So you want to publish an article?The process of publishing scientific papers

Williams lab meeting14 Sept 2015

Stages in the processChoose journal

Format style

Submission

Editor assignment

Peer review

Decision

Revisions

Acceptance

Copy editing and proofs

Online publication

Inclusion in issue

2 months - 1 year ++

Choose journal

• General/subject-specific• Type of paper (empirical/ theoretical)• Quality of paper (impact factor of journal)• Who do you want to read it, and what do they read?• Peruse reference list of your manuscript• Web of Science

– Journal Citation reports > View group of journals by subject area

Format style

• Each journal has its own idiosyncratic style for references, text, figures etc.

• Vital to follow these to the letter (avoid appearance of sloppiness)

Submission

• Usually online• Cover letter– Boilerplate (title, authors, not under consideration

elsewhere)– Significance– Experimental design– Major findings and conclusions

• Select reviewers/editor• Figure formats

Editor assignment

• Editor in chief reads paper and sends to handling editor (maybe)– Not in your subject area, make appeal broad

• Handling editor– Closer to your subject area– Chooses whether to send for review – Selects reviewers

Peer review

• Usually 2-3 experts in your field• Blind/double blind• Ideally can evaluate different aspects of your

paper• In reality, maybe whoever says yes• Here, your suggestions can help shape your

review process• Beware non-preferred reviewers!• Reviewer return comments in 2-3 weeks (maybe)

What are peer-reviewers looking for?

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/subjects.php?action=tag&id=63

Content of peer reviews - for authors

• Summary of major insights and significance– Establish reviewer expertise, provide broader context

• Major comments– Missing or unclear context or poor structure– Methodological issues– Conclusions not well-founded

• Minor comments– Missing citations– Spelling or grammar– Incorrect/missing figure/table refs– Minor clarifications of meaning– Suggestions for shortening paper

Content of peer reviews – for editor

• Confidential statement of recommendation and justification

• “Is this paper in the top 15% of papers in Ecology”

• Can make editor’s job easy or difficult

Decision

• Handling editor (anonymously) makes recommendation based on reviewer comments

• Editor in chief makes final decision based on handling editor’s recommendation– Accept as is (uncommon)– Minor revisions– Major revisions– Reject– Transfer to alternate journal

Revisions

• Address each comment• Use tracked changes• Compile comments in response document and

reply to each one (respectful tone important)• Unless you strongly disagree, just do it!• May require more experiments• Resubmit with cover letter and response

document (no guarantees)• Back to same/different reviewers (optional)

Final decision

• Handling editor and editor in chief make final decision (accept or reject)

• Appeals process (don’t do unless you have a very good reason)

• This version of the manuscript is the last one that is still “yours”

Copy editing and proofs

• Editing grammer and style• Preparing proofs• Send proofs with queries to author for

approval (last change to catch mistakes)• No substantive changes at this point

Online publication

• Available online within days of returning proofs

• No page numbers or issue, cited as “in press”• This version is subject to copyright laws –

journal specific

Inclusion in issue

• Put into journal, may be printed in hard copy for library distribution

• Volume, issue and page numbers (full citation)

Congratulations!A year or more later, you are the proud parent

of a scientific article

(Now, go do it again)