How to get published

1. How to get published Tips from the editors

2. How it happens • 100s, sometimes 1000s papers received each year (BMJ 6500, TC 420). • Acceptance rates typically 5%-30% • Papers are rejected at three stages: • without review (circa 50%) • after review (circa 45%) • after revision (circa 5%)

3. Nobel prize work rejected.. • Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 47 (4), 1996, 302-310. • Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations . Science Communication, 16 (3), 1995, 304-325. • Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly cited. Social Studies of Science, 23 (2), 1993, 342-362. • The competition for journal space among referees, editors and other authors and its influence on journal's impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 47 (3), 1996, 184-192. • Using Citation Classics to study the incidence ofserendipity in scientific discovery .Scientometrics, 37 (1), 1996, 3-24.

4. Journal Impact factors • The ISI Impact Factor indicates how often articles in a certain journal are cited within the two years following the publication date. For example, the ISI Impact Factor for Ecology in 1996 is calculated as the sum of all 1996 citations of articles published in Ecology in 1994 and 1995 divided by the total sum of all articles published in Ecology in those two years.

5. Impact factors (2) • Will anyone ever cite this paper? Or will it be a dead weight on our impact factor, no matter how “worthy”? • Heavily cited: reviews; highly original papers; papers that receive high press attention

6. PAUSE & PONDER • select journal carefully • consider audience • consider chances of success • review Instructions for Authors

7. Target your paper at a particular journal • Familiarise yourself thoroughly with potential journals • what sort of papers do they publish? (original articles, briefs, reviews, commentaries, iconoclastic pieces?) • What is the “culture” of the journal? • National or international focus? • Write for that journal

8. Is this the right journal for your paper? • Many papers submitted that suggest authors have never read the journal. • Clue to likely desperation (ie rejected many times before) or that authors are not cutting-edge/up to speed

9. If for a general medical journal.. • Mostly read by clinicians, so “practical”, useful, papers highly regarded.

10. If a specialist journal... • Cut to the chase! • Do not waste time with elementary ABC introductory sections -- it is being read by people who know the field • locate your paper precisely in what has gone before

11. RULES OF THUMBS • bad research is almost always rejected • sensational research usually accepted - even if badly written • BUT most papers are neither: in gray zone

12. WHY PAPERS ARE REJECTED: 1. general • issue not important • not original • not appropriate for journal • data old & now irrelevant • practical difficulties -> doubtful results • conflict of interest • ethical issues

13. WHY PAPERS ARE REJECTED:2. scientific • unclear hypotheses • poor or weak design • sample biased or too small • statistics inappropriate or misapplied • conclusions unjustified • references outdated

14. WHY PAPERS ARE REJECTED:3. presentation/style • poorly organized • badly written • careless errors • terrible tables • needless figures • outdated or improperly cited references

15. PLAN & REFLECT • worth reporting? • do systematic & critical review • is it original? better? • choose appropriate format (original, review, etc.) • draft outline

16. Preliminaries: Abstract & Title • VITAL! VITAL! • May be all that is read • structure abstract if so required • make it tell the whole story • tell it well; may be all that is seen • will influence editor • title: choose with care (not too clever)

17. The Introduction • construct as an inverted pyramid • move from broad statement to rationale for the study: why this study • catchy opening sentence • keep it short • review literature selectively • justify your study in light of above • end with sharp focus: hypothesis, question

18. METHODSProvide Details • Enough to permit replication; or to assess validity of findings; quality of study • Tell the story: “To assess xyz, we did the hoodgie-wadjie procedure, using Blatz technique (3)” • if new measures or procedures, describe in detail in appendix, or from authors

19. RESULTSPortray... • build from the graphics (which must be good and able to be understood without reference to text) • use figures sparingly • learn when to use a pie chart, bar chart, etc. • tell the story briefly (“we found that…) • consider photos

20. DISCUSSION/INTERPRETATIONA pyramid • restate main findings (key results) and move quickly to broad conclusion • place results in perspective (other studies) (avoid excess repetition) • describe limitations • restrict interpretation to these results • implications for practice or research • don’t conclude “more research needed”

21. PROCRASTINATE • pass it around • comments from co-authors • seek criticism from colleagues • get mentor’s advice • put it away for awhile

22. POLISH • revise, revise, and revise for: accuracy, brevity, clarity, grace • accuracy: spelling, figures differ in tables and text; too many decimals • brevity: empty phrases and words; excessive weak verbs and connectives • clarity: first person; basic grammar • grace: choice of words; vary sentences

23. STYLE POINTERS • revise for Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity, Grace • vary sentence and paragraph lengths • make transitions between paragraphs • put sentences in logical sequence • choose the right word • avoid weak verbs and connectives • prune empty phrases and words

24. Elements of style • It behooves the writer to avoid archaic expressions • do not use hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly • avoid clichés like the plague • mixed metaphors are a pain in the neck and ought to be thrown out the window • consult the dictionary frequently to avoid mispellings

25. PARSIMONY • make it “lean and mean” -- make every word justify its existence • check word limit; do word count • even if o.k., shorter is (almost) always better • cut all extra words, phrases, paragraphs • prune, prune, prune

26. PUNCTUATION • enhances meaning • gives style; saves space • avoid! consider? • learn: comma, semi-colon, dash, colon • read with your ears

27. PERSUADE • covering letter to editor • explain why your paper is special

28. Been previously rejected by another journal? • DO send the reviewers’ comments, + a letter showing how you’ve addressed changes to the new journal editor

29. Anticipate your reviewers • Who has published recently in this journal on a related topic? • What are their preoccupations? • Can you cite their work?

30. PREPARE • for rejection • rarely accept without revision • respond to comments promptly and in detail

31. PERSIST • revise promptly as requested • resubmit • push and explain • choose another journal

32. Multiple Authorship • You must be able to justify the inclusion of every author • See: http://www.wame.org/rsources.htm#author

33. ALWAYS REMEMBER... Journals need papers (almost as much) as authors need journals Editors want their journals to be read and their papers to be cited

34. Is your paper a paper, a brief or a research letter? • Easier to get letters & briefs accepted (space). They are indexed! • Decide whether you should submit it as a brief or letter

35. Author Crimes • Duplicate publication (& not telling) • salami slicing (& not telling) • media coverage prior to publication • web publication?

36. Topicality … fast tracking • Editors want to publish relevant, newsworthy material • Some journals have “fast track” option. Do not be shy if you think your paper might qualify