Post on 28-Jan-2015
description
Jo ApplefordEditorial Manager
BMC series
About me
A neuroscientist who was tired of getting up at 3am for circadian rhythm experiments!
Undergraduate: Wye College, University of London (BSc Equine Science)
PhD : Imperial College (retinal photoreception and circadian rhythms)
…becoming a professional editor
Joined BioMed Central as an Assistant Editor on the BMC-series journals
Moved to The Lancet Neurology as a Senior Editor, primarily working on original research
Rejoined BioMed Central as Senior Editor and Deputy Medical Editor, now managing the Executive Editors who run 60 journals.
About BioMed Central
Largest global publisher of peer-reviewed open access journals
Launched first open access journal in 2000 Now publishes >200 OA titles All research articles published under Creative
Commons license Costs covered by 'article processing charge'
(APC)
Growth of submissions to BioMed Central journals
Started a bit of a trend!
20102000
And more…
How does Open Access publishing differ from traditional
publishing? Editorial and production processes are very
similar to traditional journals BioMed Central and PLoS systems are
optimized for fully online continuous publication:- file formats- article length- colour images and additional material
Emphasis on free access to data
BioMed Central’s 3 types of journals
1. BMC-series (>60 titles)
e.g. BMC Cancer, BMC Genetics
– Some have in house editorial process
– Moving to external – Section Editors and Associate Editors
– Systematic coverage of biology and medicine
– Aims to publish all scientifically sound research
– BMC Biology and BMC Medicine highlight best research
– BMC Research Notes publishes incremental results, datasets etc.
BioMed Central’s 3 types of journals
2. Independent journals (>135 titles)
e.g. Malaria Journal, Molecular Cancer, Retrovirology
– External Editors-in-Chief
– External editorial process (with option of in-house support)
– Some are very broad, some focus on a specific niche
– Often society-affiliated
BioMed Central’s 3 types of journals
3. ‘Hybrid’ journals (~6 titles)
e.g. Genome Biology, Breast Cancer Research
– Some of BMC’s most established titles
– In-house editorial support
– All research is open access
– Commissioned content available only to subscribers
How to get your manuscript published - key steps
1. Critically assess your results in the context of current literature
2. Choose the right journal, know the process
3. Prepare a ‘good’ manuscript
4. Appeals
Tools for assessing your work in the context of the literature
1. Critically assess your results
What’s a valuable contribution? New and original results or methods/tools Reanalysis or reinterpretation of published data Metareviews (clinical studies) Reviews of a particular subject Negative results can be of value too
You should not knowingly publish: Work that is out of date Flawed or manipulated data Duplication of previously published work
1. Critically assess your results
How do you keep track of the field?
Database searches: E.g. PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus Consider different keyword combinations
1. Critically assess your results
1. Critically assess your results
Special features at PloS and BioMed Central:Related literature listings
1. Critically assess your results
Special features at PloS and BioMed Central:Related article listings
Gateways and hubs:Many publishers have subject-related pages
1. Critically assess your results
What is the right article type for your results?
For example: Original research articles Methods, Software Letters or short reports Correspondence Hypotheses Reviews Perspectives
Note: Article ‘types’ vary between journals – consult the journal information pages! Evaluate your work critically: what is the extent of new insights and evidence.
How strong are your claims (and how much support do you have)? Is it an initial observation, a new hypothesis without much data?
1. Critically assess your results
How to choose the right journal
How do you decide which journal to submit to?
What are the most important factors for you?
2. Choose the right journal
What do authors tell us?
Prestige of the journal Target readership Visibility Speed of peer-review process
2. Choose the right journal
Find the major journals that publish studies in your area of
research
2. Choose the right journal
Issues to consider when choosing a journal
Aims and scope of the journal Ranking and indexing
services Editorial structure Peer-review procedures
2. Choose the right journal
Journal scope: includes subject areas covered and breadth of topics-All of biology/medicine-Broad specialty journals (e.g. genetics, immunology)-Niche journals
Most journals describe their scope in information pages.Make sure you look at recent publications in the candidate journals to get a feel for what they publish!
2. Choose the right journal
2. Choose the right journal
2. Choose the right journal
Journal prestige:
-Impact factors
-Alternative citation measures (Scimago)
-Who’s behind the journal (editors, editorial boards…)?
-Who else has published in the journal?
How to judge a journal’s visibility – Google ranking
Similarly:
Molecular Biology
Systems Biology
Bioinformatics
Developmental Biology
Veterinary Research-All on first page of Google results
2. Choose the right journal
How to judge a journal’s visibility – Article accesses
2. Choose the right journal
Who will make the decisions on your manuscript?
Professional Editors- usually with extensive
scientific training - embedded in publishing
environment
Academic Editors-in-Chief- academics or clinicians - often active researchers – so,
only ‘part-time’
They are ultimately responsible for the content in their journals and make a final decision on publication. They might commission content and conduct peer review themselves and/or work closely with: Editorial boardScientists/cliniciansMight advise on policies, adjudicate in conflict situations etc
vs
2. Choose the right journal
2. Choose the right journal
Find out about the editorial model from the journal’s information pages
2. Choose the right journal
Understand the journal’s peer-review process
1. Manuscript submission
2. Initial manuscript assessment: professional editors or EiCs/section editors assess suitability, usually in terms of (1) journal scope and (2) interest level
3. Selection and invitation of peer reviewers
4. Peer review: 2-4 reviewers’ reports required – depending on expertise
5. Editorial decision on the basis of the reviewers’ reports: - Accepted manuscripts: enter production cycle - Revisions invited: revised manuscripts are
assessed again by editors and/or reviewers (back to step 1)
- Rejected manuscripts: if scientifically sound, possible transfer to a more specialised journal
2. Choose the right journal
Understand the journal’s peer-review process
1. Manuscript submission
2. Initial manuscript assessment: professional editors or EiCs/section editors assess suitability, usually in terms of (1) journal scope and (2) interest level
3. Selection and invitation of peer reviewers
4. Peer review: 2-4 reviewers’ reports required – depending on expertise
5. Editorial decision on the basis of the reviewers’ reports: - Accepted manuscripts: enter production cycle - Revisions invited: revised manuscripts are
assessed again by editors and/or reviewers (back to step 1)
- Rejected manuscripts: if scientifically sound, possible transfer to a more specialised journal
2. Choose the right journal
Presubmission enquiries
Advantages:Usually quick response: particularly important for higher-
end journals with large submission numbersInitial agreement of the editors to consider the
manuscript for peer review – first hurdle taken
Usually required: Well-written abstract outlining key questions, results and
novel insightsDetailed cover letter, explaining significance of new
insights, methods used and data presented in the MS
2. Choose the right journal
Understand the journal’s peer-review process
1. Manuscript submission
2. Initial manuscript assessment: professional editors or EiCs/section editors assess suitability, usually in terms of (1) journal scope and (2) interest level
3. Selection and invitation of peer reviewers
4. Peer review: 2-4 reviewers’ reports required – depending on expertise
5. Editorial decision on the basis of the reviewers’ reports: - Accepted manuscripts: enter production cycle - Revisions invited: revised manuscripts are
assessed again by editors and/or reviewers (back to step 1)
- Rejected manuscripts: if scientifically sound, possible transfer to a more specialised journal
2. Choose the right journal
Consider who will peer review your manuscript
- Technical experts judging the data: appropriate methods used and applied correctly, controls, statistics
- Leaders in the field assessing the interpretation: support for claims, novelty and significance, context of existing literature
Some, but not all, reviewers can provide expertise on both methods used and insights gained. Their expertise will influence the editors’ decision.
- Open peer review versus closed
2. Choose the right journal
Consider differences in procedures:
Open peer review
2. Choose the right journal
Understand the journal’s peer-review process
1. Manuscript submission
2. Initial manuscript assessment: professional editors or EiCs/section editors assess suitability, usually in terms of (1) journal scope and (2) interest level
3. Selection and invitation of peer reviewers
4. Peer review: 2-4 reviewers’ reports required – depending on expertise
5. Editorial decision on the basis of the reviewers’ reports: - Accepted manuscripts: enter production cycle - Revisions invited: revised manuscripts are
assessed again by editors and/or reviewers (back to step 1)
- Rejected manuscripts: if scientifically sound, possible transfer to a more specialised journal
2. Choose the right journal
Authors may be offered consideration in another journal: peer-review cascade
Highrejection rate
Moderaterejection rate
Lowrejection rate
2. Choose the right journal
How to write a good manuscript
Key issues to bear in mind: Ensure that the scientific message is clear and
arguments built up logically Be concise: lengthy discussions and descriptions can
distract from the key message(s) Ensure claims are supported and don’t overstate your
findings Clearly and explicitly state the aims of the study and
questions you have addressed Put your work into the context of the literature: be sure
to cite the relevant key references and cite them in the correct context
Pay attention to journal policies:
3. How to write a good manuscript
Journal-specific instructions for authors: Manuscript structure (order of sections) Language and style, including reference style How to prepare figures and tables File formats accepted
3. How to write a good manuscript
Special focus: title
Be specific and concise Broad appeal: avoid unnecessary detail Avoid jargon and abbreviations Reviewers and editors will assess whether the title
accurately reflects the content of the manuscript
A good title will help attract readers and citations!
3. How to write a good manuscript
Include detailed and precise information about: - The key aims of the study and why the questions you
asked are important- Key methods and materials used- Results presented and- Conclusions drawn. Bear indexing and searching in mind: Use effective keywords that will attract readersAvoid acronyms with multiple meanings (e.g. CNS)
A badly written and unclear abstract might mean- that the editor misses the importance of the work and
declines to consider the manuscript- that invited referees decline to review the manuscript
Special focus: abstract
3. How to write a good manuscript
Special focus: cover letter
Provide brief answers to the following questions:
What is the scientific question you are addressing? What is the key finding that answers this question? What is the nature of the evidence you provide in
support of your conclusion? What are the three most recently published papers that
are relevant to this question? What significance do your results have for the field? What significance do your results have for the broader
community (of biologists and/or the public)? What other novel findings do you present? Is there additional information that we should take into
account?
3. How to write a good manuscript
And finally…Before submitting your manuscript: Get your colleagues’ feedback: Can they follow your arguments? Are the figures and tables clearly described? Is the text well written (get a native English speaker to check it)?
When revising your manuscript: Take the referees’ and editors’ requests and criticisms on board!
This is your opportunity to improve the manuscript!
Before submitting your manuscript to another journal: Make sure you modify the cover letter Don’t ignore a rejection and address the referees’ criticisms as
much as you can in the manuscript
Appeals!
Remember… Peer review is not a democracy Reviewers often disagree with
each other Editors may overrule reviewers
….mistakes can be made (everyone is human)!
How to appeal
Don’t dash it off as soon as you receive a rejection
Was the decision a serious mistake (rather than a borderline case)?
Can a rebuttal be made of the concerns raised?
Be polite and calm
Grounds for considering appeals
If the editors are convinced that the original decision was a serious mistake
If a referee made substantial errors of fact or showed evidence of bias ONLY if a reversal of that referee's opinion would have changed the original decision.
Further consideration usually involves external advice: original or additional reviewers.
Tips:DO: Be clear you are
appealing Be clear what specific
issue is at the root of the appeal. It should be new information –that wasn’t available to the editors at the time of the decision.– Referee or editor made
factual errors or missed important considerations
– New data became available
– Specific evidence of referee bias
– Comprehensive rebuttal
DON’T: Cite author’s status or
reputation Use threats, abuse,
emotive language Use celebrity
endorsement Repeat the cover letter
….and good luck!
Thank You!
jo.appleford@biomedcentral.com