Journal of Physics Special Topics

1. Journal of Physics Special Topics Mervyn Roy mr6@le.ac.uk room S6

2. Journal of Physics Special Topics • What? Author, referee, edit papers for journal of PST • Why? Practise the skills of a professional physicist - employability (group work, communication etc.), media exposure • How? Apply undergraduate physics to solve ‘real world’ problems - Develop models, perform quantitative calculations, communicate results - Papers must be ‘original’, quantitative, non-specialist, appropriate - Inspiration from past papers (& staff seed papers), physics challenge style problems, real world, fiction - consider all areas of physics Peer review – review other groups work, judge if suitable for publication Role in Editorial process – consider referee reports, make final decisions

3. The marks • Assessed by number and quality of publications • Groups ranked by journal points: Submission = 1, Referee report = 1, Publication = 2, Press Release = 1-3. % mark group points 80 65 50 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 X % Points scaled to % mark at end of module. Average quality of published work = X% Papers and press release re-reviewed by staff at end, simple ABCD grading. +3 marks for A-graded papers, - 3 marks for D-graded papers (and -1 for reviews of these papers).

4. Authors • You have now submitted your first (example!) papers • Style guide www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/people/academic-staff/mr6/lectures/pst-style-guide.docx • Author guidelines www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/people/academic-staff/mr6/lectures/pst-authors-guide.pdf

5. Referees • Critically appraise the work of your peers make a judgement on whether or not it should be published This is one of the most important roles in science! • Refereeing guidelines www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/people/academic-staff/mr6/lectures/pst-referees-guide.pdf • Submitting a review physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst-> ABOUT -> GUIDE FOR REFEREES

6. Refereeing process no Is the physics correct and the paper understandable? Is the physics at an appropriate level? resubmit for review, or reject yes no minor revisions yes no Is the paper free of minor errors? yes publish

7. Referees • Reviews should be rigorous, fair, professional – written politely • Criticisms should be constructive – can you suggest ways to improve the work? • Each report should contain • a short summary of the work being reviewed - demonstrates that you have read the paper! Useful for the authors • a critical analysis & suggestions for changes if necessary • a recommendation on whether or not to publish www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/people/academic-staff/mr6/lectures/pst-referees-guide.pdf PST website -> ABOUT -> GUIDE FOR REFEREES

8. Editors • Consider referee reports and author correspondence Have final say on whether or not a paper is published • Distribute papers to referees – spread workload • Confirm authors have made any minor corrections requested Process Almost always go with recommendation Do referees agree? Are reports very different? – and equally persuasive? Do authors make a compelling written case? Third referee /tie-breaker needed? Discussion / vote at meeting Is a compromise solution possible?

9. Editorial board Everyone takes a turn on the editorial board – employability! Board membership – 1 from each group (changes each week). An ‘independent’ chairperson who returns from the previous week’s board. A staff observer (MR, JB, PAM or NFA) Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E Group F Chair group A WK 2 Volunteers as secretary Volunteers to return as Chair Chair group E Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E Group F WK 3 Volunteers as secretary Volunteers to return as Chair

10. Board meetings • Guide for editors physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst -> ABOUT -> GUIDE FOR EDITORS You must prepare for the board meetings beforehand! Don’t forget to update the website with a record of your decisions You must minute the meetings - send a pdf copy to mr6

11. Board meetings • Before the meetings Chair must devise a plan to distribute papers to referees Board members must read relevant reports / correspondence A board member must confirm minor revisions have been completed correctly • During meetings • consider new referee reports – update website, email authors with decisions / instructions. • assign referees for new papers & resubmissions – update website • confirm minor revisions are OK – update website, notify authors • After meetings email pdf copy of minutes to mr6 - Example minutes on mr6 website

12. Editorial board • How you run the meetings is up to you but different staff supervisors may offer different advice / input • Consistency is important role of chairperson, communication between group members • Board has members from all groups - including authors and referees this has some big advantages easy resolution of misunderstandings seeing the process from all sides helps you to write better papers but there are also some challenges board members must be ‘fair’

13. Paper appears in Journal The process • Thursday • Paper submitted • Friday • board meeting • Thursday • report submitted • Friday • board meeting Publish Editorsdistribute paper to referees Refereesreview the article Authorsformulate problem and write article Editorsconsider referee reports Authorscorrect paper Minor revisions Authorscorrect paper Resubmit for review Reject

14. Weekly deadlines Submission of articles Thursdays before 1 pm Submission of referee reports Thursdays before 1pm Emails to the editor accompanying resubmission Thursdays before 1 pm Editorial board meetings Fridays from 2pm to 3pm

15. Key dates Question and Answer session(before the board meeting) Friday 18th Oct Last chance to submit new papers Wednesday 28th Nov - for penultimate editorial board Friday 30th Nov Science Communication Session with Dr Sophie Hebden? PST final editorial board Friday 7th Dec.Note - any papers still undergoing review after the final editorial board will count as unpublished Submission of press release Friday 14th December Submission of module marks to University Friday January 31st