THE DO’S AND DON’TS OF SUBMITTING

PAPERS TO IJPP

• Who you want your audience to be – if it’s palaeopathology then it’s IJPP!

• NB: Has a quick turnaround time

• Read the guidance – every journal has different requirements

Type of article in IJPP

• Research articles – e.g. a population study: 6000 words excluding refs and tables

• Case studies – an individual skeleton/mummy of special significance: 2500 words

• (detailed treatment - and for people collating data on x, y or z disease)

• Justify in terms of their context at the time the individual was living

• Technical note - some new whiz bang method that everybody should know about

• Brief communication – something important but not enough to warrant a Case Study submission

Standard paper structure I

• Read papers already published!

Abstract: a short summary of the paper, a mini paper Keywords should not repeat what is in the title Introduction and background to study Include aims, objectives, hypotheses, questions, importance of study/relevance Material and methods • The sites studied and the archaeological context • The methods used (not just Brickley and McKinley 2004, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994); don’t assume the reader will know what methods within those references you used • Include statistical analysis; think about intra- and inter

observer error testing too

Standard paper structure II

Results • Describes the results – no discussion

Discussion • Return to hypotheses, questions etc.

• Discuss results in context/compared to other studies • Don’t forget limitations

Conclusions • Summarise results and suggest future work

Standard paper structure III

Acknowledgements Anyone who has helped you, e.g. your supervisor (intellectual property rights), EIC, Associate editor, reviewers, funding bodies, curators of collections References • Make sure you are up to date with the literature i.e. don’t ONLY use old references • Use clinical refs alongside palaeopathological ones – remember that

palaeopathologists have to use clinical data as a baseline; while not always appropriate it is the starting point.

• Never rely on a palaeopathological reference for a clinical piece of information Figures Arrows/scales Only ones you really need for the paper Supplementary materials

Non-native English speakers (or indeed native English speakers!) need (may need) to have a paper vetted by a native English speaker BEFORE submission

Once submitted • To EIC • Assigns it to an Associate Editor • Can be rejected at this stage if not suitable for the journal/so poorly executed • Associate editor selects 2 reviewers who know something about the subject • You also suggest reviewers (or people you don’t want to review it) • Associate editor reviews the paper too • Associate editor along with reviewers then make a recommendation to the EIC – so three

reviews and three recommendations • EIC makes the final decision and corresponds with the author (reject, revise, accept) Dealing with revisions • Each point in turn and explain what you have done • You don’t have to agree with everything that is suggested if you can justify your argument • Better not to get cross or depressed! • Reviewers might disagree with each other!

Special Issues

Previous and on going examples include:

• Trauma • Paleoparasitology • Scurvy (probably the first issue/volume for next year), & • Cemental annuli and paleopathology (part of an issue for next year)

• Also excellent to have a themed symposium

(paper OR poster) at Paleopathology Association (or other) meetings and turn into a Special Issue.