Since open access, on-line publishing has become common, desirable, and expensive, therefore a new crop of predators has emerged

  10. Avoid Predatory JournalsIn one week (19-23 March 2018), I received 6 solicitations

  11. Avoid Predatory Journals • Beall's List of Predatory ​Journals and Publishers • http://beallslist.weebly.com/ • List of Predatory Journals • https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/ • Think, Check, Submit • https://thinkchecksubmit.org/

  12. So, How to Choose a Journal? • They didn’t solicit you • Often free, except for open access charges • Impact factors • Peer-review process • Established reputation within your community • Run or co-published by a professional society or association • It’s one of the big 5: • Reed-Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and Sage published more than half of all academic papers in the peer-reviewed literature in 2013* • You cited the journal in your own work • It’s indexed *Krisch 2015 http://www.vocativ.com/culture/science/five-corporations-control-academic-publishing/ *Lariviere et al. 2015 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

  13. Getting Ready • Read the “instruction to authors” of the journal

  14. Ethics in Publishing • Authorship • No honorary authorship, no contributors ignored • All must pass the “significant contribution” test • Design, Execution, Writing • Double-publication • Just one submission at a time • Plagiarism • ESCO uses iThenticate • Code of Ethics used by Estuaries and Coasts • Coastal Estuarine Research Federation (CERF): https://cerf.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/2018/CERF%20Code%20of%20Ethics%2010-19-2018.pdf • Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE): https://publicationethics.org/

  15. The Submission Process is Long and Complex • You must have all your files and lot’s of information at your finger tips • Information: • About yourself, your co-authors, suggested reviewers • Files: • Submission letter • Text file (with tables, but sometimes separate) • One file for each figure (300 dpi minimum) • It can take several days to complete this process

  16. A Little More About Graphics • There are charges for printed color figures • Currently about $1100/paper • Color is free in the “pdf” or web version, so create a monochrome and color version • Create monochrome first, then use color for enhancement or highlighting specific points • Change defaults in your graphic programs: • Color = Monochrome • Resolution = 300 dpi • Size = • Graph: it depends on finished page sizes • Fonts: must scale to graph size • File format = tiff, jpg, png, pdf are common requirements

  17. For Example Using Default Settings Using Monochrome Customized Settings Color Added to Monochrome

  18. Editorial Process • Managing Editor • Co-Editor in Chief (CEIC) • Associate Editor (AE) • Reviewer • AE decision • CEIC decision • Author

  19. Possible Decision Outcomes • Reject (possible at submission or AE stage) • Revise, major revisions > Second review • Accept with minor revision > AE and CEIC • Accept as is (usually after a first or second revision)

  20. Revisions and Responses • Follow instructions • Create a minimum of two files (sometimes three) • New resubmission letter describing every response to every comment • Edited (emended) text file (sometimes a clean and track-change version) • Edited graphics • Change the text, don’t explain it in the letter! • Editors and reviewers want to see changes • Readers won’t see the text you include in a letter • Use line numbers to guide editors and reviewers to changes • Format matters, so make it easy to follow (I like tables, but paragraphs or lists are fine)

  21. Revisions and Responses • Follow instructions • Create a minimum of two files (sometimes three) • New resubmission letter describing every response to every comment • Edited (emended) text file (sometimes a clean and track-change version) • Edited graphics • Change the text, don’t explain it in the letter! • Editors and reviewers want to see changes • Readers won’t see the text you include in a letter • Use line numbers to guide editors and reviewers to changes • Format matters, so make it easy to follow (I like tables, but paragraphs or lists are fine)

  22. Common Problems • Reject at EIC stage: • Out of scope • Doesn’t follow instructions, i.e., not ready for review • Reject at AE stage: • Lack of novelty or originality • Poor construction • Lack of clarity • Fatal flaw (i.e., something is just not right) • Reads like a thesis or dissertation (i.e., not edited properly)

  23. Finally Accepted • Check proofs carefully • Respond to publisher inquiries • Check figures and tables carefully • It’s always your responsibility if the article isn’t perfect • Online first occurs within a month • Can’t change a paper once online version appears! • Final printed version can take 3 months to 2 years, but 6 months to 1 year is most common

  24. A Little Bit About Reviewing

  25. Your Obligation as a Published Author • Every time you submit something, you create work for at least 3 people: • Editor • Reviewer 1 • Reviewer 2 • But could be a lot more, i.e., AE, or R3 • Therefore, every time you submit a paper, you are obligated to review 3!* *In Search of Peer Reviewers. Science (2008) 319:32

  26. What Makes a Great Review? Fundamentals • Reviewing is not just about being critical and pointing out errors – tell the Associate Editor what is great, novel, earth-shattering, or even transformational about the paper. • Then, all the usual suspects: • Are the hypotheses interesting and testable? • Is the question interesting and up to date? • Are the methods sound? • Do the data support the conclusions?

  27. What Makes a Great Review? What the Associate Editor really wants to know • Would YOU ever cite this paper? • Does the paper move the field forward? • Is it technically sound, but boring? • Are there fatal flaws in methods or logic? • Is it written clearly and logically? • Does the English need editing?

  28. What Makes a Great Review? What are the most common reviewing faults • Lacking to point out fatal flaws –and checking “major revisions.” If the paper has fatal flaws, recommend rejection! • “Liking” a paper that is technically sound but otherwise has no redeeming value • Not explaining why a paper might, or might not move the field forward

  29. What Makes a Great Review? The “Golden Rule” for a reviewer is to: Review for others as you would have others review for you • The peer review system depends on reciprocal altruism • Referees own behavior directly affects the integrity of the system • Referees should be prompt, thorough, fair, and constructive Sources: Glenn, S. A. 2014. A new “golden rule” for peer review? Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 95: 431-434. McPeek, M. A., D. L. DeAngelis, R. G. Shaw, A. J. Moore, M. D. Rausher, D. R. Strong, A. M. Ellison, L. Barrett, L. Rieseberg, M. D. Breed, J. Sullivan, C. W. Osenberg, M. Holyoak, and M. A. Elgar. 2009. The golden rule of reviewing. American Naturalist 173:E155–E158

  30. Want to be a reviewer? https://publons.com/home/ Want to know how to review? https://www.springer.com/us/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/howtopeerreview

More Related