Navigating the publishing maze

• Assoc Prof Frederic Leusch

• Maria Connor, Business Librarian

Time Mins Focus of session Who?

1. 10.00am 5mins Intro Maria 2. 10.05

25mins The publishing process – strategies and journal selection

Fred/Maria

3. 10.30 25mins Conflict issues in research Fred/Maria 4. 10:55 5mins Break 5. 11.00 40 mins Editors perspective Fred 6. 11.40 15mins Open scholarship Maria 7. 11.55am 15mins Griffith services Maria 8. Midday Finish

Todays session: 10am – midday

Library and Learning Services | 2018

The Publishing Process

• Publishing strategies • Selecting a journal • Journal rankings

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Publishing strategies - Targeting special issues - Get involved in additional papers (2nd/3rd author) - Publish from thesis - Publishing plan:

https://www.ithinkwell.com.au/resources/publication-prioritising-tool

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Considerations when selecting a journal Discuss journals with colleagues and mentors Turn around times Is it a good quality journal? Ulrich’s periodicals directory for selecting peer reviewed journals

http://libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/login?url=https://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com

Open access publishers Predatory publishers (beware!) Journals rules regarding pre-publication (e.g. in a conference

paper) Data deposit requirements (national agency requirements,

journal requirements and ethical considerations). Library and Learning Services | 2018

Journal impact measures

Measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a specific year or period

Chemosphere

Cites to recent items 8941

Calculation= = 4.208 Number of recent items 2125

Library and Learning Services | 2018

JCR for Chemosphere

Ranked 32nd out of 229 journals in Environmental Sciences (top 15%)

Chemosphere JIF (WoS/Incites)

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Journal rankings (including impact) ▪ Journal Citation Reports Web of Science

▪ Updated annually ▪ 10,500+ journals ▪ http://libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/login?url=http://apps.webofk

nowledge.com

▪ Journal Analyzer – Scopus ▪ Updated every two months ▪ 18,000+ journals ▪ SJR data available publically via Scimago ▪ http://libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/login?url=http://www.scopus

.com/scopus/source/eval.url

▪ Google Scholar metrics https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=metrics_intro&hl=en

Conflict issues in research • GU Code for responsible conduct of research • Author criteria • Author responsibility • International Committee of Medical Journal

Editors (ICMJE) • Authorship agreement template

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Criteria for GU researchers To be named as an author, a researcher must have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the creative or scholarly work that constitutes the research output, and be able to take public responsibility for at least that part of the work they contributed. Attribution of authorship depends to some extent on the discipline and publisher policies, but in all cases, authorship must be based on substantial contributions in one or more of: conception and design of the research

project analysis and interpretation of research

data drafting or making significant parts of

the creative or scholarly work or critically revising it so as to contribute significantly to the final output.

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Issues of authorship

• Four main components to a manuscript: – Idea, Work, Writing and Stewardship

• Good guidance out there to help decide authorship – Section 5 in the Australian Code for Responsible Conduct

of Research (https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/r39)

– Various papers, incl Clement et al 2014 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3

• Order varies between disciplines, most common: – First = main author, last = senior, everybody else in middle

• Most important: bring it up early on and discuss throughout

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Responsibility of GU researchers Researchers are expected to: Offer authorship to all people, including research trainees, who meet

the criteria for authorship listed above, but only those people. Agree in writing on authorship of publications resulting from

collaborative research projects (including with regard to future unanticipated publications) at an early stage in the project and review their agreement periodically.

Include in the list of authors only those who have accepted authorship. Appoint one author to be the executive author to record authorship

and manage correspondence about the work with the publisher and other interested parties. Any part of an article that is critical to its main conclusion must be the responsibility of at least one author.

Library and Learning Services | 2018

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.htmlhttp://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

COPE: authorship disputes https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines?f%5B0%5D=im_field_classifications%3A2772

COPE: ethical guidelines for peer reviewers http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf

Publons: reviewer recognition https://publons.com/home/

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Editors Perspective

Tip… If giving your paper to a colleague or friend to read, ask:

“Give me two reasons why this paper should be rejected?”

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Peer review

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Before you submit your paper

• Read journal aims • Read recent editorials • Look up the editor in chief • Look up the editorial board • Read articles in that journal • Make sure you cite some of the papers from that

journal (shows that your work fits) • Follow instructions to authors to a T

– Formatting, length of manuscript, figures, references etc – Provide suggested peer reviewers

Library and Learning Services | 2018

How to find suitable peer-reviewers?

• Expertise specific to your manuscript – Look through your reference list – Use Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar – Avoid extremes of h-index (h-index 10-30 best) [but ok to pick on ECR

and one high flyer] – Pick from around the world – Make sure they are still active

• If they are a critic of your work, make sure they will be fair • Avoid potential conflict of interest:

– Recent joint publication (last 5 years) – Friends – Same institution – Links with company (eg sponsor of your work)

• Explain your choices

Library and Learning Services | 2018

What happens after you submit?

• Journal Manager (JM) – Standards (spelling, grammar, figure quality) – Plagiarism

• Editor in Chief (EIC) – Relevance, context, focus

• Associate Editor (AE) – Contribution to the field / novelty – Quality of the study – Suitable peer reviewers (conflict of interest)

• Sometimes pick your suggestions, sometimes not

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Have you been asked to peer-review?

Have you been asked to peer-review?

Have you been asked to peer-review?

How to do a peer review • Check the reviewer instructions on the journal webpage • In first paragraph

– Summarize the work presented (shows editor you’ve understood it)

– Give main impressions (novel? Interesting?) – Is it suitable for this journal? (context, standards)

• Then point out any main issues (make/break) • Then point out all minor issues that can be easily fixed • Number your comments (!) [see exemplar] • Usually avoid making your recommendation (reject, accept,

revise) in the text to the author – provide it in the appropriate drop-down box

Library and Learning Services | 2018

How to do a peer review • If you have any concerns about plagiarism, raise it with the

editor and provide as much detail as possible • Requests to include your own work must be for genuine

reasons (not to drive your citations!) • Remember that you MUST treat the material as

confidential (can’t even talk to author about it) • Provide your review by the agreed deadline

• There is a lot of guidance on peer reviewing on the web

– https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-conduct-a-review – https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-

reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html

Library and Learning Services | 2018

What do reviewers find?

• Focus on the negative • Problems with experimental design (replication,

analysis, methodology) • Breadth of literature review • Issues with presentation of results/ findings • Breadth and focus of discussion • Style, format, spelling … • Occasionally raise an exciting angle you had not

considered! • Reviewer recommendations can be a little random ..

Library and Learning Services | 2018

The author’s perspective

• Understanding reviewer’s comments – Manage your ego – Should you choose NOT to proceed?

• Working with co-authors – Getting them involved in timely, quality response – Managing relationships with co-authors

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Responding to reviewer comments

• Fully respond to every point raised • You can disagree, but explain why (support with

references) and be polite and respectful • If in doubt, do what the reviewer asks • If reviewers found something unclear, accept the

blame and fix it • Using different fonts (color, highlight …), clearly

identify the reviewer comments, your response, and changes to the manuscript (see exemplar)

• Respond by the deadline

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Example template response

• Check if there is a preferred structure – if not, used the following approach:

• Front page = Note to the editor • General review comments (and response) • Specific reviewer comments in a table

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Comment # Original comment text

Your response Changes to the manuscript in response

Role of response in the publication process

• Should support the improved / revised manuscript – Convince the Editor/s of your ability to develop the quality

of your work in response to feedback • May be accepted OR rejected at this point • May be sent to original reviewers for a 2nd Review

– Together with your Response to Reviewers, and usually with other Reviewer's Comments

– May be sent to an additional reviewer – May lead to a 2nd Revise and resubmit

• What to do? Grasp the opportunity “with a smile” and ensure that you craft another quality response

Library and Learning Services | 2018

If your manuscript is rejected

• Take some time to digest the rejection, and some comfort in the fact that it is the norm …

• Usually not worth sending in an appeal* • Determine whether reviewers have identified a

critical flaw … if they have, can you address it? – If you cannot, can you salvage the good parts and

refocus your study in another context? • If you can address it (or you disagree with the

comments), address reviewer comments as best you can and resubmit to another journal

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Should you appeal the decision?

• Consider: – Time and effort it will take … – Journals receive hundreds of manuscripts every

year, so they only take those they are certain of – Success if appeals is very low

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Appealing the decision • Thank the editor and reviewers for their time • Be respectful and deferential • If rejection is based on journal scope:

– Explain how your research advances the subject matter and appeals to a wide audience

• If rejection is based on shortcomings of your study: – Explain how you can fix problems (and do a full response to ALL

reviewer comments) • If you feel reviews were biased or incorrect:

– Provide clear and specific evidence to make your case (include references)

• Don’t hold your breath …

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Waiting for a Journal’s decision When should I start asking how much longer it will take? 3 Months and then send regular emails reducing to once a month Should I ever withdraw my article? Its within your rights to withdraw if the journal is not responding preferably after 5 or 6 months What should I do whilst waiting for the review? Work on other projects and other journal articles

Library and Learning Services | 2018 Source: SAGE slides

The final steps

• Conditional acceptance • Correcting proofs (can require quick turn-around!) • Copyright forms • Unconditional acceptance • Publication – online/ early cite; hard copies • Celebrate • UPDATE your CV/ website/ institutional record • Provide copy of last submitted version to GRO

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Open scholarship • Traditional vs OA • Benefits • Publishing fees (APCs) • Griffith Research Online (GRO)

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Publishing models Traditional

• Contract between you and publisher to reproduce, distribute and sell your work for a fee

• Subscription model: individual or institutional • Citation and abstract only freely available

Open Access

• Freely available to all for viewing or downloading • Gold OA (OA journal, articles on website) • Green OA (institutional repository)

Crawford, W. (2016). Gold Open Access Journals 2011 – 2016. http://walt.lishost.org/2016/05/gold-open-access-journals-2011-2015-its-here/

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes

and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.

DOAJ is independent. All funding is via donations, 50% of which comes from sponsors and 50% from members and publisher members.

All DOAJ services are free of charge and all data is freely available

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/

Archive of research and scholarship from GU Free, online full-text versions of articles,

conference papers (with appropriate copyright permissions) Ensures Griffith research and scholarship is

visible, discoverable and accessible via Google, Trove etc

Library and Learning Services | 2018

Griffith services? Antony Ley: https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/phonebook/phone-

details.php?id=1688869&string=antony+ley

» Copyright advice » Open Access advice

Office for Research : https://www.griffith.edu.au/research/research-services

eResearch: https://www.griffith.edu.au/eresearch-services

Strategic Publishing Guidelines: https://www.griffith.edu.au/library/research-publishing#strat

RIMS/GRO email: rspo@griffith.edu.au L@G organisation: Developing Researchers Discipline Librarians : https://www.griffith.edu.au/library/research-publishing#consult

Library and Learning Services | 2018