The Book of Writing a Scientific Paper_clone

Chapter 6 How to TurnThesis into an Article 6.0. How to Turn Thesis into an Article • Read the aims and scope of the journal and make sure that paper is in the journal’s scope. If research falls outside of the aims and scope, look for a more suitable home for paper.* • Check the journals’ recommended structure and reference style for articles on its website typically found in information for authors’ section to ensure that the paper is not desk rejected. 6.1. The main differences between a thesis and an article: 6.2. Seven Tips for Converting Terminal Degree for Journal Publication Tip 1: Shorten the length of thesis • Journal articles are much shorter than theses/dissertations/capstones, so be sure to use a tighter frame work and a more compact style: 1. Treat the thesis as a separate work. 2. Paraphrase and express the same ideas in different ways. 3. Select and repurpose parts of the thesis. 4. Highlight the key points that, want the readers to understand. Tip 2: Reformat the introduction as an abstract • Abstracts in journal articles are typically shorter (100-250 words) and likely formatted differently, but should contain all the key elements to hold the reader’s attention. • Using introduction and discussion as bases for the abstract can be a good starting point but there are some differences between introduction and abstract. 51

Tip 3: Modify the introduction • Thesis may have more than one research question or hypothesis, which are not all relevant for the paper. Consider combining research questions or focusing on one for the article. • Unless otherwise suggested, keep the introduction short and straight to the point. • Use previously published papers (at least three) from the target journal as examples. Tip 4: Tighten the methods section • Keep the method section succinct, there is no need for an extensive discussion about the research approach. • Use previously published papers (at least three) from the target journal as examples. Tip 5: Report main findings in results • Present the findings relevant to the research question(s) in the results section. • If the publisher conducted exploratory analyses, provide concise statements of the findings. Tip 6: Ensure discussion is clear and concise • Begin by providing an interpretation of the results: What is it that has learned from the research? • Do not repeat the results in the discussion section: 1. Situate the findings to the literature. 2. Discuss how the findings expand our perspective. 3. Briefly present ways in which future studies can build upon the work and address limitations in the study. Tip 7: Limit number of references • Journals limit the number of citations, so make sure: 1. To choose the most relevant (and recent) citations. 2. That the citations are formatted correctly. • Consider using a reference manager system (e.g. Mendeley) to make life easier. * For a quick check of where to submit the article, use platforms such as the Elsevier Journal Finder. 52

Chapter 7 Stating your case: A seven point checklist for writing your Case Report 7.0. Case Report A case report is the description of clinical observations in a single patient (or sometimes a small series of related or similar cases). Case reports had and have an important role in clinical medicine in general, and in the field of infectious diseases (Kurzai and Gow, 2012). They provide a valuable source of information, especially for rare and unusual infections which have no available guidelines or standard textbook approaches to management. Case reports teach doctors how fellow practitioners have acted in comparable and perhaps difficult-to-decide situations. Therefore doctors should be encouraged to summarize their experiences in case reports. 7.1. Some guidelines for creation and publishing case reports. 7.1.1. If a doctor has an interesting case, write it up and publish The important first step is: Take the time to write up and publish the interesting case! There are several advantages to this: • Case report will aid in the decision making process of a colleague who is perhaps faced with a similar patient. • Case report might contribute to, and form the basis of, important clinical developments, e.g. the discovery of a potential novel clinical entity in allergic diseases related to fungi (Singh et al., 2012). • Case report can be an important first step to stimulating discussion about treatment methods of particular patients. 7.1.2. The patient is partner – consent is required A case report is the thorough description of an individual patient’s clinical course; therefore, it will always contain information that could potentially be traced back to the patient. This is the reason that informed consent is required for publication of a case report. Frequently, the authors are convinced that their case report is “anonymized” and does not present “any information that could be used for identification”. This is almost always never the case. Kleinert and Wagner (2012) from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) have stated that “for all case reports, small case series, and images of people, editors should require the authors to have obtained explicit consent for publication (which is different from consent to take part in research). This consent should inform participants which journal the work will be published in, make it clear that, although all efforts will be made to remove unnecessary identifiers, complete anonymity is not possible, and ideally state that the person described has seen and agreed with the submitted paper. There may be exceptions where it is not possible to obtain consent, for example when the person has died. In such cases, a careful consideration about possible harm is needed and out of courtesy attempts should be made to obtain assent from relatives.” These guidelines should be taken seriously, and it is mandatory that informed consent prior to publication is documented. This is the obligation of the author. In many cases patients will be very willing to agree when taking into account that this may help other patients who experience similar manifestations of disease. Can there be exceptions to this? According to Kleinert and Wagner “In very rare cases, an important public health message may justify publication without consent if it is not possible despite 53

all efforts to obtain consent and the benefit of publication outweighs the possible harm.” However, this clearly is a rare exemption. For a standard case report, the advice is to see your patient as a partner and ask for written informed consent! 7.1.3. Select a journal specializing in case reports Before the advent of online publishing and the founding of new journals focusing on case reports, publishing single case observations was a difficult task. Case reports are often not as well cited as other published items. One would argue that case reports are most valuable if they are part of a repository of many related cases accessible by good searching tools. Therefore, from a user’s point of view, specialized case report journals fulfilling this criterion seem an optimal choice. Clearly this will also make the reviewing process easier as rejection solely due to the fact that a case report is a case report will not occur. Therefore – whenever possible – go for specialized case report journals! Publishing here will ensure that your work is read by all the right people. 7.1.4. Use a timeline to guide the reader To make a case report intuitive, it is of paramount importance that the clinical course of the case is evident. When preparing a report, you should draft the timeline and sort all important events according to it. For example, when publishing case in MMCR it is required to define a “day 0” (e.g. day of hospital admission, day of first symptom) and give all other dates in reference to this fixed point (e.g. blood cultures were taken at day +5, intervention xy was performed at day +10, history of the patient included bacteremia with Staphylococcus epidermidis at day -15). For readers that try to deduce information on how the specific case has been handled, the timeline is crucial. 7.1.5. A picture is worth a thousand words – show important findings as images Everyone knows that a picture is worth a thousand words and this is probably not exaggerated for many case reports. Online case report journals like MMCR offer the option to include an unlimited number of (colored) pictures at no cost. Important pictures can include photographs of lesions, radiographies, results of functional tests, histopathology and many more. As an author should select the most important ones and add them to the case report. Other technical advances that are very useful to a reader are the Virtual Microscope and the integration of movies into case reports. Use these unique opportunities to make the case clearer for the reader. 7.1.6. Include a rationale for the decisions Managing complex and difficult clinical cases will always mean making decisions. Sometimes these decisions are based on external information like guidelines (or other case reports), and sometimes they are based on the knowledge and personal experience of the treating physician. Retrospectively, these decisions may not turn out to be optimal or sometimes they are even wrong. Case reports are especially helpful in these very situations. However, to allow future readers to do better, (if at all possible), and clearly state the rationale. This expert decision process description is an integral part of a case report. 7.1.7. Discuss the case – know the literature A case report is short. It is not designed to be a lengthy review of all available information. However, for putting together a high quality case report, it is mandatory to thoroughly search available literature for published cases of similar diseases or for clinical studies related to the case. This information should be presented in the discussion. Items like tables summarizing related cases can be extraordinarily helpful and greatly improve the quality of a case report. However, this should not be mixed up with the old “case report and literature review” strategy, which is, to publish case reports as reviews and reduce the presented case to a short teaser for a literature review. Restrict the report to the important information but take the time to acquaint with the literature. 7.2. A brief guide for writing case reports • Description of an individual clinical case 54

• Detailed outline of symptoms, diagnosis, treatment decisions, outcome • Discuss related cases / differential diagnosis / treatment options Which case should be published? • In past, journals often asked for unique features, first descriptions of new entities or significant contribution to medical knowledge, some journals still do… • Nowadays: specialized case reports journals (like MMCR) with focus on the educational value of a case. 7.3. What makes a case-report interesting for publication? A unique case with either…… – an unusual, rare, perplexing presentation, – identification of a causative fungus not being reported before – a remarkable finding during the diagnostic work-up – the use of a new treatment modality – a surprising follow-up and/or outcome – unexpected complications – therapeutic challenges or dilemmas ……which is of interest and relevant for the rest of the medical (mycology) world with respect to lifelong learning aimed at improving recognition and management of consecutive patients. The very first steps • Discuss the case with medical team • Background research – Extensive literature search needed – ‘me too’ cases are not of interest • Getting permission and consent • Information gathering – Documentation of clinical presentation (signs & symptoms) and along the disease course – Clear results from diagnostic tests, including identification of fungus and susceptibility pattern – Detailed overview of treatment given and response – Formulate up to 3 bullet point messages on what you want to communicate Tell a story • Chronological order of events – She came in very ill......., we were afraid for……., therefore we tested if she had….., the test was positive…….., we changed our management approach…….., but unfortunately……., we had to amend…….. • Differential diagnostic considerations – Tell the reader the reasons for performing specific diagnostic tests • Clinical decision making process – Support for conditions considered – Support for additional investigations – Clear interpretation of diagnostic test results • Follow-up – End of story can range from ‘Full Recovery’ to ‘Death’ 7.4. How to prepare a case report MMCR style: 55

• Define a day 0 (e.g. day of hospital admission, first symptoms, etc.) • Give all other important dates in relation to this: • Sample taken on day 1 • Lab result reported on day 3 • Treatment initiated on day 4 / ceased on day 9 • History of travel abroad day-28 to -21 • Consider a graphical representation of the events on a time-line for complex cases Get the details right • Describe the activating signs and symptoms which have resulted in the differential diagnosis. – both positive and negative signs and symptoms • Describe actual values for blood test results if relevant for the next step in the decision making process – differentiate, not each test result need to be presented • Detail dosing of medications prescribed – variable to take into account with respect to outcome and complications 7.5. What about figures? • All like pictures! • Pictures tell more than a thousand words! • But it needs to have a function! – macroscopic and microscopic images if a new causative microorganism is identified – radiological images if activating sign in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of the patient – photographs of the patient (anonymized) when mucocutaneous disease, skin rashes, dysmorphologies, visible abnormalities during physical exam (e.g. severe inguinal lymphadenopathy; a red and swollen joint) 7.6. Attract attention • Title – Concise – Informative – Relevant – Attractive! 7.7. Attractive titles ‘Two cases of Emergomyces pasteurianus infection in immunocompromised patients in the Netherlands’ Versus ‘First two cases of Emergomyces pasteurianus infection diagnosed in the Netherlands’ ‘Treatment of cerebral mucormycosis with drug therapy alone: a case report’ Versus ‘Successful outcome of cerebral mucormycosis with drug therapy alone’ My favourite confirms that informed Case Report Journal consent has been given asks for informed consent 56

Do not reveal patient identity to the journal (e.g. by submitting the IC form with name and signature of the patient) Special circumstances: • Patient deceased (relatives), pediatric (parents) • Patient unavailable • Institutional general consent required from all patients (upon admission to hospital) 7.9. In which case can publishers publish without informed consent? • Important public health message • Impossible to obtain informed consent despite all efforts • Benefit of publication outweighs potential harm (Kleinert and Wagner, Committee on Publication Ethics 2012) 7.10. Which journal should I select? • Clinical Medicine Journals High reputation, Impact Factor Case Reports „unwanted“, high chances of rejection Often relatively long review processes • Case Report Journals Specialized in publishing case reports, no „default rejection“ Build case repositories easily accessible for readers (search functions) Often faster review process (e.g. MMCR ~2 weeks to first decision) No impact factor, reduced visibility of individual report 57

Chapter 8 Research and publishing ethics 8.0. Authorship, plagiarism and responsibilities 8.1. What does it mean to be an author? An “author” is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. Remember  Being an author comes with credit but also responsibility  Decisions about who will be an author and the order of authors should be made before starting to write up the paper W8h.2a.Tt iysppelsaogfiaaruistmhorasnhdiphow is it detected?  First author: the person who conducts or supervises the data collection, analysis, presentation and interpretation of the results and also puts together the paper for submission.  Co-author: makes intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contributes to data interpretation, reviews each paper draft, must be able to present the results, defend the implications and discuss study limitations. Avoid ghost authorship: excluding authors who participated in the work. Avoid scientific writers and gift authors: including authors who did not contribute to the work. What happens when there is a dispute?  It must be resolved by authors  Editors cannot adjudicate or act as judge  It delays publication as the editor has to get agreement from all authors about any changes  After publication it can be published as a correction but needs agreement from all authors with justification authorship A8u.t3h. oKreshyiapu: thor responsibilities  Report only real, un fabricated data  Originality  Declare any conflicts of interest  Submit to one journal at a time Avoid:  Fabrication: making up research data  Falsification: manipulation of existing research data  Plagiarism: previous work taken and passed off as one’s own 58

8.4. What is plagiarism and how is it detected? Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others’ research proposals and manuscripts  Cross Check is a huge database of 30+ million articles, from 50,000+ journals, from 400+ publishers.  The software alerts editors to any similarities between the article and the huge database of published articles.  Many Elsevier journals now check every submitted article using Cross Check. Work that can be plagiarized includes…  Words (language)  Ideas  Findings  Writings  Graphic representations  Computer programs  Diagrams  Graphs  Illustrations  Information  Lectures  Printed material  Electronic material  Any other original work 8.5 .Declare conflicts of interest  Conflicts of interest can take many forms:  Direct financial: employment, stock ownership, grants, patents  Indirect financial: honoraria, consultancies, mutual fund ownership, expert testimony  Career and intellectual: promotion, direct rival institutional  Personal belief 8.6. The consequences  Consequences vary depending on the misconduct and the journal, institutions, and funding bodies involved. Authors could:  Have articles retracted (carrying a note why they were retracted, e.g. for plagiarism)  Have letters of concern or reprimand written to them Institutes and funding bodies could carry out disciplinary action What distinguishes a good manuscript from a bad one? 8.7. A good manuscript ...is in scope 59

Investigate all candidate journals and find out about the:  Aims and scope Acceptedtypesofarticles Readership  Currenthottopicsbygoingthroughthe abstracts of recent publications ...adheres to publication ethics  Avoid plagiarism of others’ work  Avoidmultiplepublicationofthesamework,neversubmit themanuscripttomorethanonejournal at atime  Citeandacknowledgeothers’workappropriately Only list co-authors who made major contributions ...follows the Guide for Authors Sticktothe GuideforAuthorsinthemanuscript,editorsdo not like wasting time on poorly prepared manuscripts. 8.8. Article Structure 8.9. Illustrations Illustrations are critical, because...  Figures and tables are the most efficient way to present results  Results are the driving force of the publication  One picture is worth athousand words.  Captions and legends must be detailed enough to make figures and tables self- explanatory  No duplication of results described in text or other illustrations 8.10. Use proper manuscript language Publishers do not correct language; this is the author’s responsibility  Askanativespeakeror usealanguageeditingserviceto improvepaper before you submit it.  PoorEnglish makes itdifficult for theeditor and reviewers to understand the work and might lead to rejection of the paper.  Be alert to common errors: ✓ Sentence construction ✓ Incorrect tenses ✓ Inaccurate grammar ✓ Mixing languages  English language should be used throughout the manuscript, including figures, charts, graphs and photos. 60

Are you ready to submit? Roughly 35% of all submitted manuscripts are rejected before peer review. Make sure you revise before you submit. Do the findings advance understanding in a specific research field? Isthe work of interest to the journal’s audience? Is the manuscript structured properly? Are the conclusions justified by the results? Arethe references international/accessibleenough? Did you format the figuresandtablesproperly? Did you correct all grammatical and spelling mistakes? Make sure you are equipped! 61

Chapter 9 Reviewing manuscripts 9.0. What is peer review? Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued successfully with relatively minor changes for some 350 years. 9.1. Background Journals rely on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them. Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677). Despite many criticisms about the integrity of peer review, the majority of the research community still believes peer review is the best form of scientific evaluation. This opinion was endorsed by the outcome of a survey Elsevier and Sense About Science conducted in 2009 and has since been further confirmed by other publisher and scholarly organization surveys. 9.2. The peer review process 62

9.3. Types of peer review Peer review comes in different flavors: you must therefore check which variant is employed by the journal on which you are working so you’re aware of the respective rules. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal’s homepage or contact the editorial office directly. 9.4. Single blind review In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single blind review include:  Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers should not be influenced by the authors.  Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.  Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work. 9.5. Double-blind review Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.  Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, country of origin, academic status or previous publication history.  Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation. But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity.. 9.6. Triple-blind review With triple-blind review, reviewers are anonymous and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a way to minimize any potential bias towards the author(s). However, it should be noted that:  The complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable  As with double-blind review; there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly divine the author’s identity from their style, subject matter, citation patterns or a number of other methodologies 9.7. Open review Open peer review is an umbrella term for many different models aiming at greater transparency during and after the peer review process. The most common definition of open review is when both 63

the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review process. Other types of open peer review consist of:  Publication of reviewers’ names on the article page.  Publication of peer review reports alongside the article, whether signed or anonymous.  Publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) together with authors’ and editors’ responses alongside the article.  Publication of the paper after a quick check and opening a discussion forum to the community who can comment (named or anonymous). Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For three years, five Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) as articles alongside the accepted paper on Science Direct. 9.8. More transparent peer review In general transparency is the key to trust in peer review. Many journals therefore publish the name of the article’s handling editor on the published paper on Science Direct. Some journals also provide details about the number of reviewers who reviewed the article before acceptance. 9.9. Article transfer service: peer review cascade Journals' authors can transfer their article submission from one journal to another for free if they are rejected, without the need to reformat, and often without needing further peer review. For this reason, reviewers are informed about the service and are asked for their consent for transferring their review report along with the manuscript to the receiver journal. Reviewers are given the option to reveal their identity to the editor of the receiver journal or stay anonymous. The benefits of manuscript review cascades are twofold:  Reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for different journals.  Authors do not need to spend additional time reformatting their manuscript. 64

Chapter 10 How reviewers look at your paper – your top 9 questions answered 10.0. How reviewers look at your paper 10.1. How do editors choose the reviewers for any paper? Editors select reviewers based on their expertise on the topic of the paper. Most journals ask authors, at submission stage, to suggest potential reviewers which can really help the editor. However, publishers need to make sure that the reviewers they suggest are truly independent people, i.e. not authors' friends or close colleagues. The obvious researchers to suggest are the authors that cite in the article, or authors who have published on a similar topic. However, editors will never rely entirely on suggestions and will also use their own networks. One example of a popular editor resource is Elsevier's Find Reviewers Tool. If, for whatever reason, editors get really stuck, they often approach members of the journal's Editorial Board to help them out. 10.2. What is a reviewer looking for? First of all, reviewers see whether the paper is within the scope of the journal, whether the science is good, and whether the paper meets the \"conceptual novelty\" standards of the journal. Concerning conceptual novelty: it can be very useful for other researchers if you publish the melting point of a newly synthesized molecule, but such research is not conceptually novel; a totally new method of determining melting points would be. At a manuscript text level, one of the reviewer's priorities is to check the article's internal consistency. By that, they mean, do the method and results match? Do the results and conclusion match? A common weakness is that the different sections appear to have been written independently of each other. If the paper is cohesive it is elevated to a whole new level. Do you know the expression \"can't see the wood for the trees\"? The way often describe it is that authors have a tendency to look at the trees when they prepare a paper, whereas reviewers almost parachute into an article and can soon spot whether the wood is missing. Other items reviewers look for are appropriateness of the title, abstracts and conclusions, and references. They are NOT asked to act as copy editors of the manuscript. While reviewers are not responsible for detecting plagiarism, fraud and other ethics issues, in practice they often pick them up. The majority of papers submitted in EES (Elsevier Editorial System) are now also automatically loaded to Crosscheck, which uses i Thenticate software to check for textual overlap with the rest of the published literature (\"plagiarism\") back to the early 1990s. It also happens that fellow scientist's spot plagiarism or fraud in published papers and then they contact the journal. 10.3. Why does it occasionally take so long to get paper reviewed? Sometimes the editor has a problem finding reviewers, either because the researchers they approach are too busy or the field the author works in is quite niche making the pool of reviewer candidates very small. In other cases, there viewer who originally agreed to review does not deliver and the editor has to start again. It's worth remembering that editors may sometimes need to invite 10 reviewers just to get the two usable Reviewer Reports they need. 65

10.4. English is not the first language. Will that affect chances of publishing success? \"Language\" remains the responsibility of you as the author. If there are flaws in the language of a paper but the editor sees there is great science, then your paper will still make it into the review process. However, you may be asked to address the language later on in the process. 10.5. Paper shouldn't have been rejected. What can authors do? Although editors and reviewers can make mistakes (after all they are human!), manuscripts are not rejected without a reason. In the case of borderline rejections, at least three pairs of eyes (the editor and two reviewers) have had a look at the paper, and there was a convergence of opinion. On average, reviewers spend four hours reviewing the paper – that is eight hours' free, expert consultancy, something hard to ignore! The problem, and authors do understand this, is that authors are often too close to the text. However, you need to be able to take a step back. If author really think he has a case and that his paper should have been accepted, he can go back to the editor. But in the majority of cases, the reason authors do this is because they simply can't emotionally accept the rejection. If you do go back to the editor, be careful not to be personal in your comments – ensure your rebuttal is polite, scientific and fact-based. 10.6. Can authors resubmit the paper to a journal that has already rejected it? Generally, editors would suggest the authors do not; otherwise the editor would have invited them to resubmit in the non-acceptance letter. If the editor felt author's vision would have helped their paper, they would have indicated that the first time around. Unless the authors have made substantial changes to their submission, it would not be worth the effort. 10.7. Well, can authors submit that rejected paper to another journal in the field? Yes, after rejection authors are free to do with their manuscript whatever they want. Unfortunately, some authors submit their paper to another journal without making any changes, which is not smart: the new editor may send your paper to the same reviewers, who will not be amused if they find that you haven't made any of the changes they deemed necessary. The way to go is to look at why your paper was rejected, and to address those issues before resubmission. 10.8. Will the editor tell authors the names of the researchers who reviewed their paper? No, the reviewers remain anonymous. In rare cases, authors have come to us and have said that the reviewer improved their paper so much that they would like them listed as a co-author. Then the editor can approach the reviewer to find out whether they are happy to become known to the authors. 10.9. Why are the reviewer's comments to the editor not shared with the author? Well, the reviewers need to be able to tell the editor what they recommend. What if the recommendations of the two reviewers clearly differ? It's then down to the editor to make the final decision and having said that, it's not good if those confidential comments differ from the tone of the feedback contained in the Reviewer Report. 10.10. How to review manuscripts Peer review, role and responsibilities …is critical because it  Improves the quality of the published paper 66

 Ensures previous work is acknowledged  Determines the importance of findings  Detects plagiarism and fraud  Plays a central role in academic career development ...adheres to the principles that  It is a well understood concept  Without it there is no control in scientific communication  Journal editors evaluate and reject certain articles prior to external peer review 10.11. Why should you review? 10.12. Editors’ view: what makes a good reviewer?  Provides a thorough and comprehensive report  Submits the report on time  Provides well-founded comments for authors  Gives constructive criticism  Demonstrates objectivity  Provides a clear recommendation to the editor 67

Your ultimate checklist for reviewing a paper First impressions Results and discussion  Is the research original, novel and  Suggest improvements in the way data important to the field? is shown  Has the appropriate structure and  Comment on general logic and on language been used? justification of interpretations and Abstract conclusions  Is it really a summary?  Comment on the number of figures,  Does it include key findings? tables and schemes  Is it an appropriate length?  Write concisely and precisely which Introduction changes you recommend  Is it effective, clear and well  List separately suggested changes in organized? style, grammar and other small  Does it really introduce and put into changes perspective what follows?  Suggest additional experiments or  Suggest changes in organization and analyses point authors to appropriate citations.  Make clear the need for  Be specific – don’t write “the authors changes/updates have done a poor job”  Ask yourself whether the manuscript Methodology should be published at all  Can a colleague reproduce the Conclusion experiments and get the same  Comment on importance, validity and outcomes? generality of conclusions  Did the authors include proper  Request toning down of unjustified references to previously published claims and generalizations  Request removal of redundancies and methodology?  Is the description of new methodology summaries  The abstract, not the conclusion, accurate?  Could or should the authors have summarizes the study included supplementary material? References, tables and figures  Check accuracy, number and citation appropriateness  Comment on any footnotes  Comment on figures, their quality and readability  Assess completeness of legends, headers and axis labels  Check presentation consistency  Comment on need for colour in figures 68

Chapter 11 11.1. Is suitable for publication 1-Comment on novelty and significance 2-Recommend whether the manuscript is suitable for publication 3- Confidential comments will not be disclosed to the author(s) 69

11.2. Check list for authors and reviewers Reviewers should ask: Why sex and gender 11.3. The SAGER guidelines Standardized reporting guidelines can help to prevent errors and omissions, and improve accuracy, transparency, and completeness of research published, and reduces waste in research! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 70

11.4. Typical Peer review Process Have authors adequately addressed sex and gender dimensions or justified absence of such analysis? Diversity & inclusion in peer review 71

Noun. A range of many people or things those are very different from each other Other factors also bring diversity Age Same network of Gender reviewers Geographical location 11.5. Great Review (Elsevier editors share their 3 top -part reviewing tips) In this 3-part series published in Reviewers' Update, experienced editors highlight the ingredients required for a “great review” The wish of editors around the world, in every discipline, is to receive high-quality peer review reports, so the question to the journal editors' what advice they would offer reviewers. 3-part series, the steps should be taken when one receive a review request. 11.5.1. Part 1 ✓ Understand your position in the process Good peer review can improve communication and propel knowledge; bad peer review can have a negative effect just as powerful. As a reviewer, understanding your position in the peer review process can help you write better review reports. When manuscripts come in, editors first determine whether they are suitable to send for peer review, e.g. fit the aims and scope of the journal and contain all the expected elements. In most disciplines, reviewers can be hard to come by, so this desk rejection is an important way to avoid saturating the reviewers. Professor Christina Trautmann, Editor of Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, describes the steps she takes: “Once I receive a new manuscript submission, I first read the letter from the authors, read the abstract and scan over the text and figures. I then check the manuscript via iThenticate to see if there are text sections overlapping with existing papers. After considering experts and checking the referees proposed by the authors, I send the manuscript to two referees.” When the review reports come back, Professor Trautmann reads them carefully, sometimes revising the language before sending them on to the author. The authors then work on the revisions, and the revised version may be sent back to the reviewers, if major changes have been made. “Sometimes this process goes through several cycles until the reviewer recommends acceptance or finally rejection,” says Professor Trautmann. This process is typical across the board, with some editors opting for fewer or more reviewers for each paper, depending on the journal and discipline. 72

✓ The purpose of a review Together, the reviewers and editors act as a filter in the publication process. “Where to set the threshold line of this filter is difficult and requires great seriousness, instinct and expertise,” comments Professor Trautmann. “If the threshold of the filter is too low, a field may suffer from too many ‘garbage’ publications, and if the threshold is too high, small scientific advances that sometimes trigger big knowledge steps may be lost.” So a key role of the reviewer is to help inform the editor and guide the process. “Reviews should help the editor decide if a paper makes a significant enough contribution and if we should publish it,” says Professor Urban Jermann, Co-Editor of the Journal of Monetary Economics. “If the reviewer’s evaluation is positive, we also see referee reports as a way to guide revisions of a paper.” And there’s also another purpose, he says – one that’s important for reviewers to remember. “It’s a social contract that reviewers are willing to spend the time to review others’ work,” explains Professor Jermann. “Providing a forum for communicating about research, and in the process improving its quality, is a secondary objective of a journal, even for work that will end up being published elsewhere.” ✓ Are you the right reviewer? That being said, it may not be wise to review a manuscript on a topic too far from home. When authors receive an invitation to review, first check it’s in an area he' is comfortable evaluating – he should be sure he could contribute a high quality review. Editors appreciate it when he replies immediately, either accepting or declining with suggestions for alternative reviewers. This helps them in the time-consuming process of finding the right reviewers. “It’s important to select reviewers carefully; this is something spend a lot of time on,” says Professor Jermann. “Reviewers should be knowledgeable in the area. We usually only go for one referee report, and perhaps a second if the decision is unclear; this means that as editors we have to spend more time selecting the right referees. Reviewing is time intensive and requires that people are willing to write the reports.” If author is a willing and able reviewer, he could benefit greatly from taking part in the process, as Professor Marijn Janssen, Co-Editor-in-Chief of Government Information Quarterly explains: “Incentives are important – if reviewers do a good job, they can join the editorial board. If they’re really good, they might become an associate editor or an editor. It’s important to let people know that they can progress with the journal if they do good work.” ✓ Reviewing - the basics Understand your position in the process: you can improve scientific knowledge through review  Do a good job as a reviewer and you could progress with the journal  Respond to the invitation immediately  If you decline to review, suggest alternative reviewers  If you accept, do your homework: get to know the journal first  Invest time in the review: read, sleep, write, sleep, recommend ✓ Prepare to write the report So you’ve received the invitation to review, you understand your position in the process and you’ve decided to accept, replying immediately. What now? First, get to know the journal. What are its aims and scope? Who reads it, and what sort of papers are the editors interested in? “When editors read a review report, he looks for indications that the manuscript contains valuable and new information which is of interest for the readers of the journal,” says Professor Trautmann. Knowing the journal helps you highlight this information in your report. 73

Read through any reviewing guidelines the journal. If there is a template or list of questions, have a copy handy before you get started. Then grab a coffee and make time for the review. “Reading the paper, not just the day you want to write the report; read it before you plan to write, and think about it,” advises Professor Jermann. “This is a tip I got when I was a reviewer myself – take time to absorb what’s in a paper and develop your own perspective on it. Read it first, write up later and decide your recommendation last.” 11.5.2. Part 2 ✓ Take your time when reviewing Why reviewers should take time when reviewing, and how their review can help to improve the quality of research in the author's field By Lucy Goodchild Time is of the essence when it comes to academic publishing – as an author you want to publish your paper as fast as possible, and as a reviewer you want to avoid holding up the process. Editors set deadlines to give authors the quickest possible publication times, but one of their most common complaints is that reviewers don’t stick to those deadlines. “People are busy, so only a few reviewers meet the deadline,” says Professor Marijn Janssen, Co- Editor-in-Chief of Government Information Quarterly. “A good review takes time – it’s almost like writing a paper yourself. But authors expect a quick turnaround so there is some conflict there.” But the answer is not to shortcut the review, according to Professor Cynthia Baldwin, Co- Editor-in- Chief of Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology: “Poor reviews are ones when they just write a few sentences saying it’s not a good paper, just to get it off their to do list. That’s not helpful for anyone involved.” If you decide that you’re unable to meet the editor’s deadline, then decline as soon as possible so they can approach an alternative reviewer and be sure to recommend someone suitable. If you can review by the deadline, be prepared with any specific guidelines, and set aside time to read the paper properly. Even if you consider the manuscript to be low quality, your review still has to be good quality. “It’s not enough for me to get a report with a paragraph saying it’s not good,” says Professor Urban Jermann, Editor of the Journal of Monetary Economics. “There has to be some substance – if it’s not a good paper, it’s always best to suggest how it can be made better, or what related area it could be moved into. Reviewers have already spent time reading, so it’s low-cost for them to take just a little more time and give useful recommendations.” ✓ Reviewer overall opinion helps the editor “When reviewers read the paper, they have to master the domain before they can provide a good review,” explains Professor Janssen. Summarizing the paper at the start of your review is one way to show your understanding to the editor, and also to the author – if your summary suggests that you have misinterpreted their research in some way, the author can go back and make sure their manuscript is clear. After reading and summarizing the research, you will be able to comment on the manuscript in general. Does the research fit with the journal’s scope? Is it within the journal’s remit? For example, if the journal has a policy focus, does the research have a policy angle? This is where some journal-specific guidance will come in handy: Journals have guidelines available online for authors, which can also be helpful for you as a reviewer. Some have even more detailed instructions, for example, the Journal of Ethnopharmacology (JEP) has a ‘Rules of 5’ document that describes top- level considerations for research to be publishable. “It makes reviewing easier – if a paper isn’t for the journal, you can just say it’s out of scope and refer the author to the guidelines,” says JEP Editor- in-Chief, Professor Dr. Rob Verpoorte. 74

The next step is to look at the research itself and determine its value for the journal and the people who read the journal. Does it have enough of an impact? Is the research relevant, and does it add sufficiently to our collective knowledge? This is where your interpretation may differ to that of the authors, so it’s important to look at the validity of the results. According to Professor Dr. Verpoorte: “ As long as the experimental design and results are correct, they will be correct forever. The result always has a meaning; you can adjust the interpretation of the results as the knowledge base builds, but the results themselves don’t change. The value lies in whether the work was done properly.” ✓ Positivity’s a plus: looking on the bright side helps authors If you don’t think the paper is good enough to be published, your review is still valuable: don’t dismiss its importance. “There are some hostile reviewers, and some just say ‘this is a terrible paper, I’m not wasting my time reviewing it’,” says Professor Baldwin. “That’s not helpful to anyone involved. Try to be constructive - your review can be really helpful to the authors as well as to us as editors.” While it’s important to be honest when sharing your opinions about the paper, you have to stay positive, says Professor Janssen: “Reviewers are trained to focus on the negative, but what really helps is to highlight the strengths. Your view on the paper and the research may be different from that of the authors; if you encourage the authors, it motivates them to improve their research.” ✓ What makes a good reviewer?  According to Elsevier’s Get Published Quick Guide a good reviewer:  Provides a thorough and comprehensive report  Submits the report on time  Provides well-founded comments for authors  Gives constructive criticism  Demonstrates objectivity  Provides a clear recommendation to the editor Go easy on the suggestions, though. “Sometimes you get the impression that reviewers want to become co-authors – take over the paper and tell the authors what to do,” comments Professor Jermann. “If a paper is really not good, the review report doesn’t have to be very long but it should explain the reviewer’s opinion. If the paper looks promising, the reviewer’s suggestions for improvement become even more valuable.” In the end, it’s the authors – and, ultimately, the published research – that will benefit most from your review. “Reviewers should be respectful of people trying to do a good job – all are here to help each other, and reviewers can help improve authors’ skills,” explains Professor Dr. Verpoorte. “You are not only reviewers, but at the same time teachers. People don’t make mistakes on purpose, so if you teach them, the next time they will submit a better paper.” He adds: “It’s for everybody’s benefit; everything you do contribute to the strength of the field.” 11.5.3. Part 3 ✓ Good Review Report In the final article in this series, we learn about the anatomy of a good review report Although the structure of peer review report may depend on the journal for which you’re reviewing, to a large extent it will follow a standard structure, just like research articles do. “There is a good standard way to set up a review, and if people stick to that it tends to result in a good review,” says Professor Cynthia Baldwin, Co-Editor-in-Chief of Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology. “It starts with a small paragraph – a few sentences summarizing the paper – 75

then moves on to address major points like experimental design and the interpretation of data, and finally minor points (for example, highlighting an incorrect figure number).” ✓ Learn more about this article series In Part 1 highlighted the steps you should take when you receive a review request. In Part 2 looked at the importance of taking your time when reviewing and how your review can help to improve the quality of research in your field. With this in mind, a review report can be structured into three main sections: 1. Summary and overall evaluation 2. Specific comments and improvement points 3. Recommendation ✓ Summary and overall evaluation Reviewers' review report should start with a short summary of the research – a few sentences, in your words, describing the main results. This will help reviewer determines whether the paper falls within the scope of the journal – one of the first things to consider when you’re reviewing, explains Professor Dr. Rob Verpoorte, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Ethnopharmacology. “We get 4,000 submissions a year, so if it’s possible to reduce these quickly by judging against criteria everyone can see, such as scope that improves the process.” After summarizing the research, you should include your general impressions of the paper, as Professor Baldwin explains: “The reviewer should talk about why it’s new or important, whether it’s a move forward in the literature, and whether it’s an incremental step or a new paradigm. Need to be confident in, and reliant on, what a reviewer is saying and, first and foremost, this shows that the reviewer understands the point of the paper.” You should comment on the general quality of the manuscript. Is the research sound? Is the paper well put together? If you have criticisms at this stage, be honest about them, and share your feedback with the authors too. According to Professor Christina Trautmann, Editor of Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, this is one of the main things reviewers could improve on: “Reviewers often provide severe criticism directly to the editor, simultaneously being soft in the comments to the authors. It’s much more helpful to the authors if they get honest feedback from reviewers – that way, they can improve.” ✓ Specific comments and improvement points The second section of the report should highlight issues the author needs to address in the paper to make it publishable. This section can be divided into two parts, says Professor Baldwin: “A review should include a combination of major and minor points. Some people focus on the minutiae – typos and grammar – but I want to know if the paper is worth publishing.” Starting with major comments, work through the manuscript and commenting on each section of the paper. As you make comments, be sure to provide possible improvements. “Distinguish between general, factual and preference errors,” advises Professor Marijn Janssen, Co- Editor-in-Chief of Government Information Quarterly. “If it’s your subjective opinion, then say that. If it’s a factual mistake, be clear about it.” Once you have provided all of your major comments and suggestions, move on to more specific, minor points, like spelling and grammar. “We really don’t like sloppy papers – ones that contain a lot of mistakes,” says Professor Janssen. If there are substantial errors in the paper, mention this as a point about quality in your summary. For small mistakes, specify them as minor corrections in this section. Finally, take a look at the list of references. Reviewing references can be a cause for concern for editors – while a good review points to missing literature, a bad one provides a list of the reviewer’s 76

own references. “It’s not good practice for a reviewer to take advantage of their role and push the authors to cite their own publications,” comments Professor Trautmann. She adds: “Provide clear and structured statements that help us navigate the manuscript.” Wherever possible, refer to line numbers, paragraphs and figure or table numbers when you make comments. It’s also useful to number your comments, helping the editor keep track and the author respond in a structured way. 11.6. Recommendation Make a clear recommendation “One of the biggest mistakes reviewers make is being too vague in their recommendation,” says Professor Trautmann. “We value your opinion, so be clear and direct about what you recommend.” Editors’ tips in a nutshell Summary and overall evaluation  Summarize the research in your own words  Give your general impressions of the paper  Be honest with the author Specific comments and improvement points  Provide major comments first, then minor comments  Include suggestions for improvement  Don’t push your own publications into the references  Be specific and precise – refer to line numbers 11.7. Diversity in peer review ✓ Advancing Sex and Gender Equity in Research 1 Why SEX and GENDER matter How the WISER guidelines can 2 help to address the gender bias in research 3 Role of peer-reviewers to improve sex and gender reporting ✓ Gender blind reporting is common! Sex or gender of subjects are not reported Data are not disaggregated by sex Analysis ignores any potential sex and gender differences: Overgeneralization ✓ Reasons for concern Lack of reporting of sex and gender aspects of research can cause harm. It reduces reproducibility and rigour, is costly and a waste of resources. It is also missed opportunity for innovation. 11.8. WISER guidelines Title and abstract  If only one sex/gender is included in the study, or if the results of the study are to be applied to only one sex /gender, is the title clearly stating that?  Does the abstract specify the sex of animals or any cells, tissues and other material derived from these and the sex and gender of human participants? Introduction  Have the authors looked at possible sex and/or gender differences reported previously in the literature? 77

Methods  Have sex and gender been taken into account in the design of the study?  Are adequate representation of males and females (and transgender is applicable) been ensured?  If not, have exclusion of one sex/gender have been justified? Results  Are data disaggregated by sex and/or gender?  Are sex- and gender-based analyses reported? If not, is lack of SGBA justified?  Are correct terms and indicators used in the analyses? Discussion  Are the implications of sex/gender on the study results and analyses discussed?  Is there a rationale for lack of it?  Are the implications of sex/gender analyses, or lack thereof, discussed? WHO WHEN? 11.9. All Stages of Research Study design, data collection, and analysis, reporting, real-life application  Apply to all research with humans, animals or any material originating from humans and animals  Apply to all disciplines whose results will be applied to humans Recommended Actions for Editors to Implement Reporting Policies 1. Adopt the guidelines as a formal policy in Instructions to Authors. 2. Screen initial submissions to determine if sex/gender is relevant to the topic; if so, has it been addressed adequately? 3. Ensure regular training of editorial staff. 4. Invite peer reviewers to consider sex/gender in the evaluation of manuscripts. 78

Chapter12 How to publish in scholarly journals 12.0. How to publish in scholarly journals 12.1. Introduction As researchers, we can make huge strides in advancing essential knowledge. The researchers' achievements can save lives and improve the way they live. If they’re ready to share their knowledge with the world, this booklet outlines the best opportunities for publishing the research – and for seeing it shared globally. The first question to ask is, ‘do researchers have a story to tell?’. Editors and reviewers look for original and innovative research that adds to their field of study, or immediately impacts patient care. This means that the conclusions must be sound and based on sufficiently robust data. Secondly, ‘is there an audience for my research findings?’. The more original and innovative research, the more people will be interested. Consider whether the research is of interest to a local, regional or international audience. Identifying the audience is a major factor in selecting the right journal to submit a manuscript to. 12.2. There are several types of research articles: 12.2.1. Letters and rapid or short communications are intended for the quick and early communication of significant or original advances, without including too much data or detail. 12.2.2. Review papers summarize recent developments on a specific topic, without introducing new data. 12.2.3. Full articles contain significant data, detail, developments and outcomes. 12.3. Research elements enable researchers to publish research output, such as data, software, methods, videos and much more, in brief, citable articles. If researchers are unsure which type of article to write, discuss their options with the supervisor or colleagues. The purposes of this book are to offer guidance for writing and publishing a full article. Once the researchers have decided to write a full article, follow the guidelines of the chosen journal, and the general guidelines for scientific writing outlined in the following sections. 12.3.1. Find the right journal Finding the right journal for the article can be the key to reach the target audience. • Take into consideration the type of article researchers would like to publish (full length, letter, review, research output). • Check the references, to give an indication of possible journals of interest. • Read the journal’s aims and scope on the journal homepage. • Read or download the journal’s Guide for Authors. • Check if the journal is invitation-only; some journals only accept articles after inviting the author to submit. • Check the journal’s performance for review and publication timelines. • If the researchers need to publish open access, remember that most journals explain their open access options on the journal homepage. • Submit paper to only one journal at a time. 79

12.4.2. Journal Finder The Journal Finder tool locates journals that most closely match authors' abstracts. Many journals will be recommended if it has published articles that highly similar to article. A list of relevant articles is generated, and the tool can filter on the preferred criteria, such as open access options, journal metrics, review time, acceptance rate and production time. 12.4.3. Journal Metrics Journal metrics are at researcher's disposal to help them select the most appropriate journal for their articles. When used alongside information about the journal’s scope, editorial board, international outlook and audience, can help you to find the best destination for the research. 12.4.3.1. Different types of journal metrics It’s good practice to look at more than one metric to help researchers make the decision. They’ll find a dedicated Journal Insights section on many of the journal homepages, giving information about the journals: • Speed – review speed and online publication time • Reach – geographic location of corresponding authors and journal usage • Impact – impact metrics based on citations received by articles 12.4.3.2. Citation-based impact metrics The average impact of all the articles in a journal is often used as a proxy for the impact of a specific article – especially when the article hasn’t yet had time to accumulate its own citations. It’s important to take this kind of proxy metric into consideration. The Journal Insights section on the homepage has Several impact metrics to be aware of. (eg. Elsevier.com journal) Cite Score* SNIP SJR Impact Factor Full name Cite Score Source-Normalized SCI mago Journal - Impact per Paper Rank Average number of Measures citations received Citations relative to Average prestige Average citations in a calendar year average for discipline; per publication, per publication by all items SNIP > 1 means depending on the published in that journal is cited more SJR of the citing journal in the than average for field journal preceding three years. Accounts for varying Y Y YY Journal size? Accounts for varying behavior between N Y YN disciplines? Thomson Reuters Cite Score, SNIP and SJR are available on Scopus and can be Free of charge via Availability accessed freely Free of charge at journalmetrics.scopus.com individual journal Free of charge via individual journal homepages: Journal Insights homepages: Journal Insights. *NEW: Cite Score is a simple way of measuring the citation impact of serial titles such as journals. Serial titles are defined as titles which publish on a regular basis (i.e. one or more volumes per year). Cite Score calculates the average number of citations received in a calendar year by all items published in that journal in the preceding three years. 80

12.4. Open Access Options In general, open access indicates free and permanent access to published research, combined with clear guidelines for readers to share and use the content. There are two main types of open access: gold and green. 12.4.1. Differences between gold and green Access GOLD OPEN ACCESS GREEN OPEN ACCESS • Free public access to the final • Free public access to a version of the article published article • Time delay may apply (embargo period) • Access is immediate and permanent • No fee is payable by the author, as costs are • Open access fee is paid by the Fee author, or on their behalf (for covered by library subscriptions example by a funding body) • Authors retain the right to use their articles for Fee • Determined by the user license a wide range of purposes. All open versions of the article should have a user license attached 1. Publish in an open access journal 1. Link to the article 2. Publish in a journal that supports 2. selected journals makes the articles freely Options open access (also known as a available after an embargo period in the open hybrid journal) archives 3. Self-archive your manuscript E Biomedicine is a new open access journal that bridges basic science & patient care in collaboration with some funding bodies or institutions have a policy on public access to research. It’s important to know the open access policy of institution or funding body before the researchers decide whether or not to publish open access. Many Journals offers a wide range of publication options for the research to comply with funding policy or institutional mandates. 12.5. Prepare your paper 12.5.1. Title The title is the main advertisement for the article. A great title entices the audience to read on; a poorly-titled article may never reach its target readers. Authors' articles title should reflect its content clearly, enabling readers to decide whether it’s relevant for them. Make the title catchy and keep it specific. Leave out phrases such as ‘a study of’, ‘investigations into’, ‘and observations on’; and avoid using abbreviations and jargon. Remember, too, that abstracting and indexing services depend on accurate titles; they extract keywords from them for cross-referencing. 12.5.2. Essentially, effective titles: • Identify the article’s main issue. • Begin with the article’s subject matter. • Are accurate, unambiguous, specific and (when possible) complete. • Are as short as possible. • Are enticing and interesting; they make people want to read further. 12.5.3. Authors Only authors who’ve made an intellectual contribution to the research should be credited; those who’ll take responsibility for the data and conclusions, and who’ve approved the final manuscript. The order of credited names can vary between disciplines; the corresponding author may not always be the first author. 81

12.5.4. Keyword list Most journals request a list of keywords, important words that along with those in the title capture the research effectively. Keywords are used by abstracting and indexing services; choosing the right ones can increase the chances of the researcher's article being found by other researchers. Many journals also ask for a subject classification during the online submission process; this helps editors to select reviewers. 12.5.5. Abstract The abstract is the author's chance to describe their research in 200 words – so use it wisely. Together, the title and abstract should be able to fully represent the article, including for using by indexing services. Many authors write the abstract last, so it reflects the content accurately. The abstract should summarize the problem or objective of the research, and its method, results, and conclusions. Usually an abstract doesn’t include references, figures or tables. It should mention each significant section of the article, with enough detail for readers to decide whether or not to read the whole paper. While it’s great to make the abstract interesting, above all it should be accurate. Don’t promise more than the article delivers. 12.5.6. The body of the text Make the introduction brief. It should provide context and background, but not be a history lesson. It should state the problem being investigated, its contextual background, and the reasons for conducting the research. State the questions you’re answering and explain any findings of others that the researchers challenging or furthering. Briefly and logically lead the reader to the hypotheses, research questions, and experimental design or method. 12.5.7. Method (also called Materials and Methods or Experimental Methods) This section should be detailed enough that readers can replicate the research, and assess whether the methods justify the conclusions. It’s advisable to use the past tense – it’s about what the researchers did – and avoid using the first person, although this will vary from journal to journal. Ultimately, you should explain how you studied the problem, identify the procedures the researchers followed, and structure this information as logically as possible. If the researchers' methods are new, they’ll need to explain them in detail. If they’ve been published before, cite the original work, including the amendments if they’ve made modifications. Identify the equipment and the materials the authors used, specifying their source. State the frequency of observations and what types of data were recorded. Give precise measurements, stating their strengths and weaknesses when necessary. Name any statistical tests, so the quantitative results can be judged. If the research involved human participants, animals, stem cells or other biohazard materials, the researchers will need to include certain information in the ethics statement, such as committee approvals and permission to publish. 12.5.8. Results This section should present the findings objectively, explaining them largely in text. It’s where the researchers show how their results contribute to the body of scientific knowledge, so be clear and logical and it’s important not to interpret the results – that comes in the Discussion & Conclusions section. The researchers can base the sequence of this text on the tables, figures and graphs that best present the findings. Emphasize any significant findings clearly. Tables and figures must be numbered separately; figures should have a brief but complete description – a legend – that reveals how the data was produced. 12.5.9. Discussion & Conclusions 82

This is where the researchers describe the meaning of their results, especially in the context of what was already known about the subject. They can present general and specific conclusions, but take care not to summarize the article – that’s what the abstract is for. Researchers should link this section back to the introduction, referring to their questions or hypotheses, and cover how the results relate to expectations and cited sources. Do the results support or contradict existing theories? Are there any limitations? Also they can suggest further experiments, uses and extensions. Above all, the discussion should explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward. The conclusions must be supportable and not extend beyond the results, so avoid undue speculation and bold judgments about impact. This is also a good place to suggest practical applications for the results, and to outline what the next steps in the research will be. To summarize, make sure that: • The results directly support the conclusions. • Use specific expressions and quantitative descriptions – (‘12 degrees higher’ instead of ‘a higher temperature’.). • Only discuss what is defined early in the paper – don’t introduce the reader to a whole new vocabulary. If the authors missed an important term, go back to the introduction and insert it. • All interpretations and speculations are based on fact, not imagination. 12.5.10. Acknowledgments Keep acknowledgements brief, naming those who helped with the research; contributors, or suppliers who provided free materials. Researchers should also disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that could be seen to influence the results or interpretations. 12.5.11. References New research builds on previously published work, which should always be acknowledged. Any information that isn’t ‘common knowledge’, or generated by your experiments, must be recognized with a citation; and quoted text should be within quotation marks, and include a reference. The format of citations and references varies, so researchers should refer to the Guide for Authors for the journal they’re submitting to. 12.6. Language Quality A scientific article should report researcher's findings and conclusions as clearly and concisely as possible. To achieve this: • Try to avoid unnecessary words or phrases – keep it simple. • Use active writing when possible. For example, ‘Carbon dioxide was consumed by the plant’ is passive. Active writing shortens this phrase to, ‘The plant consumed carbon dioxide’ – which is much snappier. • Tense is important. For known facts and hypotheses, use the present tense: ‘The average life expectancy of a honey bee is six weeks.’ But use the past tense when referring to experiments that have conducted: ‘All the honey bees were maintained in an environment with a consistent temperature of 23°C.’ And also use the past tense to describe results: ‘The average life span of bees in our contained environment was eight weeks.’ Publication Journals have editing services to help ensure that the work is written in correct Scientific English before submission, and that the paper is free of grammatical, spelling, and other common errors. Translation services are also available from or into Chinese, Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, Turkish, Russian, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean and many more languages. 12.7. Illustrations Submitting any illustrations, figures or other artwork – like multimedia and supplementary files – in 83

an electronic format means that can produce the work to the best possible standard, ensuring accuracy, clarity and a high level of detail. Professional illustration services can create or polish images to match the exact needs and also support detailed full-color and photorealistic images from sketches, or convert existing images into more simplified line drawings. 12.8. Adding Research Data Research data forms the backbone of the research article and provides the foundation on which scientific, technical and medical knowledge is built. As a researcher, increasingly encouraged, or even mandated, to make the research data available, accessible, discoverable and usable. As an author, you can choose to store the data in a repository, like Mendeley Data: data.mendeley.com, to make the dataset independently citable and link it with article. You can also choose to submit a brief, peer-reviewed data article. The data article will be indexed and linked with the original research article. Be sure to cite the research data in the article. This ensures that receive credit for the work, while making the research data accessible, giving the readers deeper insights and supporting their work. 12.8.1. Data Visualizations Authors can enrich their article with interactive visualizations and provide context by adding references to (external) information sources, such as high resolution imagery viewer, geospatial maps and 3D models. This makes the research data and key findings comprehensible for the readers next to the article. 12.8.2. Data Statement Elsevier journals and many others provide guidelines on data sharing. There can be reasons why authors are not able to share their research data, for example due to confidentiality reasons. In this case the authors submit a data statement and it will appear next to the article and states the reason why the dataset is not linked to the article. 12.9. Enrich article Researchers can additionally prepare article enrichments which promote the research in alternative formats, such as a slide presentation, knowledge quiz or promotional video like Audio Slides. 12.9.1. Audio slides Audio Slides are short, webcast-style presentations, which allow researchers to present their research in their own words. Many journals offer the option of creating unique Audio Slides presentation which complements the research and provides readers with a short, succinct overview of the article content. This appears alongside the article once it is published on Science Direct platform, home to one-quarter of the world’s STM journal and book content. Audio Slides are free to access and easy to share, independently from the article, with colleagues, (influential) bloggers and on social media including YouTube. 12.9.2. Graphical Abstracts A Graphical Abstract is a visual summary of the main findings of the article that is placed as part of article in Science Direct and will turn up in online search result lists. It will help people to understand the key point of the article at a glance. Researchers can use Graphical Abstract as a promotional tool for example tweeting it, sharing it on social media or sending it to an (influential) blogger. Always add a link to the article. 12.10. Ethics Understanding the boundaries in scientific research and publishing is a key step in making sure the work gets off to the best start. Scientific misconduct and breach of publishing ethics can take 84

different forms, and be committed knowingly or unknowingly. Examples of misconduct and breaches include: 12.10.1. Authorship disputes – deliberately misrepresenting a scientist’s relationship with published work. 12.10.2. Competing interests – not disclosing to a journal that authors have a direct or indirect conflict which prevents from being unbiased. 12.10.3. Plagiarism – passing off another’s work or idea as its own. 12.10.4. Simultaneous submission – submitting a paper to more than one publication at the same time. 12.10.5. Research fraud – including fabrication (making up research data) and falsification (manipulating research data, tables or images). 12.10.6. Salami slicing – the ‘slicing-up’ of research that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers. The Ethics in Research & Publication Program is collaboration between journal and an independent panel of experts in research and publishing ethics. The program’s online resources and tools have been developed to help authors feel confident that they’re doing the right things. See ethics.elsevier.com. 12.11. SEO the article Search Engine Optimization (SEO) helps to ensure that the article appears higher in the results returned by search engines such as Google. This can mean you attract more readers, gain higher visibility in the academic community, and potentially increase citations. 12.11.1.Tips for SEO include: • Use keywords, especially in the title and abstract. • Add captions with keywords to all photographs, images, graphs and tables. • Add titles or subheadings (with keywords) to the different sections of the article. • Make sure that the place links to your article from relevant websites e.g. authors' institute’s website, Wikipedia, LinkedIn, blogs and social media. 12.12. Submit and revise the paper Once authors' have checked (and re-checked!) their manuscript, they’re ready to submit it to the journal editor via the submission and peer review system. 12.12.1. How to Submit a Paper? Submission is simple: direct links for registration and log-in can be found in the journals’ Guide for Authors. 12.12.2. Peer Review After submission, each manuscript is checked for plagiarism, and assessed carefully to determine if it fits the aims and scope of the journal. If journal representatives are enthusiastic about the work, the journal editor will appoint reviewers. 12.12.3. What does the peer reviewer do? Reviewers help determine the validity, significance and originality of the work, and can suggest improvements to the manuscript and the research. On their recommendation, editors will accept, accept with revisions, or reject a manuscript. To make good judgments, peer reviewers use their own checklists to evaluate the content for scientific value and originality, to see that articles adhere to general scientific practice as well as the journal’s specific guidelines, and check that referenced correctly. The peer reviewer will look closely at authors' methodology and the validity of the data, and consider the author's ethical approach and then recommend changes before the manuscript is published. 85

12.12.4. Different types of peer review Description Type of review Reviewer identity hidden from author; reviewer knows identity of authors Single blind (most common) Both reviewer and author remain anonymous to each other Double blind Reviewer and author are known to each other Open 12.12.5. Article Transfer Service Several journals operate a complimentary Article Transfer Service. The editor will offer this service if they feel the article fits better with another journal; with approval, your submission will be transferred there. 12.12.6. Check the Status of the Paper After submission authors can follow the status of the article in the (Journal) Editorial System (JES), using a reference number that they’ll receive by email. If the paper is accepted for publication, they can follow the publication status through to completion using the ‘track article’ feature. They’ll receive a reference number and link via email, after final decision. 12.13. After acceptance: Article in press, proofing, share link and offprints There are a few more things to consider that can optimize the publication of the work. Journals will do everything to have the article published as quickly and accurately as possible. 12.13.1.Articles in Press Accepted articles are published online on Science Direct as an ‘article in press’, and assigned an issue at a later date. Authors can track the article and citations throughout this process. 12.13.2.Proofing Accurate proofreading and clear marking of corrections are essential for the production of a quality article. As soon as the article has been typeset, authors will receive an email with either a PDF attachment of the article or a link to it on our online proofing system. 12.13.3. Share Link and Offprints Most of journals give authors a personalized link that provides 50 days’ free access to the final published version of their article on Science Direct. This link can also be used for sharing via email and social networks. Some journals provide offprints; an exact copy of the article published either on paper or as a PDF. Researchers can order paper offprints before publication, using the provided Offprint Order Form. If the journal doesn’t issue paper offprints as standard, author will pay a small fee. Once they’ve submitted the order form, they should allow 30-60 days for delivery of the offprints. 12.14. Copyright When researchers publish with any scientific journal, they enter into a legal agreement. This means that both Journal and researchers as authors agree to certain rights and responsibilities, and promise to act in a legally-sound manner. 12.14.1. Protecting author rights Copyright aims to protect the specific way the article has been written to describe the research and its results. Journal is committed to the protection and defense of its authors’ work and reputations. Journals take allegations of infringement, plagiarism, ethical disputes and fraud very seriously. 12.14.2.Publishing agreement In order to be able to publish and disseminate the article, Journals need certain publishing permissions. These permissions are defined by a publishing agreement between the author and the 86

publisher. Author will be asked to complete a journal publishing agreement or license during the time between the article’s acceptance and its final version. 12.14.3.End user license If authors have chosen to publish the article in gold open access, they also select an end user license to determine how readers can share and use the article without having to request permission. Journal offers a choice of commercial or non-commercial user licenses, so author can select the license which suits the type of research. (For Health & Medical Science journals there are different regulations; see elsevier.com/ open access licenses.) What is the license process? Step 1: Authors sign a publishing agreement where they will retain copyright but grant publishing rights to the publisher. Step 2: Readers can use and share the article as defined by the user license. Step 3: The authors' grants the publisher the right to publish the article under the applicable license. Step 4: The publisher makes the article available online with the author’s user license. AUTHOR USER LICENSE Retains copyright Publishes article under the user license PUBLISHER READER/USER Grants publishing rights Granted rights to reuse the article Before choosing an end user license, some journals recommend that author: • Understand what each user license permits, and the rights it grants to readers for using the article. • Check if the funding body or institution has a policy requiring the use of a specific license. • Read the Journal’s Guide for Authors to ensure it offers the license author want to use. • Visit the Creativecommons.org site for more information on what to consider before selecting a user license. (It’s important to note that author can’t revoke the chosen license.) 12.15. Promote the work More than one million scientific articles are published each year, and that number is rising. So it’s increasingly important for author to find ways to make the article stand out. Promoting the research does not begin after the manuscript is finished and has been published online. It should be on authors' mind even whilst they are doing it and writing up the paper. Promoting the research also continues after it has been published and tracking the performance of the promotion activities will help drive results. 15.15.1.Share the Paper Sharing the research and findings can help authors make a greater impact in their community, leading to better collaboration, new ideas and potential innovations. Millions of researchers have 87

access to the formal publication hosted on Science Direct, enabling users to find, access, and cite the research in its best available version. Publishers will send authors a ‘Share Link’: a personal, customized short link that they’ll receive after the final publication of the article. Publishers encourage authors to share this link on social media; anyone clicking on it gets 50 days’ free access to the newly published article on Science Direct. The more links there the article from a range of websites, the more readers that they’ll attract and the higher it will appear on search engine results. Many journals support responsible sharing and want to make it easy for authors to share their research. 12.15.2. Be Discovered Online It’s important that people can find links to the publications online. There are a few easy tools to help authors increase online visibility. If the authors have a personal page at institute, include links to the final versions of the articles on that page. They should also ensure that CV is available online, with links to the publications and can do this on the popular networking site LinkedIn, or on a personal website or blog. Finally, keep SCOPUS and ORCID author profiles up-to-date so others can find your journal. Authors can now update both at orcid.scopusfeedback.com. Just follow the easy online steps. 12.15.3.Conferences Presenting and networking personalizes the work, giving it a face and voice, and can create new opportunities for collaboration. Authors sure that they will connect with other delegates on Facebook and LinkedIn, and direct them to the website or blog. If they create a poster for a conference, post it on the website and provide links on the blog, social media profiles, online CV, or institutional page. 12.15.4.Social Media Every day, scholarly articles receive thousands of new mentions across social media, news and blogs; it’s a powerful medium for reaching the potential readers! However, they don’t have to be active on all social media. - It’s often the best to find one or two channels which suit the authors and their purposes. Some of the most widely-used media are Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. - Build up a group of followers and share links to the publications. - Enhance the posts with visuals and videos that attract more attention. And don’t forget to share the Audio Slides and Graphical Abstracts. 12.15.4.1. FACEBOOK Facebook is a popular social media tool, but you can also leverage it for professional purposes. You can share photos, status updates and links regarding your research with your Facebook friends. Recent research1 shows that the richness of the content that you share on Facebook raises the impact of the post, i.e. posting images and videos during business hours has a positive impact on Facebook likes and comments. You can also join groups catering for your field of expertise, connect with like-minded research professionals and use Facebook as a collaborative space to share with fellow researchers. Get started • Make a profile on facebook.com • If you want to keep your regular profile for only social purposes, create an author page for your professional endeavors • Invite fellow researchers to be a friend • Discuss ideas and carry out debates • Link to your articles 88

• Share images, videos and audio recordings, e.g. Audio Slides, and a Graphical Abstract • Recruit participants for research • Join groups related to your research field 12.15.4.2. WECHAT WeChat is a fast growing instant messaging social network in China, but you can also leverage it for professional purposes. This mobile-based app offers you a great way to share photos, status updates and links regarding your research with your WeChat friends. You can also join groups catering for your field of expertise, connect with like-minded research professionals and use WeChat as a collaborative space to share with fellow researchers. Get started • Install the app on your mobile phone • Sign up with your phone number and make a profile • Add your friends to your Contacts by scanning your mobile contacts or searching their WeChat ID, phone number, or QQ ID • Invite fellow researchers to be a friend • Discuss ideas and carry out debates in your groups • Link to your articles • Share images, status updates and links regarding your research • Ask your friends to add you to groups related to your research field 12.15.4.3. WEIBO Known as Chinese Twitter, Weibo is one of the most popular social network in China. It gives you a chance to share quick thoughts using no more than 2000 Chinese characters (4000 English characters), and 140 Chinese characters for re-posts and comments. Today, millions of people are active on Weibo. It’s a great way to share your current research, publications and links to new blog posts. Get started • Make a profile on weibo.com • If you want yourself and your research field to be discovered easier, apply for verification for your account • Follow other researchers and thereby increase your own following • Post regular content, e.g. links to hot papers, events and conferences • Respond promptly to direct messages and comments • Repost. By promoting other members of your community you are raising your own profile at the same time • Use images. A picture is twice as likely to be reposted as text 12.15.4.4. TWITTER Twitter is a news and social networking service where you can post messages and interact with others, using 280 characters or less. The platform is popular among academics and is an effective medium for promoting your work and discussing developments in the field. Get started • Make a profile on twitter.com • Follow other researchers and thereby increase your own following • Post regular content, e.g. links to hot papers, events and conferences • Respond promptly to direct messages and comments • Retweet. By promoting other members of your community you are raising your own profile at the same time 89

• Use images. A picture is twice as likely to be retweeted as text 12.15.4.5. WIKIPEDIA Wikipedia is the well-known, free, online encyclopedia where registered users can create and edit entries. Not everyone can have a Wikipedia page; once you’ve published several books and articles, and have gained a solid reputation in your field, you have a better chance of successfully obtaining one. Links to your article from a Wikipedia page will dramatically increase your SEO. You can try to include an entry with a link to your article on a relevant topic page. Wikipedia has many guidelines for writing an entry, so check its website for more details. Monitor your article After promoting your article, you’ll want to know how it’s been received. Elsevier helps you monitor your success in a variety of ways. 12.15.5. Sharing on a Scholarly Collaboration Network (SCN), such as Mendeley or Scholar Universe Services such as SCNs enable authors to showcase their work, providing fast and effective ways to collaborate and disseminate research. A number of SCNs are working together with publishers to help to showcase the work by sharing links to published journal articles on author profiles. Publishers encourage authors to share their research responsibly on SCNs. they can share their preprint or a link to the article. 12.15.6. Media Relations Many publishers like Elsevier, promotes selected research papers to the global scientific media. If authors think the article is interesting for a wider audience and/or would like more information about any of the above, contact the journal publisher. Remember also to get in touch with the press office at the institute to see what they can do to help the authors promote the paper. 12.16. Monitor your impact 12.16.1. Introduction It’s worth bearing in mind that the peers and tutors monitor the impact. Being aware of this helps authors to submit the article to the most appropriate place, and also position by proactively supplying information about the performance. Just like when they’re considering where to publish, the best approach to monitoring the impact to have multiple ways of assessing the performance. If they’re at an early stage in the career, they can use metrics that don’t require longer timeframes: 12.16.2.Collaboration – How big is the network? What’s the status of colleagues in the network? Where in the world are they located? 12.16.3. Scholarly output – how productive are authors? 12.16.4. Usage – how often have publications been viewed? 12.16.5. Article metrics – who’s talking about papers online and what’s being said? 12.16.6. Journal status – what’s the status of the journals that have published the work? The average citation impact of all the articles in a journal is a useful proxy for the impact articles will achieve when they’ve had time to accumulate citations. When the authors are at a later stage in the research career, with a sizeable output and an impressive number of citations, further metrics can then become useful: 12.16.7. Citation count – how many citations articles have received? 12.16.8. Outstanding articles – which of the articles are in the top percentile of comparable articles? 12.17. h-index – this rates the entire publication career based on both output and citation impact. (An h-index of 11 indicates that 11 of a researcher’s articles have each received at least 11 citations.) 12.17.1. MENDELEY stats 90

Any author who has published at least one article with Elsevier within the last 10 years will be invited to register for a personalized dashboard, offering: • Early feedback on how the publications are being downloaded, shared and cited based on Science Direct, Mendeley and Scopus. • Data about the geographic locations and research disciplines of the readers. • Detailed information about search terms used in Science Direct to find the publications. • A comparison of the performance of the article with other articles. • Have authors not been invited to register for the personal dashboard yet? • Don’t worry, as it will certainly happen soon. authors can also easily register via mendeley.com/stats. 12.17.2. Article metrics Article metrics allow authors to track and analyze online activity around the article. Online article mentions are monitored from social media sites (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Google+), science blogs, many mainstream media outlets (including the NY Times, The Guardian, non-English language publications like Die Zeit and Le Monde, and special interest publications like Scientific American, and New Scientist) and reference managers for mentions of academic papers. Via the journal homepages will show Top-10 lists of popular articles. Any article covered on Scopus will both show article metrics and percentile comparisons to articles of the same type and age. Metrics will only be displayed if data is available. 12.18. Why publish with Elsevier? 12.18.1. Introduction Of course, you’ll consider other publishers and journals for your article. Why Elsevier? Well, chances are that the leading journal in the field of expertise – Elsevier published thousands of journals and books, including many of the world’s most renowned titles such as Cell and Tetrahedon Letters and also continue to launch leading open access journals, such as E Biomedicine and Heliyon. 12.18.2. Innovation As a global information analytics business, Elsevier also pride the innovative approach, offering online services, article-based publishing and new types of open access publishing; including research elements, which allow authors to publish research output such as data, software, methods, videos, and looking for ways to make the articles easier to find, and to facilitate collaboration between researchers and authors. Article Enrichment provides authors with new tools to present the article: Share Link allows authors to share the work with a wide audience; and Mendeley Stats lets them monitor the impact in a new and detailed way. 12.18.3.Science direct Scientifics Journal publishes the article on Science Direct, leading information solution providing authoritative, full-text scientific, technical and medical content. By optimizing the platform and indexing all content, journal works to ensure that the article is more visible and can be found more easily by search engines, library discovery services, A&I databases, and other search and discovery tools. Authors' article will be accessible immediately after acceptance, and has a unique DOI (Digital Object Identifier) which will always link to the latest available version. Elsevier also participates in the multi-publisher initiative Crossruff, which creates direct links between the article and those that cite authors. The Cross Mark logo in online PDF or HTML documents helps readers to verify that they’re using the most recent and reliable version of the work. 12.18.4. Scopus Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature – scientific journals, books and conferences – and features tools to track, analyze and visualize scholarly research. Its vast database contains abstracts and references from more than 21,000 titles, obtained 91

from over 5,000 publisher's worldwide, ensuring broad interdisciplinary coverage in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences and the arts and humanities. For authors, Scopus can simplify the search for relevant full-text content and potential research partners with advanced search functions and email alerts on specific topics, people and institutions. Scopus lets authors: • Search for relevant topics or articles during the literature review phase.. • Decide where, and with whom, to publish – analyze the top journals and authors in the discipline. • Discover who is citing authors, see their h-index and output information. • Explore how many citations an article or author has received, and identify potential collaborators. • Find information to support the grant or other applications. Additionally, Scopus helps authors manage the research output and monitor the reputation. Just sign up to receive citation alerts to track when the work is cited in other articles; and use the Scopus Author Profile page to view and analyze the output, including the h-index. 12.18.5. MENDELEY Mendeley is a powerful reference manager and a Scholarly Collaboration Network with more than 6 million users. Create a free account to discover relevant research, connect and collaborate with the global community. Get started • Start a free account at mendeley.com and explore 12.18.9.LINKEDIN You can create a profile and post your latest accomplishments on the world’s largest professional network. You can enhance your profile by adding research findings, articles, images, videos, SlideShare presentations and audio recordings (for example, your AudioSlides presentation). You can also join relevant groups and connect with other researchers in your discipline. Get started • Create a profile on linkedin.com • Add a picture and your CV • Reposition the publication section to a more prominent position at the top of your profile • Include any relevant honors and awards • Enhance your profile with images, Graphical Abstracts, Audio Slides and video 12.18.7. PERSONAL WEBSITE Whereas LinkedIn is good for connecting and summarizing your research, your own website gives people a better sense of who you are. Create a personal professional website highlighting your research findings, achievements, publications and ambitions. Post videos or images to create a buzz around posters or conference presentations. Always include links to your articles, and link to your website in your email signature, and on all of your online and social media profiles, to get maximum exposure. You can also add links to your academic social networks, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and other accounts. Get started • Pick a url at which to register your website. Try your name or a combination of initials and last name. You can check availability of urls and register them on sites such as GoDaddy, or Domain Registry.com. • Once you’ve registered a url, you can start creating your website. Use a platform such as WordPress, Weebly, Yola or Jigsy. • Not all websites offer hosting, but WordPress, Weebly and Yola are among those that do. If a platform doesn’t offer hosting, you can find a commercial provider which does. 92

• Use keywords in the text and metadata to increase the number of visitors who find your page through search engine searches. • For more information see researcheracademy.com 12.18.8. BLOG Blogs are proven to be effective in promoting your research and having an impact. You can promote in-depth conversation via your blog, and build credibility by sharing information and responding to feedback from other researchers. Blogs require a regular time commitment. You may consider your blog a good exercise in learning how to communicate science to the public. Once you’ve started your blog, write regular updates to showcase your research undertakings and other topics of interest. Make sure you provide links to your journal articles and publications. Readers can follow and subscribe to your posts, leave comments, and start conversations. Get started • Register with one of the several blogging websites and start designing your website. • Invite friends and colleagues from your network to follow your blog. • Some of the most popular sites offering simple-to-use blogging are blogger.com, wordpress.com, typepad.com and movabletype.com. 12.19. Researcher Academy The Elsevier Researcher Academy is an entirely free e-learning platform designed to unlock the potential of early and mid-career researchers. Divided into five phases of the research cycle and with a broad e-learning portfolio that includes webinars, interactive modules, and videos, downloads, and more, Researcher Academy prepares authors for every step of the research and publishing journey. Discover how can improve their writing and publish in a high impact journal. Learn how the publishing cycle works and how to respond to reviewer comments. Find out how communicating the work effectively can boost the impact of the research and help in garner future citations. Authors are already an expert in the field of study. 12.19.1. Authors’ Update Update website has all the information authors need to help in publishing and promote the articles. Regular posts keep authors in touch with industry developments and services designed to support the publishing efforts also authors can sign-up to receive free, regular email alerts. . 93

. Chapter 13 Publishing in an Open Access Journal 13.0. Open Access Publishing When authors decide to publish in an open access journal, they are faced with multiple questions they might not have when publishing in a subscription journal. These questions could center on metrics, article publishing charges or the difference between gold and green open access. 13.1. Questions on publishing open access 13.1.1. How can authors recap green open access works? Green open access involves sharing a version of a subscription article, usually the accepted manuscript, after the journal specific embargo period. This can include self-archiving the accepted manuscript on an institutional repository or the publisher making the manuscript available on the behalf. Multiple ways in which authors can share a version of the subscription article is available here. 13.1.2. How can junior and early-career researchers differentiate between predatory and no predatory journals? As all know, the Beall’s list of predatory journals has made researchers confused. The guidelines help authors ensure they are submitting to a credible journal. Another good resource is Elsevier’s white paper Supporting Value: How Rigorous Processes & Collaborations Help Ensure Research Integrity, which gives an in-depth explanation on how authors can distinguish between a predatory and a reputable publication and might also consider Researcher Academy module on “Finding the right journal.” 13.1.3. Is there any relation between open access and the Impact Factor of a journal? The access model that journals operate under is separate from the Impact Factor they may receive. The wide variation in the quality of open access journals also negatively affects the overall image of OA (Open Access) publications; however, as the market has developed, there are now very strong, impactful, high quality gold open access journals for researchers to choose from. In some cases, gold open access journals are new journals, so they may take time (up to 3 years) to build up an Impact Factor. 13.1.4. If it is open access, how will the journal sustain itself? Usually open access journals are APC-based. This means an Article Publishing Charge is paid, either by the author or on their behalf, to cover the cost of publication. 13.1.5. Why do authors need open access publishing other than to comply with some funding agencies? Authors have different motivations for publishing and for choosing which journal to publish in. The business model may not always be important, but gold open access does provide free access to the final published article immediately on publication. If this is important to the authors and they have the funding to support it, this may be the right option for them. 13.1.6. For ERC-funded works, do authors need to make sure they have an addendum signed to decrease the embargo period to 6 months, or will this be taken care of without signing any additional documents? 94

Where the journal does not support the funder’s proposed embargo period, authors will need to publish open access to make sure authors comply with their requirements. Or they can consider publishing in a different journal that meets the funders’ requirements. 13.1.7. When using data, images, etc, from a gold open-access article and providing a citation, is there a need or protocol for indicating that the publication is OA? No, the citation provided via the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) will do this for the authors. 13.1.8. What is the difference between open access and gold open access journals? The terms are often used interchangeably, so there may be little to no difference between open access and gold open access journals. 13.1.9. How much are the charges in general for open access publishing? APCs (Article Publishing Charge) can vary and typically correlate with quality. Elsevier’s APCs range from ~$150-~$5000. 13.1.10. How long does the general peer review process take on average? The peer review process varies a lot depending on the journal, the topic and even the time of the reviewers may go on vacation, for example. 13.1.11. Does the Lancet Global Health generally have key themes of interest per quarter or on an annual basis? No, they do not have key themes of interest. They aim to publish the best science on any global health topic. 13.1.12. How do open access journals get measured against the Impact Factor? Impact Factors are generated in the same way as for subscription journals. Therefore, the publishing model should not have any influence on the Impact Factor. 13.1.13. What does the Lancet do in the case of independent authors who do research by themselves without being funded by anyone? If the authors are from a HINARI country, then they would be eligible for a fee waiver. If not, then it would be best to choose a journal that supports green open access rather than a journal that publishes only gold. 13.2. Accessing Research To be successful throughout your research career you will need to stay up to date with the latest research as well as use and cite articles when writing and publishing your own papers. 13.2.1. Howdojournalswork? Authors writeand Manage submit a paper peer Archive and reviews preserve Publish and disseminate Production edits and prepare 95

13.2.2. Who needs to access your research?  Government and research institutions  Hospitals and medical centers  Corporations and businesses  General public 13.2.3. How do they access research? A. Subscriptions: Readers subscribe to the journal in order to access your paper. These options are flexible as you can subscribe to an individual title or a collection of journals. Subscribers are normally institutions. B. Open access: Readers can access the content for free immediately. To cover the cost of publication, a fee is paid by the authors or on their behalf. These options are available in open access journals and in journals where authors can elect to make their article open access (also known as hybrid journals). C. Accessprograms:In additionto subscribingor openaccess,there are programswhich identify and fill access gaps for certain sections of the community. For example: -Lending /rental services provide free or low cost access through programs such as the interlibrary loan. -Research for Life provides free or low cost access to over 45,000 journals for developing countries. -Patient access programs provide free or low cost access for patients and their caregivers -Many members of the public can gain access through their public library and many more! 13.3. The 5 most common mistakes authors are making when attempting to publish a systematic review 13.3.1. The objectives lack research purpose Systematic reviews are attempting to answer a very specific research question. Even if the review checks all other boxes, if the question authors are attempting to answer has already been answered by other systematic reviews, and brings no new insights, it will not be publishable. Tip: Do the homework – are there other recent reviews covering this topic that has already answered the question? Do authors have a sufficiently novel angle? 13.3.2. The search strategies have been poorly defined Systematic reviews are meticulous, well-planned, and exhaustive. If the search strategy has not been properly crafted and documented, transparently capturing all the literature which may be of relevance to answering the question, authors are at high risk of producing biased results. Tip: Document all the search terms, study types, databases, and all the choices make in the search to keep the validity of the strategies in check. 13.3.3. Failed to consider the importance of having an adequate risk of bias assessment model Bias in research can skew the results of a study, and including biased studies in a systematic review can therefore undermine its validity by biasing its overall result. While it can be very difficult to assess the extent to which a study is biased, systematic reviewers can assess the potential for risk of bias. Tip: Domain-based methods which directly address methods used in a study, and which avoid scores and scales, are the fairest test for assessing risk of bias. 96

13.3.4. The interpretation of the strength of the evidence is unstructured or unsystematic Systematic reviews require a systematic assessment of the strength of scientific evidence of the overall body of evidence which authors synthesize in answering the research question. This means they need a planned approach which identifies issues which are important in determining confidence in the results (such as overall risk of bias in the evidence, heterogeneity of results, publication bias, etc.). The higher the quality of the material, the more reliable the results of the review will be; the better authors appreciation of the limits of the evidence base, the more valuable of the review will be to other scientists. Tip: There are existing protocols and tools for assessing the level and strength of evidence of studies. Be sure to find the right one for the research and field. 13.3.5. They didn’t plan enough in advance Systematic reviews are a complex, multi-step research technology which requires authors to bring together multiple skillsets, many of which may not be familiar to them. There is also a lot of help, with many textbooks, methods papers and training courses which they will be able to draw upon. Take advantage of this when planning the protocol, and get expert advice from SR (Systematic Review) specialists on how to conduct the systematic review. Tip: If you intend to publish the results all authors should seriously consider publishing the protocol – an option afforded by an increasing number of systematic review journals. 97

Chapter 14 Collections Final 14.0. Collections Final 14.1. Ten tips for writing research proposal James Administration Building 14.1.1. Follow the instructions! Read and conform to all instructions found on the council website. Make sure that your proposal fits the criteria of the competition. 14.1.2. Break down the proposal into point form before writing your first draft. Based on the total length of the proposal, decide whether you will have headings/subheadings and what they will be (e.g., Introduction, Background Material, Methodology, and so on). These headings can be selected based on the advice given in the specific award instructions. For each section, lay out in point form what you will discuss. 14.1.3. Know your audience.  Describe the research proposal in non-technical terms. Use clear, plain language and avoid jargon.  Make sure the proposal is free of typographic and grammatical errors.  Remember that, at every level, adjudication committees are multi-disciplinary and will include researchers in fields other than your own.  Therefore, follow the KIS principle – Keep It Simple! Reviewers like it that way. 15.1.4. Make an impact in the first few sentences. Reviewers are very busy people. You must grab their attention and excite them about your project from the very beginning. Make it easy for them to understand (and thus fund) your proposal. Show how the research is innovative and valuable. Remember, too, to show the enthusiasm for the project—enthusiasm is contagious! Organize the proposal so that it is tight, well-integrated, and makes a point, focused on a central question (e.g., “I am looking at this to show...”). Depending on the discipline, a tight proposal is often best achieved by having a clear hypothesis or research object ive and by structuring the research proposal in terms of an important problem to be solved or fascinating question to be answered. Make sure to include the ways in which you intend to approach the solution. 14.1.5. Have a clear title. It is important that the title of the project is understandable to the general public, reflects the goal of the study, and attracts interest. 14.1.6. Emphasize multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal, if applicable. 14.1.7. Show that your research is feasible. Demonstrate that you are competent to conduct the research and have chosen the best research or scholarly environment in which to achieve your goals. 98

14.1.8. Clearly indicate how the research or scholarship will make a “contribution to knowledge” or address an important question in the field. 14.1.9. Get the proposal reviewed and commented on by others. Get feedback and edit. Then edit some more and get more feedback. The more diverse opinion and criticism you receive on the proposal the better suited it will be for a multi-disciplinary audience. 14.1.10. Remember that nothing is set in stone. Your research proposal is not a binding document; it is a proposal. It is well understood by all concerned that the research ends up pursuing may be different from that in your proposal. Instead of treating the proposal as a final, binding document, think of it as a flexible way to plan an exciting (but feasible) project that you would like to pursue and finally – good luck! 14.2. PREPARING THE MANUSCRIPT 14.2.1. Title Try to catch the reader's attention with the title. It represents the subject, the objective and even the results. Limit it to 12 words or less than100 characters; shorter is better. Avoid abbreviations (except for chemical symbols) as well as long strings of nouns and adjectives. Consider the following title: Kinetics of mixed copper-iron based oxygen carriers for hydrogen production by chemical looping water splitting [8]. It is long. It mentions the technology and the focus on kinetics with mixed metal oxide. The following title is much more powerful: Cu-Fe mixed oxides split water. It is intriguing and focuses on the result: splitting water. 14.2.2. Abstract The abstract is arguably the most important part of a manuscript. Like the title, a short abstract is better. Summarize the major contributions such that the reader appreciates the significance of the work without reading the entire document. Focus on the results, not the means. It's recommend that, writing the abstract several times: at the beginning (even before all the data is collected!), when the paper is nearly complete, and at the end to reflect cherished manuscript. Organizing and writing the abstract brings clarity. As with all writing, do it rapidly. The following sentence is an example of what not to do: The effects of various design and operating parameters on the performance of the proposed reactor were investigated using a detailed model-based analysis. This sentence is uninformative and conveys valueless information. What design and operating parameters were changed? What was the model? What was the effect? Two or three sentences are required to convey pertinent information. 99

Selectivity decreased by 20% while increasing temperature from 700 _C to 1000 _C at constant pressure. Selectivity increased by 10% with increasing pressure from 1 bar to 5 bars. A redox kinetic model accounted for 87% of the variance in the data. 14.2.3. Introduction The introduction delimits the scope of the work. General introductions allow readers to appreciate the importance of the subject. The first couple of paragraphs may include a historical context, or mention the economic incentive or the scientific interest. The problem can be described with possible solutions proposed by others. A critical review of the literature follows. The novelty of the work comes next and includes the main objectives. Bear in mind what Joseph Pulitzer had to say about writing: Put it before them briery so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light. 100