Springer - How To Author

Author Academy how to write and get your science published
Warren Raye, PhD Senior Editor Edanz
Customer Introduction Service
About me
Senior Life Sciences Editor
Customer Introduction Service
Todays presentation
Section One: Academic publishing Section Two: Before you start Section Three: Manuscript structure Section Four: Hints and tips Edanz Journal Selector
Your target journal in minutes not days
Scientific publishing
Adopt a winning strategy

Scientist Preparation Communication Understanding Knowledge Tactics Results Manuscript Submission process Published literature Publication record
Cricketer Physical fitness Team members Rules of the game Opposition Win games
Exchange ideas globally
Clear communication is essential
Your research is not complete until it has been published!
You must publish in English
The international language of science Other scientists want to hear from Indian researchers! Become an effective science communicator Funding International reputation Career advancement
The submission process

Peer review
Results novel? Topic relevant?
Manuscript + cover letter
Editor
Reject
New experiments Improve readability Add information
Accepted publication! Revision
Publishing timeline
312 months Why so long?

Manuscript type Availability of peer reviewers Fast tracking Number of revisions Other?
Peer review improves your manuscript

Rejection Acceptance Minor revision Major revision
Few papers are accepted without revision Rejection and revision are integral to the Peer review should be a positive experience
Journal editors and reviewers ask themselves
Is the manuscript novel? Is the manuscript of interest to our readers?
Novelty Significance
Aims & Scope Target Audience
What do journal editors want?
High quality research Clear & concise English Stands up to peer review Original & novel advances a field Interesting to journals readership Active research area Quickly assess your work
Cover letter Appropriate references
Publication ethics
Multiple submissions Plagiarism

self-plagiarism
Author contribution Data fabrication/falsification Conflicts of interest
Before you start
Section Two
Read Study design Journal selection Evaluate significance
Before you start
Reading
Both sides of the brain are essential Work in harmony

Logic Reading Creativity Writing
Reading and writing are connected
Before you start
Reading improves your writing
Read often
2030 min each day 60 min, once a week
Discuss with colleagues

Journal club
Assists with journal selection Ideas for next manuscript
Before you start
How to read an article
Start to finish? Section by section? Efficiency Where is the relevant information?
Before you start
How to read an article

Title and Abstract Self-assess knowledge of topic Introduction: aims
Results: figures, tables, schematics, equations Discussion Introduction and Methods if necessary
Before you start
Study design
Critical What is your hypothesis or research question? The aim(s) of your study What methods are appropriate? Do you have the relevant resources? Identify your controls
Before you start
Study design
Sample sizes (n) large enough? Which statistical test(s)?
When in doubt talk to a statistician! Ethics approval
Before you start
Journal Selection
Before you start
Choosing a target journal
Journal selection must be based on an honest evaluation of your manuscript
Novelty Significance
Aims & Scope Target Audience
Before you start
Timing
Choose your target journal:

After you have decided you have enough results for a publication After a decision has been made on how high to aimhigh, medium or low impact Before writing the Title, Abstract, Introduction or Discussion sections
Before you start
Factors to consider
What is your publication goal?

Aims & scope Publishing frequency Impact factor Target audience Open access Prestige Cost Publication type
Which factor is most important to you?
Before you start
Evaluating significance: novelty
How new are my results compared with those already published?

New findings
Incremental advances
Conceptual advances
Low to medium impact
Medium to high impact
Before you start
Evaluating significance: relevance
Are my findings of relevance only to a specific geographical region or ethnic population? Are there implications for other regions and populations? High impact factor journals may consider specific findings if they are the first of their kind or of international significance.
Before you start
Evaluating significance: appeal
Is my work in an area of popular appeal? Examples:

OLEDs Cloud computing Food irradiation Medical devices Higgs boson Green aviation Stem cells Global warming
Before you start
Reasons for rejection: the science

Inappropriate methodology Weak research motive Inaccurate conclusions
Incomplete data
Poor analysis
Before you start

Weak research motive
Scientifically irrelevant Unclear Not explicitly stated Not supported by your data
Before you start

Incomplete data
Hinders proper analysis Conclusions questionable Invalidates study
Before you start

Inappropriate methodology
Old, out-of-date techniques/models Not approved/unusual methods Invalidates study
Before you start

Poor analysis
Does not stand up to scrutiny Inappropriate methods Conclusions questionable Invalidates study
Before you start

Inaccurate conclusions
Based on assumptions Questionable interpretation Invalidates study
Before you start
Reasons for rejection: the manuscript

Citations
Journal requirements not met Rationale and aims not stated Poor grammar and style
Inappropriate data presentation
Before you start

Rationale and aims not stated
Clearly and explicitly stated Why? Importance
Before you start
Journal requirements not met Research too specialized Author guidelines not followed
Before you start
Citations Self-citations Old, inaccurate, irrelevant
Before you start

Poor grammar and style
Long, complex sentences and paragraphs Non-native expressions Gaps in the logic Too much information
Before you start

Inappropriate data presentation
Illogical representation Duplication of results Too much data Raw data
Before you start
Reasons for rejection: other
Inappropriate journal selected Research too specialized Not suitable for target audience
Before you start
Reasons for rejection: other
Unlucky timing Hot topics Increased competition
Manuscript structure
Section Three
You are telling a story
Beginning Middle End Must be easy to read and easy to understand
Tell them three times
Introduction = Beginning
Assertion tell them what you are going to tell them,
Body = Middle
Evidence tell them,
Conclusion = End
Affirmation tell them again what you told them.
IMRaD
Introduction Methods Results and Discussion
Assertion
Evidence
Affirmation
The write order
For maximum clarity and consistency:

Methods Results Introduction Discussion Title Abstract
During your research After selecting target journal Write last
Abstract
Concise Describe problem(s) addressed Objectives/hypotheses Techniques; avoid details Most important results Concluding statement
Introduction
What problem was studied?

The answer to this question should be in your Introduction Beginning Middle End
Introduction Beginning
Sufficient background information

Puts your work into context
General
Specific
Comprehensive literature review Cite publications
Introduction Middle
Rationale
The reason(s) for doing this work? Why is it important? Justify your work
Explain how you addressed the problem Do not state results from your work
Introduction End
State the methods used Clearly and explicitly state specific aims of your study
Methods
Subheadings Past tense New methods must be described in sufficient detail that they can be reproduced Established methods can be referenced
Results
Use subheadings Past tense to describe your results Present tense when referring to figures and tables Do not explain the results Do not duplicate data among figures, tables and text
Display items
Present data quickly and efficiently Most significant result as a figure or table Keep it simple use separate panels if necessary Label all parts of figures Legends must be able to stand alone
Discussion
What do these findings mean?

The answer to this question should be in your Discussion Beginning Middle End
Discussion Beginning
Avoid just restating results Answer the research question(s) posed Emphasize the major finding(s) first What is your major conclusion, based on the results you have presented?
Discussion Middle
Interpret your results

Compare with other studies
Same or different?
Unexpected results Briefly describe limitations

How could experiments be improved?
Discussion End
Restate major conclusion(s)

In summary or In conclusion
Possible applications and implications Suggest future work

Clinical and research priorities include furthering our understanding of the pathogenesis of M. pneumoniae-associated CNS disease, development of more reliable serologic assays, and defining the role of quantitative PCR in distinguishing acute infection from asymptomatic carriage and prolonged post-infection shedding Bitun & Richardson Curr Infect Dis Rep 2010, 12:282-290
A good reference list
Provides relevant information to the readers Self-citations Old references 75% of references from last 5 years
Coverage Hints and and tips Staffing Plan
Section Four
Clear communication Language Cover letters Responding to reviewers
Information is easier to interpret when placed where most readers expect to find it Good writers are aware of these expectations Readability
Coverage and Hints and tips Staffing Plan
1. Verb placement
Readers expect verbs to closely follow subjects
Sentence
Subject
Verb .
Subject and verb far apart = poor readability
1. Verb placement
Readers expect verbs to closely follow subjects
Sentence
Subject Verb Verb .
Subject and verb far apart = poor readability
Avoid reader confusion
Readers become confused if subject and verb are separated by too much content
The smallest of the URF's (URFA6L), a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the [NH2]-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene, has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H-ATPase subunit 8 gene.
Avoid reader confusion
The smallest of the URF's is URFA6L, a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the [NH2]-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene, has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H-ATPase subunit 8 gene.
The smallest of the URF's (URFA6L) has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H-ATPase subunit 8 gene; URFA6L is a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the [NH2]-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene. We identified the smallest of the URF's (URFA6L) as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H-ATPase subunit 8 gene. URFA6L is a
Which voice?
Use the active voice as much as possible

Blood samples were collected from 256 patients. We collected blood from 256 patients.
2. Active voice
Subject Verb
Active
Sentences written in the active voice are:

Simple Direct Clear Easy to read
3. Stress position
Readers focus on information at the end of a sentence.
Subject
Verb
take-home information
.
Stress position
The dog sat when her mistress offered a treat. The dog sat when a treat was offered by her mistress. When the mistress offered her a treat, the dog sat.
Readers, without thinking, concentrate on the end of a sentence.
4. Topic position
Readers expect a sentence/phrase to be a story about whoever shows up first
Topic position
Subject Verb
Stress position
.
Topic position
sentence idea Topic link idea idea
idea
Linkage and context

The family went into the courtyard to see the new puppy. The dog sat when her owner offered a treat. Everyone was so excited they broke into applause. However, as the courtyard was situated right next to my bedroom, the sound woke me from my sleep.
Readability
only 4% of readers understand a 27-word sentence the first time
Consider the reader

Only need to read once Do not have to read slowly Can understand author logic immediately
Sentence length
We examined numerous peer-reviewed journals Easy to read articles had an average sentence length of 17 words Sentences that are 1520 words One sentence: one idea
Goals to aim for
Maximum 2530 words per sentence Not more than four 30-word sentences in the whole manuscript Think about reader expectation and match the expectation with the contents
Simple is best
Simple language is best Makes your science more relevant Minimizes confusion maximizes understanding Science is complex Use simple language to help more people understand your work
Before you submit
Register online Cover letter

Potential referees Potential editors
Declare conflicts of interests Format and resolution of graphics files Copyright and payment forms
Write a cover letter!
Competition for publication space and editors attention is very high

Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled Techniques to detect circoviruses in Australian bird species by Raye et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Virology Methods Online. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Warren Raye, PhD
This is a poor cover letter
Why are cover letters important?
Introduces manuscript to editor Acts as a guide for editor Sells your work Speeds up publication process
Your cover letter
Address to editor personally State manuscript title and publication type Brief background, rationale, description of results Explain importance of your results Why would your findings be of interest to the journals target audience?

Dear Dr Graeber,
An effective cover letter
Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled Amyloid-like inclusions in the brains of Huntingtons disease patients, by McGowan et al., which we would like to submit for publication as a Research Paper in Neurogenetics. Recent immunohistochemical studies have revealed the presence of neuronal inclusions containing an N-terminal portion of the mutant huntingtin protein and ubiquitin in the brain tissues of Huntingtons disease (HD) patients; however, the role of these inclusions in the disease process has remained unclear. One suspected disease-causing mechanism in Huntingtons disease and other polyglutamine disorders is the potential for the mutant protein to undergo a conformational change to a more stable anti-parallel -sheet structure To confirm if the immunohistochemically observed huntingtin- and ubiquitin-containing inclusions display amyloid features, we performed Congo red staining and both polarizing and confocal microscopy on post-mortem human brain tissues obtained from five HD patients, two AD patients, and two normal controls. Congo red staining revealed a small number of amyloid-like inclusions showing green birefringence by polarized microscopy, in a variety of cortical regions.... .detected inclusions observed in parallel sections, suggesting that only a relatively small proportion of inclusions in HD adopt an amyloid-like structure. We believe our findings would appeal to a broad audience, such as the readership of Neurogenetics. As a wide-reaching journal publishing original research on all aspects of neuroscience Please address all correspondence to.
Give the background to the research
What was done and what was found
Interest to journals readers
Peer review improves your manuscript

Rejection Acceptance Minor revision Major revision
Few papers are accepted without revision Rejection and revision are integral Peer review is a positive process
Politely respond to all comments in a response letter Make it easy to see the changes Refer to line and page numbers Different color font Highlight the text
Revision
Conduct additional experiments and analyses as suggested

If this is impossible, you must explain why
You can disagree with reviewers, but provide evidence (cite references)
Agreement
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results. Response: We agree with the reviewers assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function makes it impossible to fully interpret the data in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in its current form it would be difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We have redone the analysis using a Gaussian fitting function.
Disagreement
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results. Response: We agree with the reviewer that a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies. However, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al, 1998]. We have added two sentences to the paper (page 3 paragraph 2) to explain the use of this function and Smiths model.
Cryptic questions
The authors hypothesized to look for the pharmacokinetics of the insulin using this 4 mm needle; However they didn't do bioequivalence analyses for glucose pharmacodynamics. That is one of my concerns about this methodology.
Cosmetic changes
Understanding reviewer comments
The English needs to be improved Your writing is difficult to understand
Grammar & spelling Long, complex sentences and paragraphs Gaps in the logic Poor manuscript organization Too much information
Online resources
Edanz edanzediting.com Springer Exemplar www.springerexemplar.com/ Google Scholar scholar.google.com/ Purdue Online Writing Lab owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/
Free resources
Free resources
Edanz Journal Selector
Help your readers understand
If you cant explain something simply, you dont understand it well. Albert Einstein
Write to express not impress Consider your audience their native language may not be English
Thank you Good luck!
Any questions?
global@edanzediting.com
Contact Edanz
edanzediting.com
Downloads and further reading
@JournalAdvisor
Follow us on Twitter
facebook.com/JournalAdvisor
Like us on Facebook

Springer - How To Author

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Springer - How To Author

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Author Academy how to write and get your science published

Warren Raye, PhD Senior Editor Edanz

Customer Introduction Service

Senior Life Sciences Editor

Customer Introduction Service

Adopt a winning strategy

Exchange ideas globally

Clear communication is essential

Your research is not complete until it has been published!

You must publish in English

The submission process

Manuscript + cover letter

New experiments Improve readability Add information

Accepted publication! Revision

312 months Why so long?

Peer review improves your manuscript

Journal editors and reviewers ask themselves

Is the manuscript novel? Is the manuscript of interest to our readers?

Aims & Scope Target Audience

What do journal editors want?

Multiple submissions Plagiarism

Author contribution Data fabrication/falsification Conflicts of interest

Before you start

Read Study design Journal selection Evaluate significance

Before you start

Both sides of the brain are essential Work in harmony

Reading and writing are connected

Before you start

Reading improves your writing

Discuss with colleagues

Assists with journal selection Ideas for next manuscript

Before you start

How to read an article

Start to finish? Section by section? Efficiency Where is the relevant information?

Before you start

How to read an article

Before you start

Before you start

Sample sizes (n) large enough? Which statistical test(s)?

When in doubt talk to a statistician! Ethics approval

Before you start

Before you start

Choosing a target journal

Journal selection must be based on an honest evaluation of your manuscript

Aims & Scope Target Audience

Before you start

Choose your target journal:

Before you start

What is your publication goal?

Which factor is most important to you?

Before you start

Evaluating significance: novelty

How new are my results compared with those already published?

Low to medium impact

Medium to high impact

Before you start

Evaluating significance: relevance

Before you start

Evaluating significance: appeal

Is my work in an area of popular appeal? Examples:

Before you start

Reasons for rejection: the science

Before you start