Requirements for success in scientific

publication*

Prof. Süleyman KaplanE-mail: skaplan@omu.edu.tr

1

Rejection is a major part of the life of a scientist

Why Publish?

Dissemination of knowledge(knowledge not disseminated, is knowledge wasted)

Prevents others from redoing of rediscovering work already accomplished

Best teaching method ever invented

For promotion/to get funding(which is becoming progressively more difficult)

2

Why publish? (cont’d)

To get critical feedback; a validation of one’s work

Contribute to improving your research

Correction of previously unrecognized errors, inaccuracies, flaws of biases

Fulfilling public accountability of funding3

Conventional versus Open Access (expensive but paper readily accessible)

Publication Open access publication favors well-supported labs and wealthy countries

Acceptance rate is higher in Open Access journals(this implies less critical reviews; bias may be involved)

4

The Research

Good/great researchWell-planned studiesImaginative research

Think in terms of major advances

(although, every paper cannot

be a major advance) 5

Must be familiar with published literature(rejection is often a result of “rediscovering”

previous findings)

Mechanistic, not descriptive, studies

Do experiments that others do not do

Take time to think

High risk (high yield) vs low risk (low yield) studies

The Research (continued)

6

The Research (continued)

Many experiments fail

(if every experiment is successful you may be doing the wrong experiments)

7

The Research (cont)

Design experiments to prove your hypothesis wrong

Do not try to prove it correct (this is easy and may be misleading)

8

Selection of a journal

Select a targeted journal related to subject of

research

Do not select a journal based

solely on its impact factor

Best journals reject a major percentage of the submitted papers (rejection: become accustom and learn)

Really revolutionary papers are often rejected9

Impact factor (IF) of journal

IF = # citations(2 years)/# publications

Example: Journal of Medicinal Oncology in 2006 published 100 articles

In 2007 and 2008, these 100 articles were cited a total of 300 times

300/100 = 3.000A good impact factor

There are more journals with an IF below 1.000 than there are journals with and IF above 1.000 (according to the Institute for Scientific Information)

10

Impact factor (continued)

4.000 and above is a high IFMost journals have IF below 2.000

80% of papers reduce IF20% of papers increase IF

IF determines quality of journal not of an individual!!

11

Example: better to have article in low IF journal with 100 citations than article in

high IF journal with 2 citations

50% of all published papers are never cited..!

If article cited 5 times it is in upper 10% of all papers

When submitted, suggest reviewers

suggest non-preferred reviewers...!

Impact factor (continued)

12

Misuse of the journal impact factor

Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) repeatedly cautions against use of journal IF to judge a scientist

Journal impact factor determines significanceof the journal, not of the authors of the papers included

13

38 million papers published 1900-2005

50% of those papers never cited

25% cited less than 5 times

Most published papers in any journal receive little interest from the scientific community

Why the journal impact factor should not be used to judge the scientist

14

Best criterion for judging a scientist is the frequency of citation by others of his/her papers

The journal in which the paper is cited is irrelevant

If paper cited 5 times, it is a good citation rate

Papers cited 200 times are in top 0.05% of papers

1/200 papers cited 200+ times

An original paper (not review) cited 300 times is a milestone paper

15

Title of manuscriptTitle is critically important

The first impression the reviewer has of the paper

Title should be positive statement of results

Make title exciting and informative

Title should not be generic

Not “Effect of consuming of plant extracts on gastrointestinal physiology”

Rather “Consuming aqueous vegetable extracts inhibits gastric HCl secretion”

Title should be descriptive of work (convey the results)

The reader should have idea of significant findings from title alone

16

Unexpected facts about the title of the article

Papers with longer titles tend to be cited more frequently …!

Papers with acronyms in the title tend to be cited more frequently

17

Authorship of a paper 1955, average number of authors = 2 2013, average number of authors = 7

The multi author syndrome (consideration of different levels of authorship,e.g., primary authorship, collaborative authorship)

All co-authors should have made a significant intellectual of practical contribution (it is common that journals require justification/explanation for authorship)

Examples that justify co-authorship: a. planned and participated in the study b. consulted on and contributed to methodologies/techniques c. statistically analyzed the data d. read and provided ideas for the paper e. provided editorial aid in preparation of manuscript f. “honorary authorship” is not acceptable 18

Title: Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy

Author(s): Gerstein HC, Yusuf S Mann JFE,, Hoogwerf B, Zinman B, Held C, Fisher M, Wolffenbuttel B, Bosch J, Richardson L, Pogue J, Halle JP, Yusuf S, Sleight P, Dagenais G, Montague T, Bosch J, Pogue J, Taylor W, Sardo L, Arnold M, Baigrie R, Davies R, Gerstein H, Jha P, Johnstone D, Joyner C, Kuritzky R, Lonn E, Mitchell B, Morris A, Sussex B, Teo K, Tsuyuki R, Zinman B, Probstfield J, Young J, Diaz R, Paolasso E, Avezum A, Piegas L, Mann J, Wolffenbuttel B, Ostergren J, Meaney E,

Aprile M, Bedard D, Cossett J, Ewart G, Harris L, Kellen J, LaForge D, Magi A, Skanes J, Squires P, Stevens K, Bosch J, Cherian F, Holadyk-Gris I, Kalkbrenner P, Lonn E, Mazur F, McQueen M, Micks M, Monti S, Pogue J, Sardo L, Thompson K, Westfall L, Yusuf S, Richardson L, Raw N, Genisans M, Diaz R, Paolasso E, Avezum A, Piegas L, Gerstein H, Zinman B, Dagenais G, Arnold M, Auger P, Avezum A, Bata I, Bernstein V, Bourassa M, Diaz R, Fisher B, Gerstein H, Grover J, Gun C, Gupta M, Held C, Hoeschen R, Kouz S, Lonn E, Mann J, Mathew J, Meaney E, Meldrum D, Pilon C, Ramos R, Roccaforte R, Starra R, Trivi M, Davies R, Johnstone D, Lonn E, Probstfield J, McQueen M, Sackett D, Collins R, Davis E, Furberg C,

Hennekens C, Pitt B, Turner R, Braver J, Cuneo C, Diaz M, Dizeo C, Guzman L, Lipshitz S, Llanos S, Lopez J, Lorenzatti A, Machado R, Mackey C, Mancini M, Marino M, Martinez F, Matrone A, Nordaby R, Orlandini A, Romero G, Ruiz M, Rusculleda M, Saavedra S, San Damaso J, Serra J, Tuero E, Zapata G, Zavala A, Grisold M, Klein W, Brosch E, Baumans P, Brusselmans H, Bodson A, Boland J, Cano J, Chaudron JM, Degaute JP, Duprez D, Heyndrickx G, Krzentowski G, Mockel J, Wautrecht J, Alexandre E, Amodeo C, Armaganijan D, Ayub J, Bertolami M, Bodanese L, Borges J, Caramelli B, Carvalho A, Coelho O, Dioguardi G, Faludi A, Brage JF, Fichino M, Franken R, Ghorayeb N, de Souza MG, Greque G, Guedes A, Kadri T,

Kawamura T, Labrunie A, Malheiros F, Marafon L, Nakamura M, Nonohay N, Ogawa C, Pavanello R, Puech-Leao P, Ramires F, Ramires L, Sampaio M, Saraiva L, Savioli F, Seixas A, Shibata M, Souza A, Tanajura L, Ueti O, Vitola D, Armstrong F, Armstrong W, Baptie B, Basinger M, Bell N, Beresford P, Black W, Brass N, Browne M, Browne K, Brownoff R, Chaytors G, Cottier W, Donnelly R, Dzavik V, Edwards A, Felker P, Giannoccaro P, Goeres M, Greenwood P, Grose M, Grossman L,

Gulamhusein S, Hui W, Hutchison F, Irving A, Kasian L, Kasza L, Korner L, Kvill L, Lakhani Z, Lam S, Lesoway R, Ma P, Martinez V, Meldrum D, Mitchell B, Mitchell D, Montague T, Musseau A, Muzyka T, Neffgen C, Neffgen J, Nichol R, O'Beirne M, Paradis J, Paterson D, Plesko A, Prosser A, Radomsky N, Roth D, Ryan E, Senaratne M, Simon M, Stenerson P, Stone J, Talibi T, Wedel R, Wyse D, Altwasser F, Ashton T, Askew J, Bernstein V, Bishop W, Bloomberg G, Boone J, Breakwell L, Buller L, Calvert K, Carere G, Dahl M, Dawson K, Dodek A, Dufton J, Geddis R, Ghosh S, Heath J, Hilton D, Imrie J, Jay D, Kiess M, Klinke P, Kornder J, Lee P, Leong W, Lewis J, Lounsbury N, MacDonald L, MacDonald K, MacNeil A, MacRitchie D, McGee L,

Mitchell L, Mulcahy K, O'Donoghue S, Pearce A, Perreault L, Polasek P, Rabkin S, Reilly M, Richardson P, Scoffield E, Sweeney R, Terwiel M, Thompson C, Wagner K, Webb J, Wedding K, Woo K, Wright M, Zutz A, Briol L, Hoeschen R, Mehta P, Mohammed I, Ong A, Ong G, Bessoudo R, O'Brien L, McLellan L, Milton J, Elgar F, Joyce C, O'Keefe D, Parsons M, Ravalia M, Sherman G, Smith R, Worrall G, Atkinson A, Barnhill S, Bata I, Crossman L, Folkins D, Hatheway R, Johnson B,

MacFarlane M, Machel T, Morash J, Sheridan W, Shirley M, Anderson I, Arnold M, Baigrie R, Baird M, Baitz T, Barnie A, Basta M, Blakely J, Bozek B, Bradley W, Brown K, Burnham G, Cameron W, Cann M, Carroll S, Carter R, Chan N, Chan Y, Charles J, Cheung M, Cina C, Cleghorn L, Curnew G, Currado P, Davies R, DeGagne S, DeYoung P, Dhaliwal R, Dowell H, Drobac M, Dubbin J, Duffield K, Edmonds M, Fallen E, Feldman D, Fell D, Ferguson C, Finkelstein L, Fong G, Fowlis R,

Fraser M, Frenette L, Fulop J, Glanz A, Goode E, Gupta M, Hanna A, Harris K, Hess A, Hierlihy P, Houlden R, Hramiak I, Hrycyshyn B, Iwanochko R, Janzen I, Kannampuzha P, Keely E, Kennedy R, Kenshole A, Kent E, Khan S, Kostuk W, Kowaleski M, Krupa M, Kumar G, Kuruvilla G, Kwok K, Lai C, Langer A, Laor J, Lau D, LaVallee T, Lent B, Liu P, Lochnan H, Lovell M, Lowe D, Mabb T, Maclean S, Man K, Marois L, Massel D, Matthews E, McManus R, McPhee E, McQueen M,

McSherry J, Millar D, Miller F, Miners L, Misterski J, Moe G, Mulaisho C, Munoz C, Nawaz S, Noseworthy C, O'Keefe H, Oosterveld L, Panju A, Paquette H, Parkovnick M, Paterson R, Pflugfelder P, Powers S, Rebane T, Redda A, Reeves E, Ricci J, Sasson Z, Sayles M, Scott M, Sibbick M, Singh N, Southern R, Spence D, Sternberg L, Stewart J, Styling S, Sulllivan B, Sullivan H, Sullivan M, Swan J, Taichman J, Tan K, Tanser P, Tartaglia C, Taylor K, Thomson D, Turek M, Vakani T, vanWalraven A,

Varey M, Vexler R, Walters J, Weeks A, Weingert M, Wetmore S, Whitsitt P, Willing J, Wilson C, Wilson J, Wisenberg G, Wolfe M, Wolter B, Yao L, Costain G, Hickey E, MacMillan E, Aris-Jilwan N, Auger P, Banville P, Beaudoin J, Belanger A, Belanger N, Belleville L, Bilodeau N, Bogaty P, Boulianne M, Bourassa M, Brophy J, Brouillette M, Buithieu J, Calve C, Campeau J, Carmichael P, Carrier S, Chiasson J, Coutu B, Coutu D, Croteau S, D'Amours G, Dagenais N, Delage F, Deschamps J, Dion D, Douville Y, Dumont F, Dupuis R, Frechette L, Gauthier S, Gervais P, Giguere G, Giroux R, Gossard D, Gosselin G, Goulet G, Grondin F, Halle J, Henri L, Houde G, Joyal M, Kandalaft N, Karabatsos A, Kiwan G, Kouz S, Labbe R, Langlais M, Lauzon C, LeBlanc M, Lenis J, Leroux S, Loisel R, MacLellan K, Morissette A, Noel H, Ouimet F, Pedneault L, Piche J, Pilon C, Plourde P, Poirier C, Poisson D, Primeau L, Pruneau G, Remillard C, Roberge B, Robert M, Rodrique M, Roy C, Roy L,

Ruel M, Samson M, Saulnier D, Savard D, Serpa A, Sestier F, Smilovitch M, Starra R, St-Hilaire R, Theroux P, Toupin-Halle A, Tremblay J, Truchen H, Turcotte J, Vachon S, Vienneau R, Wilson P, Habib M, Habib N, Ahmed S, Hart M, Walker J, Walker M, Thomasse G, Meunier L, Sayeed Z, Juhl H, Kolendorf K, Hamalainen T, Gin H, Rigellau V, Bohm M, Erdmann E, Forst P, Gordalla A, Hampel R, Hartmann C, Hasslacher G, Henrichs H, Hensen J, Hopf R, Kromer E, Martin T, Maus J,

Mayer B, Miedlich S, Moeller A, Nast H, Oehmen-Britsch R, Paschke R, Prehn B, Riegger G, Riel R, Rosak C, Schroeder C, Schulze-Schleppinghoff B, Schunkert H, Schweda R, Stablein A, Stein U, Truchon H, Unger H, Wetzel H, Crean P, White U, Aina F, Balzan C, Barbaresi F, Brancaleoni R, Brunazzi M, Brunelli C, Cambiano A, Caponnetto S, Casaccia M, Centofante P, Cernigliaro C, Goi AC, Cicciarello C, Cotogni A, DeJoannon U, Dellavesa P, di Gerogio L, Di Luzio S, Fava A, Frigeni G, Gatto E, Giani P, Giorgi-Pierfranceschi D, Imparato C, Landoni M, Magnani B, Manicardi E, Mantovani B, Marini M, Martini U, Mazzantini S, Merni M, Miglierina E, Marini M, Molinari G, Nanni D, Paciaroni E, Pareschi P, Pasqualini M, Perazzoli F,

Polese A, Poletti F, Portioli I, Provasoli S, Repetto S, Rigatelli G, Roccaforte R, Romano E, Rossi E, Rugolotto M, Rusticali F, Saccomanno G, Simoni C, Stucci N, Terranova P, Tortul C, Velussi M, Vincenzi M, Vincenzi P, Zavaroni D, Cardona-Munoz E, Elizondo L, Fausto M, Galindo R, Gloria-Breceda F, Hernandez-Garcia H, Ibarra-Flores M, Illescas-Diaz J, Lopez-Alvarado A, Meaney E, Olvera-Ruiz R, Rivera-Capello J, Romero-Soltero M, Samaniego-Mendez V, Vidrio-Velazquez M, Kruseman A,

Mulder H, Sels J, van Doorn L, Vogel N, Hjerkinn E, Reikvam A, Albert X, Alvarez A, Cardona M, Cosio FG, Gilabert R, Karoni A, Lopez-Bescos L, Masia R, Saenz L, Sanz G, Ahnberg K, Andersson D, Andersson O, Astrom L, Bergsten L, Bjorkman H, Borgman C, Cervin P, Dalhgren C, Ekholm L, Ericsson UB, Eriksson C, Fagher B, Gertow O, Gillberg P, Hagg A, Hallberg A, Hansson B, Hansson P, Held C, Heinonen M, Henning R, Jacobsson L, Jagren C, Jonasson T, Kahan T, Katzman P,

Kristensson B, Krogager K, Leijd B, Lennerhagen P, Ljungdahl L, Menyes H, Ohman P, Olsson PO, Rosenqvist U, Ryden L, Sartor G, Sjostedt P, Smith L, Stahl L, Svensson A, Svensson K, Taghavi A, Thulin T, Torebo E, Weber P, Wysocki M, Anesini A, Boman P, Cozzi R, Gerber P, Honegger R, Kick A, Kiowski W, Lehmann R, Lull B, Moccetti T, Pasotti E, Rojas J, Rossi A, Rossi M, Safwan E, Schindler R, Sessa F, Spinas G, Allan B, Cumming L, Fisher B, Heller S, Kennedy J, Kesson C, Lochiel R, Manns J, McGroarty E, Raeburn K, Small M, Struthers S, Wilkinson I, Brown E, Holt J, Perry G, Singh B, Szlachcic Y, Vlachou M, Yee F, Clegg L, Horwitz L, St John M, Anderson J, Rashkow A, Schwartz K, Abercrombie L, Cintron G, Garrett D, McHale J, Miller A, Sullebarger J, Tripp G, Zoble R, Orander P, Sridharan M, Sridharan V, Berger S, Davidson M, Geohas J, Islam N, Rajanahally R, Seikel K, Susmano A, Wentworth M, Advani S, Rough R, Wickemeyer W, Young N, Goldstein M, Dinneen S, Farkouh M, Helgemoe P, Miller T, Parkulo M, Pierpont G, Weigenant J, Rich M, Schmidt P, Abrams J, Robbins D,

Bonora M, Cohen G, Constantinou M, Dimova A, Fitzpatrick P, Gage L, Graham S, Kohn R, Lader E, Powers J, Reiter P, Witt N, Buchsbaum R, Donese B, Gupta S, Hoogwerf B, Suhan P, Suryaprasad A, Williams D, Danisa K, Lowery M, Lyon K, Rae C, Gandara B, Gramberg M, Grover J, Amidi M, Bell M, DiTommaso M, Day J, Durand J, Farmer J, Torre G, Vooletich M, Gorham J, Gowing B, Kingry C, Lehmann K, Letterer R, Lorch G, Lwai S, Mack R, Nemanich J, Primm R, Utley R, Vaughn L, Bergentoft A, Borgman C, Brosch E, Engbers A, Flores M, Forst P, Frisenda L, Gerle S, Huber D, La Tour F, Lehtonen R, Luca C, Keays JS, Masterson N, Moore R, Morales-Virgen J, Penson, Persson C, Pina C, Plouffe D, Reglier JC, Riley J,

Rolstad T, Ronsted P, Spinewine P, Styner L, van den Boom N, Yuki-Miyakoshi S Group Author(s): Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluati

Source: LANCET 355 (9200): 253-259 JAN 22 2000 Document Type: Article

Language: English Cited References: 34      Times Cited: 104519

Abstract is extremely important(Open access has made this even more

important)

Many individuals only read abstractShould contain:

AimsMethods (brief)

ResultsConclusion (make this strong as allowed)

Structured or non-structured

Preparation of Abstract

20

The abstract should answer the following questions

1. What is the problem/need your paper will address?

2. What imaginative approach did you do to solve the problem?

3. What significant data did you uncover?

4. What do the findings mean for the field?

21

Most reviewers of papers and grants make up their mindsregarding the merit of your paper/proposal as they read thefirst page (the abstract).

This is according to the reviewers who serve in these roles.

They read the rest of your paper looking for supportof their original impression

You must get the reviewer’s attention in the first couple of sentences

Therefore, if the abstract is weak, the paper (in the mind of the reviewer) will be weak.

The Abstract (cont’d)

22

Key words should be targeted (these are search terms)

Should be carefully selected

Words not in the title

Phrases are acceptable(programmed cell death vs apoptosis)

23

Follow “Guide for Contributors” precisely

(if paper appears to have been prepared for another journal, it probably has been rejected)

24

Introduction

Cite most relevant literature

Focus to problem investigated

Explain importance of planned study

Keep brief (time is money)25

Materials and MethodsDetailed?

(techniques supported with references)(for example, Lowry protein assay)

Sufficient information for repetition should be available

Proper statistical analysis (often important for reviewers)

(unfortunately, statistical significance does not

mean biological significance)

Do not make statements such as:The values were higher, but the increase

was not statistically significant

26

ResultsDescribed with general statements with reference

to figures/tables(do not include every mean and SEM in the text)

Figures preferred over tables(a good figure is worth a thousand words)

Statistical significance included in figures(not in the text)

Avoid undefined or unusual abbreviations(these confuse the reviewer)

Standard abbreviations acceptable, e.g., DNA

27

Not just a re-statement of Results

Present new logical interpretations

Speculate on probable mechanisms(supported with appropriate references)

Explain importance of findings to the field

Strong concluding paragraph(what reviewers read first and last is remembered)

Discussion

28

Publish or Perish

Numbers of publications should not be a consideration for promotion

If number of papers is a consideration, sloppiness and shortcuts result

Quality of publications should be an important consideration

h-index is more frequently considered as a basis for promotion, awards, etc.

29

h-index has become increasingly important as a criterion to judge scientists

Positive correlation between h-index, promotion, research awards, etc

Work must be citedPublish high quality researchesPublish in targeted journalsThe more your work is cited, the more it will

be citedCited work is considered important work by

those reading a paper

30

Determines scientific impact of a scientist

h-index should equal # of years as scientist

h-index (not journal IF) has high predictive value for awards

h-index reflects number of papers well cited

Does not consider total # publications or total # of citations

(only considers highly cited papers)

Hirsch J.E. 2005, PNAS 102: 16569-16572.

h-index

31

Hirsch JE, PNAS, 2005;102:16569-16572

Point at which number of papers intersects with number of citations to those papers

Quantification of an individual’s impact

Expected to increase linearly with time

Ignores total number of papers (unimportant)

Ignores total citations (may be determined by one paper)

Used in recruitment/promotion

The h-index(a test of significance of published papers)

32

The h-indexPublications # Citations

1 1423

2 8

3 2

4 5

5 0

6 110

7 1891

8 13

9 4

10 11

h-index increases rapidly when it is low, slowly when it is high

h-index = 6

Total citations = 3467

Average citations/paper = 346.7

33

A corollary of the h-index

The m-value

m = 1, h-index = 20 after 20 years of research (successful scientist)

m = 2, h-index = 40 after 20 years of research (outstanding scientist)

m = 3, h-index = 60 after 20 years of research (truly unique scientist)

Nobel prize winners typically have an h-index >100

34

A danger of PUBLISH OR PERISH

PlagiarismJournal editorial boards have developed new policies to

identify plagiarism and self-plagiarism

SPLAT and other software being developed to compare manuscript submitted to all previously published material

May detect as few as 6 words in a row that are identical between a submitted manuscript and a source reference.

Nature 436:7047 (2005) and 436:24(2003)35

CHANGE/EVOLVE new methodologies

Provide pdf/reprints of publications

Participate (not only attend) in meetings (network)

Train students/post-docs in your field of research

Challenge established facts with logical arguments

Take innovative approaches (think outside the box)

To become a successful scientist

36

Establish collaborations with other labs

and with scientists with special techniques

37

Increasing citation frequency

Publish high quality, imaginative papers

MajorLab

Former students

Students of former students

Laboratories working in the same research area cite each other. They know research best

38

The importance of change

Inability to change leads to stagnation (dedicated, but not committed)

Evolution of methods

Evolution of ideas

Observe/read papers of those who are successful

Role of social media? (Wikipedia, Face Book, etc.)

39

Role of social media in science

Should you have a blog?

Science is a business and should be treated accordingly

Is the time spent writing it, worth the return?

40

Advantages of a blog

Connect with collaborators

Generate ideas

Affect change

Sell yourself

Secure jobs

Fulfill service requirements41

Choosing a style for your blog

Topical (usually involves a single research topic; write about what you

know)Group blogs(several authors with common interests contribute; usually a

specific topic)Conversational(keeping readers up to date on your lab and professional life)Confrontational(point out inaccuracies or ineptitude of published works; keep at

professional level)Instructive (making your research relevant to the general public)

42

Making your blog work for you

Post when publishing and speaking (self promotion, not self aggrandizement)

Post links to other blogs (the more you link to other blogs, the more you own blog will be linked)

Encourage interaction (engendering a sense of a willingness to share; a sense of openness)

43

Shortcomings of a blog

Demands on your time (a right balance must be established; addictive)

Negative perceptions from within (may rile administrators and some colleagues)

Giving away too much information (reserve the punch lines for your publication)

44

ConclusionsSuccess as a scientist depends on many factors

Do imaginative studies and publish high quality papers

Promote (advertise) your research publications presentations social media interactions

Study how successful scientists became successful

45

* By courtesy of Prof. R. Re-iter46