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

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