Writing great papers in High Impact Journals An introduction for researchers

Your host

Dr. Anne Deveson, Deputy Editor,

Chemistry - A European Journal

The publishing process

• Chemistry journals at Wiley-VCH

• Roles of journals

• How journals work

• Open Access

• A look to the digital future

Wiley in USA Wiley in Europe Wiley in Asia Wiley in Australia

Hoboken Indianapolis San Francisco Somerset Boston Ames

Chichester Bognor Ealing Oxford Edinburgh Newbury London Weinheim Berlin Zurich Moscow Copenhagen Madrid Dubai Singapore

Bangkok Beijing Hong Kong New Delhi Seoul Tokyo Taiwan Shanghai Manila Jakarta Kuala Lumpur Taipei City

Brisbane Melbourne

THE

WILEY WORLD

Wiley in Canada

Toronto

Wiley in South America

Sao Paolo

Wiley-VCH chemistry journals

30 Journals

The “mother“ of them all

The “in-house” family

1949 1988 2000

2006

2000 2005

2006 2008 2009

1995

2012 2012 2012

Chemistry—A European Journal The team

People in Publishing

Chemistry journals in Weinheim

Peter Wiley and Senior Management in Weinheim

Authors, speakers, board members, editorial at Chemistry — A European Journal

10th Anniversary Symposium

ChemPubSoc Europe 16 National Chemistry Societies • Austria • Belgium (2x) • Czech Republic • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Italy • The Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Spain • Sweden • Switzerland • Slovakia

Societies 1995

• D: GDCh

2009 • SK: SCS

2010 • CH: SCG

1998 • B: KVCV & SRC • F: SCF • I: SCI

2000

1997 • NL: KNCV

1999 • P: SPQ • GR: EEX • H: MKE • E: RSEQ • I: SCI • A: GÖCH • CZ: ČSCH • S: SK • PL: PTCH

2007/08 Asian Chemical Editorial Society (ACES) supports Chemistry - A European Journal and ChemSusChem

2005 2010

Titles

1995 2015

History of ChemPubSoc Europe

Merging of Journals

Average Impact Factor 0.871

Vision: Fewer journals with higher quality

After the Merger: Twin Journals

Impact Factor 3.049 Impact Factor 3.329

Vision: Fewer journals with higher quality

Since 1995 ChemPubSoc Europe 15 journals ceased publication 10 new journals Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) 9 journals ceased publication 25 new journals American Chemical Society (ACS)

no journals ceased publication 20 new journals

Poland and ChemPubSoc Europe Journals

0

40

80

120

160

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Submissions to ChemPubSoc Europe Journals

Published articles in ChemPubSoc Europe Journals

L. Latos-Grazynski et al. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2012, 4115

W. Grochala et al. Chem. Eur. J. 2011, 17, 10524

W. K. Rybak et al. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2012, 3675

E. Frackowiak ChemSusChem 2012, 5, 1181

Poland and ChemPubSoc Europe Journals

“Fame” Recognition by your peers

Making your research public “If your research does not generate papers, it might just as well not have been done.” – George Whitesides (Harvard University)

Why publish at all?

“Fortune” Promotions, grant applications, research funding

Responsibility To society, taxpayer-funded research, contribution to progress

“Papers provide the basis for further research!”

The role of scientific journals

Registration: Recording author precedence and merit

Dissemination: Sharing results and methods

Peer Review: Selection, quality control and

improvement

Archiving: Maintaining records of publication

Search & Navigation: In the internet age—raising the discoverability

Other systems of publication do not necessarily offer all four functions (e.g., open archives)

Increasingly important

“If you are a chemist in your mid-20s and have your mind set on an academic career, then the only worthwhile advice I have to offer is whatever you do, tackle a "big problem" in chemistry. Although the road you will travel along will be quite unpredictable, it will reveal an endless supply of surprises and the experience will be a rewarding one." Fraser Stoddart (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 12902)

Choosing your research topic

Publishing a paper

• Writing a manuscript

• The editorial workflow

• The technical workflow

• Editorial decision making requirements

• Peer review process

First, write your paper

• Title - be specific (not too technical) and concise — and

authors

• Abstract - should be short, you do not have to give all the

details

• Introduction - why did you do the research

• Results and Discusssion – what you did, what does

it mean and why it makes a difference

• Conclusion - ake home message

• Experimental Section – how you did it

• Are there any data, figures or results are still needed to complete the paper

• Use simple English Wiley-Blackwell Author Services http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/english_language.asp

• Avoid using too many buzz words

“This is yet another example of a nanoscience paper with nanonovelty and nanocontent” Anonymous Referee

Extra tips

Artwork

• Use one typeface (preferably Arial) • Use one size of typeface • Avoid use of shadows/glows/reflections • For ChemDraw pictures use object settings for a Wiley document

http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/more_resources.asp

“How to write” resources

Essays: Whitesides‘ Group: Writing a Paper G. M. Whitesides Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1375 A Brief Guide to Designing Effective Figures for the Scientific Paper M. Rolandi, K. Cheng, S. Pérez-Kriz Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 4343

Tips for Writing Better Science Papers by Richard Threlfall on Chemistry Views http://www.chemistryviews.org/ Webinar: Coloration Technology: Getting Published on Chemistry Views http://www.chemistryviews.org/

“How to write” resources

Ten Tips for Authors B. Johnson Chem. Asian J. 2011, 6, 2859

Selecting the journal

• Journal Impact Factor is not everything!

• What are the implications of your research?

• How important will others find your research? – In your field? – In related fields?

• Where do you read papers related to your research? Which do you like the most?

• What is the scope of your candidate journal?

• Who reads your candidate journal?

• What is the format of your candidate journal?

• Where were your literature references published?

• Why is this topic important?

• Why are these results significant?

• What is the key result? (breakthrough!)

• Why is it an advance on previous work?

• Why are you submitting to this journal?

• Why will this journal’s readers read it?

• State related manuscripts published or submitted

• Disclose conflicts of interest

• Provide reviewer suggestions

Writing the cover letter Together with the conclusions section of your paper, the cover letter is one of the first things the editor will see, so make it count!

Tip: Keep the letter as short as possible – the longer it is, the easier it becomes to overlook something important.

The editorial workflow

Manuscript rejected on reports

Manuscript submitted

Editors examine & make initial decision

Manuscript sent out for peer review

Editor makes decision based on reports

Manuscript is accepted as is or with minor revisions

Manuscript transferred to technical workflow

Manuscript rejected on reports but re-invited if

major revisions promising

Manuscript rejected on topic

Revisions requested if possible in short time

Manuscript rejected on format but re-invited (e.g., shorten)

Revision

• Carefully consider reviewer comments – Not all changes have to be

made…

– …but need convincing arguments for changes not made

• Prepare revision – Revise manuscript

• Highlight changes in manuscript

– Point-by-point response to all reviewer issues

• Changes made

• Why changes not made

– Response may go back to reviewers!

• Need to convince editor and reviewers

Rejection

• Direct (“in-house”, “on topic”) – Outside scope

– Wrong format

– Novelty unclear

– Impact/importance unclear

– Interest unclear

– …

• On reports – Technical/scientific

issues – Motivation

unclear/unimportant – Less novel, less original – Conclusions do not

support the data – Results less important – Results less interesting – Ethical questions – Unclear presentation

Should I appeal?

• Usually, no

– Risk of long time to publication

– Good papers are cited

– Editors and referees know journal

– Criticisms may be valid!

• Occasionally, yes

– Importance / impact / novelty missed by editor/referees

• Need for a good cover letter!

– Factual errors in referee reports that led to rejection

The technical workflow Article published online

on EarlyView

Issue printed & dispatched

Electronic files received

Article edited and typeset

Proofs checked (by author)

Corrections made & checked

Article ready for publication

Issue compiled

Issue published online

What editors look for (suitability)

Initial screening Scope? Does the topic fit my journal? Might better fit a sister journal ... Format? Communication, full paper, review, ...? Too long – should this be a full paper instead?

“Make sure the journal of your choice publishes the article type of your paper!”

What editors look for (significance)

After the initial check for scope and length is done, the manuscript is examined more closely: Is the novelty high enough? Difference to prior work? Important to researchers in this field? Most important hurdle: Important to the whole readership?

“Publishing space is limited – choose a journal whose readership will be keen to see your results!”

Where will the editor look?

“If I’m interested, my readers will be, too!”

Cover letter Conclusions section of manuscript Keywords Literature references Abstract Visual information

True / credible?

Reproducible?

Important, relevant?

Communicated effectively?

Quality?

Interpretation of results

Reasoning

Presentation

Critical feedback

New / additional ideas

Peer review because it is competitive and cooperative!

Why peer review?

Selection for publication Verification & improvement

Peer review is definitely not perfect, but it’s the best form of research evaluation so far developed.

All alternatives that have been suggested so far haven’t got past the controversial discussion stage.

or, put differently,

Why peer review?

Selecting reviewers Quality of peer review depends on good reviewer choices

“You can help keep decision times short with good keywords and reviewer suggestions!”

Our reviewer database > 10,000 active reviewers Are found via keywords, interests, own publication history, or reviewing history

Suggestions from authors Very helpful! Not just the biggest names please – others as well Also list people with conflicts of interest who should not be asked to review

Suggestions from other reviewers Can provide leads to further candidates

Suggestions from our Advisory Board Members Especially in difficult cases, appeals or disputes we are supported by our board members

Editor’s own knowledge of the community Contacts from conferences, prominent scientists, regular authors, etc.

What we ask our reviewers to look for

Quality of peer review depends also on clear reviewer reports

“Besides your general opinion, please give clear reasons for rejection or acceptance!”

Is the motivation clear? Is the motivation important? Is the work novel and original? Are the conclusions supported by the data? Are the results important? (Are they interesting?) Are there any ethical questions? Were any flaws or mistakes found? Should anything be added or removed? Is the presentation clear?

• Science should, ideally, be competitive but fair

• Ethics lay down a standard code of conduct for

scientists

• Authors, referees, and editors have a

responsibility to behave in an ethical fashion

Academic Publishing Depends on Trust

• Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript processing

• Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts

• Make the final decision for accepting or rejecting

• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for their own research

• Ensure fair selection of referees

• Respond to suggestions of scientific misconduct

• Deal fairly with author appeals

Editor responsibilities

• To gather and interpret data in an honest way

• To present a concise and accurate report of their research

• To give due recognition to published work relating to their

manuscript

• To avoid undue fragmentation of their work into multiple

manuscripts

• To consider publishing related manuscripts in the same

journal

Author responsibilities

• To inform the editor of related manuscripts under consideration for publication

• To ensure that a manuscript is submitted for publication in only one journal at a time.

• To give due acknowledgement to all workers contributing to the work

• To revise the manuscript according to the referees suggestions as far possible

More information can be found in the “Author Guidelines” section at the journals homepages

Author responsibilities

• Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts

• Inform editor quickly if not qualified or unable to review

• Judge manuscript objectively and in timely fashion

• Return to editor without review if conflict of interest

• Explain and support recommendations with arguments and references where appropriate

Reviewer responsibilities

• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for one’s own research

• Inform editor of similarities between submitted manuscript and published or unpublished manuscripts elsewhere

• Inform editor if plagiarized or falsified data is suspected More information can be found under “For Reviewers”

at the journals’ homepages

Reviewer responsibilities

• Falsifying data

• Fabricating data

• Plagiarism

• Multiple concurrent submissions

• Image manipulation

• Authorship misrepresentation

• Duplicate publication

Ethical misconduct Examples of ethical misconduct that are not tolerated:

All of the above can have serious consequences for the author, ranging from a letter of reprimand all the way up to criminal proceedings (e.g., Jan Hendrik Schön, Woo Suk Hwang)

• ... two scientists are working towards the same research goal • ... a referee is a collaborator of an author • ... a referee is a personal friend, family member or former supervisor

of an author • ... a referee’s intellectual beliefs are at odds with those stated in a

paper • ... a referee and an author do not like one another (personal,

political, professional)

… All of these factors may lead to unethical behavior

Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest arise when ...

Ethics resources www.wiley.com/bw/publicationethics/

http://publicationethics.org/

Ethical guidelines from chemical societies

www.euchems.eu

www.acs.org

“ON BEING A SCIENTIST A guide to responsible conduct in research” By Carolyn Bartozzi

Open Access Publishing Types of Open Access

• Green OA • Nobody pays

• Gold OA

• Paid open access

Green OA

• Nobody pays (not true – there is no such thing)

• Better expressed as “Nobody Pays to Grant Access”

• Author self-archiving – under investigation via the PEER project in the EU, a five year study into the effects of self-archiving on journal usage and citation – not clear if self-archiving can exist without the existing publishing infrastructure.

• Government funded research should be free to access

• Often driven by publishing mandates from interested parties (governments, funding bodies, universities)

The Gold Road

• Distinction to be made between “wholly gold” (pay to publish) and hybrid models (such as Online Open – pay to make OA, NOT pay to publish).

• Major wholly Gold players are PLoS, BioMedCentral, Hindawi, Copernicus. Most publishers offer some form of OA, either one or two wholly gold titles or hybrid OA articles in subscription titles

• Concern with hybrid models if the % uptake of OA payment becomes significant, users may end up paying twice for the same content – ‘double dipping’

Wiley and Open Access

• Gold Road – 2 provisions

• Wiley Open Access Journals and Online Open

– Online Open – hybrid model whereby authors can elect to make a publication in a suscription journal open access for a fee of 3000 USD

– Wiley Open Access Journals – new journals launched in 2011 and 2012 (mainly Life Sciences and Medicine titles) which are solely open access.

Wiley and Open Access

• High standard, rigorous peer review

• Each journal has an appointed Editor-in- Chief and Editorial Board

• Rapid publication

• Authors retain Copyright

• Wiley Open Access Journals - licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC , compliant with Open Access mandates

• Widest possible dissemination

• Automatic transfer into PubMed Central

What do the Authors think?

• It depends what field you work in (and where you work) – overwhelmingly, the greatest amount of Online Open business is in Medicine and Life Sciences, with UK-based authors the most active in uptake.

• SOAP survey 2010 (Society for Open Access Publishing) – Claims 90% of scientists surveyed believed OA would improve their

research field, BUT

• Only 8-10% of articles were actually OA

• 29% of survey did not publish in OA – journal quality, lack of established journals/visibility, cost

• Survey sample heavily skewed (biomedcentral and sage mailing lists) towards pro-OA areas of research

– Even so, prevailing message – OA is fine as long as it‘s not my research.

Cost of Publishing

Printing—the story so far

•Personnel

•Paper

•Postage

•Warehouses

Digital future •Personnel •Programmers tagging of manuscripts behind Wiley Online library •Storage/digtal archive

Digital future—information retrieval

Subscription-based services •Web of Knowledge •Web of Science •Chemical Abstracts •Scifinder •Reaxys •Cochrane Library •Scopus

Journal homepages

Free services •Google •PubMed •ScienceWatch.com •HighlyCited.com

Portals

• News

• Journal Highlights

• Videos

• Webinars

• Conferences & Events

• Books

• Ezine

www.chemistryviews.org

www.chemistryviews.org

The Smart ArticleTM

Cross-linked, enriched chemistry content to support and expedite the chemist‘s research

Digital future

Enjoy a new

reading experience

Angewandte Chemie

and The iPad App

Thank you for your attention

Any questions?

ADeveson@wiley-vch.de