Navigating the process of publishing a scientific paper Noah Fierer .a not-so-thorough overview from someone who has made a lot of mistakes
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Navigating the process of publishing a scientific paper
.....a not-so-thorough overview from someone who has
made a lot of mistakes
Noah Fierer
General Comments: If a study is never published, it effectively never happened Publications are the currency of science (this is true even outside of academia) Not every study is worth publishing The process of publishing a manuscript is rarely intuitive – ask questions!
Preparing the manuscript: • Have a ‘vision’ for your paper before you start writing, who is your audience? • Sort out authorship (and authorship order) at the start of the study, and revise/reconsider throughout the process • Authorship and authorship order is a sensitive (and confusing) topic – tread carefully and respectfully • Make sure all co-authors have time to provide input on the manuscript (and approve of its submission) • Do the main figures/tables convey the main messages and can they be understood without reading the text? • Diagrams/illustrations/photos can be useful • Make the abstract compelling
Deciding on a journal, factors to consider: • Audience (who do you want to read your paper?) • Formatting requirements • Society journal? • Open access? • Page charges? • Where do you want to see it published? • Aim high, but be realistic (targeting prestigious journals can be risky, but don’t undersell your work) • What is your timeline?
Getting ready for submission: • Follow formatting/submission requirements exactly • Check over everything carefully (including figures, references, captions) • Print out the manuscript and proofread • Get the manuscript as polished as possible before submission (an annoyed reviewer is a negative reviewer) • Start the process of depositing your data/code well in advance • Warning: the submission process will always take longer than you expect
Manuscript is ‘in review’, now what?
• Celebrate!– it is out of your hands
(for now)
• To pre-print or not to pre-print?
• Move on to the next project, you
may be waiting awhile
What to do if your manuscript is rejected? • Relax – remember that good papers get rejected all the time • Rejection does not mean you have failed as a scientist or as a person • Consider the reviews carefully and re-submit only after revising/re-thinking • Do not let manuscripts spend too much time in purgatory
Responding to reviewer comments: • Take a deep breath (reviews are never as bad as they may first appear) • Do not take comments personally • Recognize what ‘reject with encouragement to resubmit’ and ‘major revisions’ actually mean • Tackle the easy changes first • Remember that there is nearly always some truth in reviewer comments, even if you disagree
Responding to reviewer comments (cont.): • Prepare cover letter responding to the main points along with detailed responses. Be appreciative of the editor/reviewers. • Respond to every reviewer/editor comment in detail (make your responses thorough, but not bloated) • Lean on your co-authors and include them in the revision process • Be respectful! (assume the revisions/responses will go back to the reviewers)
OK – so your manuscript has been accepted, now what? • Check proofs over carefully (Beware of the notorious ‘48 h deadlines’) • You may be tired of the paper, but it is new to the rest of the world • Use Twitter, etc. to get the word out. Don’t be shy. • Send it to your family/friends/colleagues
You can also read
