Thank you for your thoughtful comments. While rejection can feel discouraging, using reviewer feedback to strengthen our work is an important part of the scientific process. With patience and persistence, we can work to improve our research and find the right journal fit.
Mental Health Awareness - a toolkit for supporting young minds
How to publish in journals with impact
1. How to Publish in Journals
with Impact?
Nicolás Robinson-García
Grupo de investigación EC3
Evaluación de la Ciencia y de la
Comunicación Científica
Course: La comunicación intercultural euroasiática en las condiciones del proceso
de Bolonia
Date: 20, June, 2012
Place: Casa de la Cultura de Almuñécar
2. Summary
1. Brief introduction to scholarly
communication
2. Defining impact and impact journals
3. Selecting journals in our specialty
4. Getting published: the How-to guide
4. How do researchers communicate?
University cafeteria, e-mail,
telephone Web 2.0: blogs,
[interpersonal, private] facebook, twitter.
Congress [without Peer Review,
[Peer Review, interpersonal, public]
interpersonal, public]
Repositories
preprints
Data Sharing Scientific paper
Data Banks [Peer Review, Final and Public,
Specialized]
Books and
monographs
Reference books
5. How do researchers communicate?
University cafeteria, e-mail,
telephone Web 2.0: blogs,
[interpersonal, private] facebook, twitter.
Congress [without Peer Review,
[Peer Review, interpersonal, public]
interpersonal, public]
Repositories
preprints
Data Sharing Scientific paper
Data Banks [Peer Review, Final and Public,
Specialized]
Books and
monographs
Reference books
6. Books are the main communication
channel for scientists
1665
Creation of the two first
scientific journals
Exponencial increment of scientific
journals
1950
¿?
2012
9. How do researchers communicate?
Experimental Sciences Social Sciences Humanities
5% 10%
10% 10%
30%
40% 50%
85%
60%
Journals Books Others
Is it the same everywhere?
15. Due to low citation rates, journals in Humanities do not
have an Impact Factor. For this, the only requisite will be
to be indexed in the database
16. JCR Allergy in 2009. Ranking IF – 21 journals
4º Q
3º Q
2º Q
1º Q
17. What does the Impact Factor measure?
• All researchers aim at and need to publish most of their research output in
“Journals with Impact”
• These are international journals, we compete with researchers from all over
the world
• They receive lots of manuscripts and therefore, they reject many
• The peer review process is harder and made by the best experts in the area
As they receive more manuscripts they have more where to choose and
therefore, more possibilities of publishing better papers in the area. This are the
ones which get more cited and are well received by the community, obtaining a
better IF. Delgado López-Cózar defines the IF as an indicator of
competitiveness
18. Why publish in a Journal with Impact?
You will develop a
successful research career
Most of the research policy guidelines and
research evaluation exercises consider them
as key factor
19. Why publish in a Journal with Impact?
Evaluation agencies
20. Why publish in a Journal with Impact?
You will improve your university’s status
21. Why publish in a Journal with Impact?
You will increase your budget
22. Excuses for not publishing in journals
with Impact
My research line and my articles are of national interest
International reviewers are uncapable of understanding the wide scope
of my research papers
I do not publish in English, we must defend our language!!
International journals usually take a long time to publish my papers
In my research area books and book chapters are more important
There are no international journals covering my research interests
23. Some myths…
FOUR MYTHS FROM NATURE WE CAN APPLY TO ALL IMPACT JOURNALS
1st Myth. If I want to get published in Nature I must
be famous.
2nd Myth. If I want to get published in Nature I
must have influential friends.
3rd Myth. If I want to get published in Nature I must
speak English as exquisitely as the Queen.
4th Myth. If I want to get published in Nature my
surname must be White and not Blanco.
JUAN CARLOS LÓPEZ, editor de Nature Medicine
24. …as Cajal stated…
“El investigador obrará muy cuerdamente
pidiendo hospitalidad en las grandes revistas
extranjeras y redactando o haciendo
traducciones de su trabajo en
francés, inglés, alemán..."
"... quienes se obstina en escribir exclusivamente
en revistas españolas se condenan a ser
ignorados hasta dentro de su propia
nación, porque, como habrá de faltarles siempre
el exequator de los grandes prestigios ningún
compatriota osará tomarlos en serio“
Los tónicos de la voluntad, 1923
25. I may have to change some things
• CHANGE THE PERSPECTIVE
Adapt to international standards
• CHANGE THE STRATEGY
Less papers but better
• CHANGE THE TOPICS
Search for relevant research questions
in your area
32. It belongs to Elsevier, the biggest scientific
publisher in the world
It includes around 16500 journals from all
research fields.
They have their own ‘impact indicator’ called
SJR.
33. Developed by the European Science Foundation
It includes 6459 journals in Humanities
published in any European language.
Journals are classified according to their impact
(International1, International2 and National) and
15 thematic categories.
34. Along with INRECJ and INRECS, this is an Index
for Spanish journals which fills the gap left by
other databases.
It ranks journals according to the average
number of citations per paper.
It classifies journals in 15 categories depending
on the specialty.
36. First comes first…
• It is better to articulate a good research question and look out for
the necessary tools in order to answer it than to pose a research
question according to the tools you already have.
• You must try to be original. A curious thing I’ve found out from
papers authored by Spanish-speaking people is that, the more
evidences they find in the literature supporting their results, the
more assertive they feel over the importance of the contribution
they are making.
• We must address the difficult issues. Unfortunately, that is the
interesting one and the one which will be getting published in
Nature or any other of our journals. That is the main difference
between famous researchers and the rest of us.
37. Things you must take in mind
• Focus on innovative aspects
• Be clear in your mind about the structure of the
paper
• Make it comprehensible and interesting
• Select carefully which is the best place to get it
published
• Be honest and upstanding
• Focus on quality rather than quantity
• Be patient when writing the article
38. Always contemplate several journals in which
your paper could be published
Phil. Science - in 2009. Ranking – 35 journals
Select the right journal
3º Q
2º Q
1º Q
39. Select the right journal
BEWARE: Read the journal’s scope carefully
40. Select the right journal
Because if you don’t, this will be the answer you
will receive
“Dear Mr Daniel Torres-Salinas,
Thank you for your submission for Journal of Informetrics
entitled "State of the Library and Information Science
blogosphere after social networks boom: a metric approach".
The editorial office has, however, decided that this paper is
outside the scope of this journal.
Yours sincerely”
41. Select the right journal
Double check which type of papers they publish
45. Be honest with authorship
BEWARE: The authors’ position reflect their
contribution to the paper
Authorship: Criteria and Policy
Authorship implies accountability. Listed authors must have contributed
directly to the intellectual content of the paper... Authors should meet all of
the following criteria:
• Conceived and planned the work that led to the article or played an
important role in interpreting the results, or both.
• Wrote the paper and/or made substantive suggestions for revision.
• Approved the final version
AUTHOR 1; AUTHOR 2; AUTHOR 3
46. Make a good literature review
Be honest when citing, do not omit competitors
Cite the most recent literature
Cite international papers, use scientific databases
Make sure to cite all papers on the topic published in
the journal to which you are submitting your
manuscript
47. When writing the manuscript
1. Many papers are rejected or loose their value because they
are not well written, presented or structured.
2. If we do not pay attention to the details, probably the main
message and good ideas expressed in our paper will be
missed out and go unnoticed.
3. Just taking care of a series of basic details our paper may
improve substantially.
4. Work out which are the main conclusions of your work and
write and present the paper always keeping them on mind.
5. Give some thought to the introduction, in it we must
present what has been previously done and what will we
contribute with.
48. Approach the topic from an international
perspective
Because if you don’t, this will be the answer you
will receive
“[…]However, the paper does is utmost best to present itself
as a contribution to just Spanish national matters. Then, non-
Spanish readers may not be very interested, and that includes
most of Research Evaluation readers. Thus, unfortunately, the
paper as it stands now is only of marginal interest to RE and is
much more suitable for a Spanish national journal. Now, the
paper could certainly be improved: focus on what is
interesting for an international public, present the study as
dealing with a general issue[…]”.
49. Respect authors’ guidelines
Pay a special attention to the
journals’ instructions for authors
• Abstract, keywords
• Structure, tables and figures
• Length
• Referencing
IF WE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS WE WILL
AVOID HAVING THE EDITOR AND REVIEWERS CALLING OUR
ATTENTION. THESE ERRORS MAY BE CRUCIAL ON THE FATE OF
OUR PAPER
Check some papers previously
published by the journal
50. Look out for your English
• Journals hate bad written manuscripts
• Check the terminology you use
• If you are hiring a translator
• Choose someone specialized in your field of
endeavour
• If you have written the text
• Have a native English-speaker to check it
• Beware the type of English you use
• American or British
http://www.ease.org.uk/guidelines/index.shtml
51. Look out for tables and figures
Sometimes tables and figures are the most important part of our work
or even the only one our readers will pay attention to.
Include only the neccessary ones, only those that reinforce our results.
Do not transform your paper into a list of tables, try to comprise
results in just a few tables always preserving their quality. More tables
and figures do not neccessarily mean more results!
Avoid redundancy. Avoid overlapping tables and figures.
Use explicative titles avoiding acronyms if possible. Make sure the
tables and figures can be interpreted without reading the text.
Make attractive figures, take your time, they summarize part of the
message you are sending
52. Aspects that must be taken into account
Some aspects journals take into account when
reviewing manuscripts
Revista Española de Documentación Científica
53. Writing a research paper
Before submitting a manuscript
Writing a research paper
You may as well send it to some colleagues to check
some aspects. Don’t forget to thank them!
54. Writing a research paper
Sending a research paper
the manuscript
Writing
• Include a “Cover Letter” underlining the paper’s
originality and novelty, also pointing out its potential
interest to the journal’s readers
• List the main results of your research and emphasize its
importance How are you contributing to the field?
• Sometimes it may be interesting to suggest some
possible reviewers, especially if the paper is of great
novelty
55. Writing a research paper
Sending the manuscript
Not all journals ask for a “cover letter” but it is
advisable to always send it
Example extracted from the “authors guidelines” of:
Authors should include a cover letter detailing
the key findings of their manuscript. The cover
letter should highlight the novel aspects of
their data and briefly describe how the
authors feel their results will generate
progress in their field. ….Furthermore, if the
authors feel their work merits publication as a
breakthrough paper, they should indicate this
in the cover letter...
56. Writing a research paper
Regarding research paper
research data
Writing a
•Always have your research data organized conveniently before
submitting a paper as reviewers may ask for them or you may
have to reprocess them after the review process.
• Create complementary datasets well documented that would
allow to replicate your study if neccessary or display more
results not included in the paper because of the length. You may
upload them in your personal website or in data banks. They
add value to your paper.
57. Writing a research paper
Regarding research paper
research data
Writing a
58. The peerareview process
Writing research paper
ACCEPTED √
MINOR CHANGES √
MAJOR REVISIONS ¿?
REJECTED X
59. The peerareview process
Writing research paper
This may be one of the hardest moments, we must study the
reviewers comments and respond to them in a letter.
1) Answer to all the commentaries, even if you don’t agree or are
minor issues.
2) Be well-mannered when answering and use solid scientific
arguments when you disagree with the reviewer.
3) If necessary, get ready, you may have to retrieve more
data, undertake more observations or perform new experiments.
4) If the changes suggested do not require an excessive effort and do
not alter the paper excessively, make them, don’t waste your time
arguing with the reviewer.
60. The peer review process
What can we have in a review?
Coments implying retrieving new data, processing it and
redoing the paper
“Reviewer: I do not think that computer science is the
appropriate field for the method to be tested. In computer
science there is heavy reliance on proceedings… It would be
good to test the method on additional fields as well”
Comments which do not imply changing the paper but
responding to the reviewer
“You say that CS is well represented in JCR. I strongly disagree with this”
Comments which involve minor changes
“TOPCIT - you should provide a more detailed definition”
Comments which imply modifying the text without further
discussion
“Page 8, first line "proving" I suggest to replace this by "indicating"
61. The peer review process
Example of a structured response to a review
TITULO
62. The peerareview process
Writing research paper
Accept rejected papers with good nature
• NEVER take it as something personal
• Be honest and try to understand why the paper was rejected
• Make the most of reviewers’ comments to improve your work
• Rewrite a new paper but don’t send it to another journal
without correcting the facts why it was rejected on the first place
63. The peer review process
Maybe your paper was not that bad after all!
“Undeniably, the most common way to communicate a given
finding, theory or discovery is through its publication in articles
submitted to learned journals. It may happen that the editors
and referees who read articles reporting a novel discovery are
not able to assess the value of innovative work”
Campanario, JM. Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries... Scientometrics, 2009
64. Final tips
• Good and well-focused research lines
• Good knowledge of research methodologies in our
specialty
• Ambition for publishing internationally
• Patience with the research, writing and reviewing
• Neatness, clarity and conciseness when presenting
results
• Persistence against failure
66. Don’t throw in the research paper a revision
Writing a towel: story of
WE HAVE A PAPER!
A methodology for Institution-Field ranking based on a
bidimensional analysis: the IFQ2A index
OBJETIVE –INFORMATION AND LIBRARY SCIENCE
•JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS: 4ª Position
• SCIENTOMETRICS: 10ª Position
1º DELIVERY TO JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS
EDITOR’S RESPONSE
I am sorry to inform you that your paper entitled, "A methodology
for Institution-Field ranking based on a quantitative and qualitative
bidimensional analysis: the IFQ2A index", has been rejected for
publication. Please find the referees' comments below for your
reference
67. Don’t throw in the research paper a revision
Writing a towel: story of
1º DELIVERY TO JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS
REVIEWERS’ MAIN OBJECTIONS
-They are proposing a new indicator, so making the hypothesis the
indicator could be useful for describing institutions. They provide
empirical results but they do not test these results against anything.
There is no interpretation, no confirmation of goodness, no
correlation with other sources.
- The population of the study (a small group of Spanish regional
universities) is very limited. If the aim of the authors is provide a new
tool it should be tested on a larger and better known group of
universities.
• CHANGES: WE INTRODUCED AN ANALYSIS COMPARING THE
METHODOLOGY FOR INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES
• WE CHANGED OUR SAMPLE FROM ANDALUCIA TO SPAIN
68. Don’t throw in the research paper a revision
Writing a towel: story of
2º DELIVERY AGAIN TO JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS
EDITOR’S ANSWER
I am sorry to inform you that your paper entitled, "A methodology for
Institution-Field ranking based on a quantitative and qualitative
bidimensional analysis: the IFQ 毬 index", has been rejected for
publication. Please find the referees' comments below for your
reference.
REVIEWERS’ MAIN OBJECTIONS
There is no mathematical evidence for the way they aggregate the
variables to build the composite indicator
The two sets of variables are strongly correlated. Why not substitute
them by factors after a factor analysis is performed?
• WE INCLUDED A CORRELATION ANALYSIS IN OTHER TO JUSTIFY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF OUR INDICATOR
• WE INCLUDED A FACTOR ANALYSIS
69. Don’t throw in the research paper a revision
Writing a towel: story of
3º DELIVERY TO SCIENTOMETRICS
EDITOR’S ANSWER
We have received the report from our advisor on your manuscript, "A
methodology for Institution-Field ranking based on a bidimensional
analysis: the IFQ毬 index", which you submitted toScientometrics.
Based on the advice received, I feel that your manuscript could be
reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate
major revisions
REVIEWERS’ MAIN OBJECTIONS
Overall the paper is well written, however I do not think that computer
science is the appropriate field for the method to be tested. In
computer science there is heavy reliance on proceedings papers, not
covered by JCR, and only partially by the Web of Science. It would be
good to test the method on additional fields as well.
•WE DID THE SAME STUDY ALTHOUGH THIS TIME INCLUDING A NEW
RESEARCH FIELD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SPANISH AND INTERNATIONAL
UNIVERSITIES
70. Don’t throw in the research paper a revision
Writing a towel: story of
4º DELIVERY TO SCIENTOMETRICS INCLUDING CHANGES
EDITOR’S ANSWER
We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript, "A methodology for
Institution-Field ranking based on a bidimensional analysis: the IFQ2-
index", has been accepted for publication inScientometrics.
AND FINALLY, A HAPPY REVIEWER
Reviewer: I am completely satisfied with the revision. I am impressed
that the authors added an additional field (Chemistry) to back up their
findings.
71. How to Publish in Journals
with Impact?
Questions?
Nicolás Robinson-García
elrobin@ugr.es
http://www.ugr.es/~elrobin
This is an adapted version of:
- Torres-Salinas, D. Cómo publicar en revistas de impacto. Unidad de
Bibliometría, Universidad de Granada.