Handling editors Tanita Casci Head of Research Policy@tanitacasci Research Quality Workshop COSE, 10 December 2015 About the Nature Publishing Group Highly selective journals Full-time professional staff Editorially independent Each journal is independent from each other Editors serve the academic community Commissioning editor in genetics & genomics for 12 years Publish excellent research then put it where people will see it have a publication strategy shout about what you do Publish excellent research then put it where people will see it have a publication strategy shout about what you do Seven reasons journals reject your paper 1.It lacks focus 2.It cant be trusted: be specific about methodology 3.Does not fit the journal 4.It adds nothing new: So what? 5.Inexperienced writing 6.Poor structure 7.Too local and small, not enough of it Assuming you have avoided all the above Getting published Avoidable mistakes Your cover letter You have 10 minutes alone with the editor Answer ALL the questions the editor wants to know about: What is the big research question What have you done to advance the field What is the state of the art Whats so special about you Why should anyone care Pre-empt obvious concerns Your cover letter Impress them by writing an excellent cover letter. This is CRUCIAL!!! Dear editor, My colleagues and I would be grateful if you would consider our work on [short sentence]. We show that [1 sentence on the one main finding]. Our findings are important because [2 sentences on context and prior art: how was the field impeded by lack of understanding? How did you succeed where others did not?]. Our results have implications for [2 sentences that convey how findings will improve understanding, methodology or technology. Be specific and make it relevant to the readership of the journal. Avoid clichs, e.g. paradigm shifts/holy grails]. I enclose the contact details of [3-4] experts who are qualified to review the manuscript. Kind regards, Corresponding author, on behalf of all the authors The big problem The main finding Context and prior art: Why you? Who should care? Why? Your cover letter Display knowledge of the field [Where relevant, preempt concerns] How to write a good abstract Abstracts of scientific papers are sometimes poorly written, often lack important information, and occasionally convey a biased picture. Based on sampling 300 years of research literature, we provide guidance, with examples, for writing the background, methods, results, and conclusions sections of a good abstract. The primary target of this paper is the young researcher; however, researchers at every career stage may find it useful for presenting their ideas to peers, funders, or the public. Your abstract Writing small, communicating BIG What (big) problem are you trying to solve? What have you done? Why should we care? Write each abstract as though it were for Nature Peer review Feel familiar? A hurdle and an opportunity for dialogue Make it easy for the editor to understand what you have done Agree on revisions in advance with the editor Respond in-line to each referees comment Write a short cover letter Its fine to disagree Dont get tangled up. Relate your responses to the core purpose of article Always remain calm and professional Observe the 24h rule And if things dont go your way. Responding to reviewers Should you appeal an unfavourable editorial decision? It depends Appeals What works New data to a point. Do not slice your data too thinly Referee or editor made factual errors Specific evidence of bias by referee (hard to prove) Where possible, appeal to editor to overturn his/her decision What doesnt Referees are unfair, You published an even worse paper Requests for a new editor Guesses at referee identity followed by personal attacks Cosmetic rewriting of the paper Statements about the authors reputation Celebrity endorsements An excellent (4*) output articulates within it its originality, significance and rigour Must express the following: -What broader research question are you addressing? -What have you done to advance the field? Focus: one message only. -What is the state of the art? Provide context for your advance. -Whats so special about you? -Why should anyone care? Identify your audience(s). -Any caveats/limitations It must also: -Inspire confidence -Be well written and accessible beyond sub-specialism What makes an excellent output? An excellent paper has: Focus Highlight a clear and specified research focus. What big question is it addressing? Originality and significance Place research in its proper context. What was the state of the art and how has this research advanced the field? Rigour Inspire confidence. Use well explained methodology that is expertly and rigorously implemented. Style Write the output well. It should be logically structured and accessible to a non-specialist audience. Use: Short, descriptive title Clear abstract Lucid synthesis Make clear connections between the hypothesis, the methods, the results and the conclusions. Reach Describe the reach of the paper. Who is going to benefit from your findings or insight? Visibility Publishing the paper is just the beginning Present it where others can see it, e.g. at conferences, via online sharing tools. Calibration Distinguishing very good papers from excellent ones can be difficult. Seek calibration from those with more experience or from outside your immediate subfield. Substance, depth and longevity Ensure that the study is complete and that it describes new and important knowledge. Take the time to right the output well Think of your audience(s) Aim for accessibility beyond your subfield Find the right hook The most obvious narrative might not be the most compelling one Clarity of writing lucidity of thought Inspire confidence ( hype) Dont appear nave or insecure Provide a clear synthesis Dont over-interpret even if word limits allow Can readers cite your work from reading the abstract alone? It is not that easy Ask others for advice Style: A good story does not write itself Take the time to right the output well Think of your audience(s) Find the right hook Clarity of writing lucidity of thought Inspire confidence ( hype) Provide a clear synthesis Can readers cite your work from reading the abstract alone? It is not that easy Ask others for advice Style: A good story does not write itself Publish excellent research then put it where people will see it have a publication strategy shout about what you do Pre-submission enquiries, pre-prints, post-prints A publication is more than the sum of its parts. Take your paper apart share it in bits: data, figures, software, etc Engage with editors: Be a constructive referee Find out and influence what they think: connect at conferences, via social media Dont miss opportunities Visibility: Engage with others Make yourself more visible: Improve your website Open an ORCID account Make wise use of social media for: Professional networking Engagement (funders, collaborators, publishers, peers) Self promotion Questions?