Structure of a manuscript: Day 4 article_writing_note

Welcome to All
Saturday (11 am to 12 pm)
8/21/20 Ashok Pandey 1

Results section
(Principles of preparing
figures and tables)
2
8/21/20 Ashok Pandey

The Results Section
• The core of the paper
• Often includes tables, figures, or both
• Should summarize findings rather than providing data in great detail
• Should present results but not comment on them
• Data presentation should not repeat the data in the visuals, but rather
highlight the most important points.
• In the “standard” research paper approach, your Results section should
exclude data interpretation, leaving it for the Discussion section
3

Results
Report the key findings,
• What you found
• not why you found it and what it means to have such findings
• Clear and concise summary of the data that was
collected and the results of any statistical tests.
• This section answers the question - What happened?
• The results section is one of the most feared sections of
the report.
• But the fear is not justified
4

5
Results
Clear and simple description of the findings
- Text should compliment tables & figures
- Highlight important findings, not details required.
Provide meaningful information - Avoid raw data!
Use of adjectives
- OK to describe quantitative differences, e.g., higher, larger
- Avoid subjective terms, e.g., remarkable,
outstanding, interesting, significant

Mentioning tables and figures
• In citing tables and figures, emphasize the finding, not the table or
figure.
• Not so good: Table 3 shows that researchers who attended the workshop
published twice as many papers per year.
Table 3 clearly shows that …
It is obvious from figure 4 that …
• Better: Researchers who attended the workshop published twice as many
papers per year (Table 3).
6

7
State the result and then present the data or cite a figure or
table.
In the 20 control subjects, the mean resting blood pressure was
85 ± 5(SD) mmHg. In comparison, in the 30 patients, the mean
resting blood pressure was 94 ± 3(SD) mmHg.
vs.
The mean resting blood pressure was 10% higher in the 30
patients than in the 20 control subjects (94 ± 3 [SD] vs 85
±5[SD] mmHg, P< 0.02).
Do not provide incomplete information
“People taking ibuprofen daily were more likely to have
asthma.”
More likely than whom?

Verb Tense for the Results Section:
Past Tense
Examples:
• A total of 417 samples contained . . .
• _____ increased, but _____ decreased.
• The average temperature was _____.
• Three of the dogs died.
• This difference was not statistically significant.
8

• 9 participants died during the study.
When number are less than 10, use words.
• The 10-year-olds performed better than the 8-year-olds.
When describing ages, use numerals.
• Sixty students had not heard about Ebola.
When starting a sentence with a number, use words
• Participants worked on either 5 or 10 logic problems.
When numbers above or at 10 and below 10 are being
compared in the same sentence, use numerals.
Writing Numbers

Common problems
Endless Description
• Without interpretation is another pitfall. Tables need
conclusion, not the detailed presentation of all the
number or percentages in cell
• Readers can also read tables
Sometimes qualitative data are just coded and counted like
quantitative data without interpretation even when they are
providing important information. Its serious maltreatment of
data

Example: JNHRC
Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations,
giving the main or most important findings first. Do not repeat all the data in
the tables or illustrations in the text; emphasize or summarize only the most
important observations. Extra or supplementary materials and technical detail
can be placed in an appendix where they will be accessible but will not
interrupt the flow of the text, or they can be published solely in the electronic
version of the journal.
When data are summarized in the Results section, give numeric results not
only as derivatives (for example, percentages) but also as the absolute numbers
from which the derivatives were calculated, and specify the statistical methods
used to analyze them. Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the
argument of the paper and to assess supporting data. Use graphs as an
alternative to tables with many entries; do not duplicate data in graphs and
tables. Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as
“random” (which implies a randomizing device), “normal,” “significant,”
“correlations,” and “sample.”
Where scientifically appropriate, analyses of the data by such variables as age
and sex should be included.
11
http://jnhrc.com.np/files/about.submission/author_guideline.pdf

Example: JPAHS
Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations, giving the
main or most important findings first.
Do not repeat all the data in the tables or illustrations in the text; emphasize or
summarize only the most important observations.
Extra or supplementary materials and technical detail can be placed in an appendix
where they will be accessible but will not interrupt the flow of the text, or they can be
published solely in the electronic version of the journal.
When data are summarized in the Results section, give numeric results not only as
derivatives (for example, percentages) but also as the absolute numbers from which the
derivatives were calculated, and specify the statistical methods used to analyze them.
Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to
assess supporting data. Use graphs as an alternative to tables with many entries; do not
duplicate data in graphs and tables.
Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as “random” (which
implies a randomizing device), “normal,” “significant,” “correlations,” and “sample.”
Where scientifically appropriate, analyses of the data by such variables as age and sex
should be included.
12
Author Guidelines Journal of Patan Academy of Health Sciences

Guidelines
Lancet, Global health
JNHRC
JPAHS
13

Principles of preparing figures and tables
Present data appropriately
Data Looks Better Naked

Use of charts and Tables
Use tables
• You need to compare
or look up individual
values.
• You require precise
values.
• The data has to
communicate
quantitative
information, but not
trends.
Use charts
• Is used to convey a message that
is contained in the shape of the
data.
• Is used to show a relationship
between many values

Data
Presentation
Graphical
Qualitative
Pie chart
Bar diagram
Map
Diagram
Pictogram
Quantitative
Box and
whisker,
Histogram,
Line
diagram,
Scatter plot,
Ogive
Tabular
Simple
Complex
Bivariate,
Multivariate
Numerical
Qualitative
Rate, ratio
Proportion,
Percentage
Quantitative
Measure of
Central
tendency,
Measure of
location,
Measure of
dispersion

What do you want to do?
Goal
Describe
Variable
Univariable
analysis
Compare/find
association
Bivariate
analysis
Prediction
Multivariable
Analysis
Calculate
time to event
Survival
analysis

Comparison of 2 groups
Unpaired Group
Paired Group
Ratio/interval Ordinal Nominal
Normal
Non-
Normal
Independent
t test
Man Whitney
Test
Fisher Exact
Chi Square
Normal Non-Normal
Paired t
test
Wilcoxon Test
McNemars
Test
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test
Shapiro-Wilk Test
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Test
Shapiro-Wilk Test
One Dependent,
One Independent
Variable
Yates
Correction
Chi Square
Sample size>40, Exp cell value>5
Yates Correction
Sample size>40, Exp. cell value<5
Fisher Exact test
Sample size20-40, Exp. cell value<5

Comparison of >2 groups
Unpaired Group
Paired Group
Normal
Non-
Normal
One Way
ANOVA
Kruskal Wallis
test
Chi Square
Normal
Non-
Normal
Repeated
ANOVA
Friedman Test
Cochrane Q
Test
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test
Shapiro-Wilk
Test
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test
Shapiro-Wilk Test
Logistic
Regression
One Dependent,
One Independent
Variable
Other Normality tests:
Lilliefors corrected K-S test Anderson-Darling test Cramer-von Mises test Jarque-Bera test

Tables and Figures
• Foundation of your paper – tells the story
• Minimum no. of tables and figures (journals have limits)
• Do not present same data in tables and figures
• Know when to use a table vs. a figure
• Use similar formats so readers do not have to reorient
themselves to each table / figure
• Make them look professional – use footnotes
• Make sure all are cited in the text
• Do not waste space - Make use of Supplemental Material
21

Basic rules for the preparation of tables and graphs
Ideally, every table should:
• Be self-explanatory;
• Present values with the same number of decimal places in all
its cells
• Include a title informing what is being described and where, as
well as the number of observations
• Have a structure formed by three horizontal lines, defining
table heading and the end of the table at its lower border;
• Not have vertical lines
• Provide additional information in table footer, when needed
• Be inserted into a document only after being mentioned in the
text; and
• Be numbered by Arabic numerals.

Frugal use of "non-data ink"
Pie Chart
• https://speakerdeck.com/cherda
rchuk/data-looks-better-naked-
pie-chart-edition
Bar Diagram
• https://speakerdeck.com/cherda
rchuk/remove-to-improve-the-
data-ink-ratio

Results: A Suggestion
• Look at the Results sections of some papers in your target journal.
• Notice items such as the following:
• Length
• Organization
• Inclusion of subheads (or not)
• Number of tables and figures
• Use these Results sections as models.
26

Discussion

Components of a Paper
Section Purpose
Title Clearly describes contents
Authors Ensures recognition for the writer(s)
Abstract Describes what was done
Key Words (some journals)
Ensures the article is correctly identified
in abstracting and indexing services
Introduction Explains the problem
Methods Explains how the data were collected
Results Describes what was discovered
Discussion Discusses the implications of the findings
Acknowledgements
Ensures those who helped in the research
are recognised
References
Ensures previously published work is
recognised
Appendices (some journals)
Provides supplemental data for the expert
reader

Discussion
Begin with the interpretation of the data, with respect to the
specific objectives of the study, and then get progressively
broader, interpreting papers by others, ending with the
concepts used to start the Introduction.

Discussion
• Don’t write an expansive essay that
extrapolates widely from what you found
• Start the discussion with a single sentence
that states your main findings
• Discuss both strengths and weaknesses

Discussion: In Depth
Relate your study to what has been already found
• How do your results fit in with what is already known?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of your study
compared to previous studies?
• Why does your paper offer a different conclusion?
Discuss what your study means
• Don’t overstate the importance of your findings; readers
will probably come to their own conclusions on this
issue
Unanswered questions
• What did your research not address? Avoid using the
cliché more research is needed.

Avoiding A Long, Rambling Discussion Section
First Paragraph:
• Interpretation/answer based on key findings
• Supporting evidence
Subsequent paragraphs:
• Compare/contrast to previous studies
• Strengths and weaknesses (limitations) of the study
• Unexpected findings
• Hypothesis or models
Last paragraph:
• Summary
• Significance/implication
• Unanswered questions and future research

Common mistakes in writing discussion
– Combined with Results
– New results discussed
– Broad statements
– Incorrectly discussing inconclusive results
– Ambiguous data sources
– Missing information

Discussion
The Discussion should be concise and tightly argued.
You may wish to discuss the following points also:
• How do the conclusions affect the existing
knowledge in the field?
• How can future research build on these
observations and what are the key experiments
that must be done?

Conclusion
• In conclusion, state most important outcome of your
work by interpreting the findings at higher level of
abstraction than the discussion and by relating these
findings to the motivation stated in the introduction
• Do not extend your conclusions beyond what is directly
supported by your results - avoid undue speculation
• Outline the next steps for further study

Acknowledgments
• Those who contributed to the work but do not
meet our authorship criteria should be listed in
the Acknowledgments with a description of the
contribution.
• Authors are responsible for ensuring that anyone
named in the Acknowledgments agrees to be
named.

Acknowledgments
• Common professional courtesy (distinct from
authorship, although this can be contentious).
• Indicate source(s) of financial support (Some
Journals do not allow to acknowledge here and need
to mention in funding section) .
• People who contributed with help in the field and/or
lab, with ideas, statistic analysis, etc., (those whose
contributions were less than those expected for co-
authorship.
• Only professional, not emotional help (find other
ways to thank your mother or your boyfriend).

Abstract/Title

Parts of a Manuscript
• Introduction
• Identifies the problem
• Background/Literature Review
• Identifies what’s known and what’s not known
• Methods
• Identifies the who, when, how
•Results
• Identifies the what (found)
•Discussion
•Conclusion
•Abstract
8/21/20 40
Ashok Pandey

• Overview of the paper
• Best if written last
• Crucial for capturing readers attention – advertisement for your paper
• Journal editors and peer reviewers get their first impression of the
paper from the abstract
• Researchers generally read the abstract of a paper before deciding
whether to read the entire paper.

Abstract Outline
• To determine…
• we…
• We found that...
• These results suggest that…

Useful resources on writing an abstract
'How to write a good abstract for a scientific paper or conference
presentation':
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC 3136027/
How to construct a summary paragraph for papers submitted to Nature
(this contains advice specific to Nature, but it is a useful guide in
general):
www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/Letter_bold_para.doc

Unstructured abstracts

Structured
abstract

Title
Good research paper titles (typically 10–12 words long) use descriptive
terms and phrases that accurately highlight the core content of the
paper.
• A good research paper title:
• Condenses the paper’s content in a few words
• Captures the readers’ attention
• Differentiates the paper from other papers of the same subject area

Day 4 Session
1:00 pm to 1:30 pm

• Ethical issues in publishing
• Plagiarism, Duplicate and Salami Publication

Problems of Authorship
• Disputes - Question of interpretation
• Whether “contribution” was substantial.
• Discuss authorship when research is
planned
• Decide authorship before article is started
• Misconduct
• Authorship is unethical
• Stick to facts
• Avoid being emotional

Two types of Problems
 Gift Authorship
 Inclusion of Authors who did not contribute significantly to the study
 Hierarchy (Expectation / favour)
 Colleagues ( Increase publications)
 Ghost Authorship
 Absence of Authors
 Professional writers ( Should be acknowledged)
 Hierarchical / political / personal reasons
Ghost authorship is essentially the opposite of honorary authorship,
entailing a significant contribution to a manuscript without acknowledgment
of that contribution.

Ethical approval for health research
http://nhrc.gov.np/

Ethical approval for other research
https://nec.gov.np/page/committees
https://moe.gov.np/

Authorship: ICMJE Guidelines
“Authorship credit should be based only on
1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important
intellectual content; and
3) final approval of the version to be published.
Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met. “

What authors think?
• Supply of patient data, reagents, biological specimens, illustrations
• Co-ordination or participation in the collection of data
• Care or examination of patients
• Supply of funds or space
• technical work in the laboratory
• Head of department or institute

Authorship: other approaches
• Authors
• Collaborators
• Specify the contribution of each one
• Include technical and author’s editors
• Guarantors
• Facilities, Funds and space
• Ethical conduct of study
• Reviewers

Overlapping Publications
• Duplicate Submissions
• Duplicate Publication
• Redundant Publication
• Acceptable Secondary Publication
• Competing Manuscripts
• Same study
• Same Database
• Sibling Publications

Duplicate Submissions
• Most journals will not consider simultaneously submitted manuscripts
• potential for disagreement over right to publish among journals
• possibility of unnecessary duplication of peer review and editing
• Is acceptable
• when both editors believe it is in the best interest of Public Health
• Paper has been rejected by another journal
• Full report following submission of abstract

Salami/Redundant Publication
• Publication of a paper that substantially overlaps with an
already published article
• Unethical
• Wastes time of peer-reviewers and editors
• Wastes resources and Journal pages
• Leads to flawed meta analysis
• Distorts Academic reward system
• Infringes on copyright
• Inflates scientific literature for no benefit other than to author

Redundant publication -Editorial Actions
• Prompt rejection of submitted paper
• Redundant publication refers only to peer-
reviewed publications
• If redundant paper already published
• Publication of notice of duplicate publication
• Advise other editor/publisher involved
• copyright violations
• Inform employer/ institution of author
• For appropriate sanctions to be taken

Acceptable Secondary Publication
• Guidelines, another language, commemorative
• Approval from editors of both journals
• Priority of primary publication is respected
• Paper for secondary publication is intended for a different audience
• Secondary version faithfully reflects data and interpretations of primary
version
• Footnote on title page of secondary version states primary reference
• "This article is based on a study first reported in the J. …"

Competing Manuscripts
• Manuscripts based on same study
• Disagreement on analysis or interpretation – Two
options
• Two papers on same study
• Single paper with commentary(ies)
• Disagreement on method or results
• Publication refused until differences resolved
• Manuscripts based on same data sets
• Publication may be justified if different analytic
approaches used

Sibling Manuscripts
• Related papers submitted to different journals with no cross citation.
• Fragments science – unhelpful to readers
• Journals instruct authors to provide relevant papers including, in press and
under review.
• Greater likelihood paper will be accepted
• Good publication practice is to provide
• Full disclosure, full citation, full discussion of author's related work
• Szklo & Wlcox (2003) Am. J. Epidemiology 157:281

Prevention
• Better education on publication guidelines and ethics.
• Introduction of registers for planned and on-going clinical trials.
• Change criteria from quantity to quality when papers are used
for assessment of posts or grants.

Ethical responsibilities of Editors and
reviewers
• Maintain confidentiality
• Not to misappropriate ideas or text
• Emit reviews that are justifiable and without bias
• Transmit information to authors in a timely fashion
• Declare any conflict of interest

Conflict of interest
• Financial relationships
• consultancies
• employment
• shares
• Personal relationships
• Academic competition
• Intellectual passion

Plagiarism
• Plagiarism: Copying data, ideas, or work by
other authors, without giving them credit.
• Discussing another researcher’s idea is not
plagiarism, unless the author tries to pass it off as
his/her own idea.
• Again, it is difficult for referees to catch
plagiarism, unless they know what they are
looking for.

Fabrication
• Inventing or faking results.
• It is almost impossible for peer review to catch this
kind of fraud.
• It is usually discovered when other researchers try to
reproduce the author’s results.
• Fabrication of results is never done innocently, and it
leaves a permanent mark on the scientists’ career
Example: Haruko Obokata, at the Riken Centre for Developmental Biology in Kobe,
announced the breakthrough in January 2014 in two articles published in the
scientific journal Nature, but the discovery was thrown into doubt after researchers
elsewhere failed to replicate her work.

Falsification
• “Tweaking” or manipulating results.
• It is difficult for reviewers to catch this kind of fraud, and it is
usually tough for other researchers too.

Conflict of interest
• If an author stands to make a significant financial profit from the
results of a study – and does not state that explicitly – this
constitutes a type of fraud.
• For example, if an author who owns stock in a pharmaceuticals
company publishes a study indicating that a new drug by that
company is simply fantastic, he must indicate that he owns
stock in the company.

Day 4 session
2.00 pm to 3.00 pm

Where and How to Submit the Manuscript, Rights and
Permissions?
Publication process, dealing with journals/editors

Most scientists regarded the new streamlined
peer-review process as ‘quite an improvement.’

Electronic submission of papers for publication: the days of a
complicated, hard-copy paper trail are gone ... good riddance!
After deciding on the appropriate journal for publication of
your paper, carefully READ the “Instructions to Authors” for
that particular journal.
Pay attention to formatting requirements, manuscript structure,
literature citation style, and allowable file types for figures,
illustrations, and tables.
Manuscript submission

Electronic submission
Assignment of manuscript to a specific Editor
Editor decides if MS is appropriate for journal
Return to author(s) un-reviewed
Editor sends manuscript to two or three reviewers
(one or more of which may be a member of journal’s editorial board
while one or more may not)
Reviewers read MS and generate criticisms and
comments
No
Yes
Editor reads reviews and
makes initial decision
Manuscript submission and review flow chart
1. Acceptance without revision
2. Major revision
3. Minor revision
4. Reject

Submitting your paper
Follow journal instructions
• Formatting
- Title, abstract, text, tables, figures
- Use software for references
• Word limits
• Author names and affiliations correct
• Corresponding author
• Ask if you need help or clarification
7/28/2017 76
The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor?

The review process - Who is involved in
any journal
Editor-in-chief (EiC)
- Final decisions
Associate editors (larger journals)
- Find reviewers
- Manage the review process
- Make initial recommendation to EiC
Editorial review board (larger journals)
Peer reviewers
- Selected for their expertise
7/28/2017 77

Responding to Reviews
Put yourself in the reviewers’ position
• A good review takes many hours to complete
• Reviewers are volunteering their time
• Good reviewers are usually very busy people
Put yourself in the editor’s position
• Editors often do not receive any compensation
• Make it easy for them to make a decision about your revised paper
7/28/2017 78

• Do not ignore any comment or suggestion
• Responses to avoid
- We disagree with this suggestion
- We chose not to follow this suggestion because we felt it was inappropriate
- Following this suggestion would be too much additional work
• Educate your reviewer
- If they misunderstood something, make it clear
- If they are incorrect, respectfully explain why
7/28/2017 79

Responding to suggestions you disagree with
Bad
• The reviewer is clearly ignorant of the work of Kunkel et al. (2008) showing that the
ribonucleoside monophosphates are incorporated into the genome during DNA synthesis……
Good
• Thank you for your comment. However, we feel that
the assumption in our model is supported by recent work by Kunkel et al. (2008), who showed
that the ribonucleoside monophosphates are incorporated into the genome during DNA synthesis.
7/28/2017 80

Responding to Reviews - Follow instructions!
• Revise and resubmit promptly
- Do not miss the deadline
- Ask for an extension if you need one
• Correct formatting errors, improve figures
• Recheck author names, order and affiliations
• Confirm references, revise and update as needed
• Do not add information that has not been requested unless there is a compelling reason to do so
• If you identify errors during the revision, correct them and point out the changes in your response.
7/28/2017 81

Possible outcomes:
• The editor may send your revised paper back to reviewers
- Usually goes to the original reviewers, in rare cases may go to new reviewers
• The editor may make a decision without sending your revised paper back to reviewers
- May request additional revisions on their own
- May accept or reject the revised paper
7/28/2017 82

To learn to think like a reviewer, do reviews
• Ask mentors to recommend you if they decline
• Accept review invitations whenever possible
- If you cannot do a thorough review on time, please decline and suggest an alternate
Reviewing also helps you gain recognition
• Let journal editors know you are interested and willing to do reviews in your area of
expertise
- Once editors know you are a good reviewer, you will be inundated with requests!
7/28/2017 83

Day 4 session
3.00 pm to 4:00 pm

• Review process
• Who is involved?
• Steps in the review process
• Responding to reviewers
• Publication process
• Helpful resources and strategies
• Importance of a Cover letter

The review process
Who is likely to review or manage your paper?
• Journal board members (Associate Editors and Editorial Review boards) in
your subject area
• Other experts in your subject area
• Authors of similar studies or related publications
• Authors that you have cited in your paper
7/28/2017 86

The Review Process
Preferred reviewers
• If the journal gives you the option to suggest preferred reviewers, provide 3-4 names
• Mention in cover letter, or maybe a separate field if electronic submission
• Make sure names and contact information correct
• Don’t suggest people from your institution or those with obvious conflicts
• Ok to suggest journal board members
• Be aware that preferred reviewers are not always “easy” reviewers!
7/28/2017 87

The Review Process
Non-preferred reviewers
• May or may not be indicated as an option
• Rarely a good idea, but can be appropriate on occasion
- Clear conflict (adversarial)
7/28/2017 88

Steps in the review process
1. Triage
2. External peer review
3. Editor’s decision
4. Revisions
7/28/2017 89

Triage
Initial screen by selective journals
• Avoid overloading reviewers with papers that are obviously
inappropriate for the journal
• At minimum, read abstract & introduction- but may only skim (or even skip)
the rest
What this means to you
• If you do not sell your paper to the editor(s) by the end of the introduction, it
is likely to be rejected
• If your paper is very badly written, it is likely to be rejected without
reviewing by selective journals
7/28/2017 90

Triage
Triage: Key considerations
• Is the topic appropriate for the journal?
- Are papers from the journal cited?
• Is the paper likely to advance knowledge?
- Novel concept or approach
- Better study design or analysis
• Is the paper coherent and clear?
• Did the author follow journal instructions?
7/28/2017 91

Triage
Rejection without review
• Did your abstract & introduction fail to sell the paper?
• Was your paper very difficult to understand?
• Was there a “fatal mistake”?
Advantage: Speeds up the review process
- Rejection in 1 - 2 weeks versus 1 - 2 months
- Disadvantage: Usually do not receive any feedback
Requests for reconsideration
- May be appropriate, but only on rare occasions
- Be respectful and polite!
- Make a strong case for your paper to EIC
7/28/2017 92

Example
Subject: MS: 2014_I-SRR_11333 : Invitation to Review Manuscript for International STD Research & Reviews
Dear Pandey,
I am approaching you with the peer-review request of the below mentioned manuscript submitted in International STD
Research & Reviews
Title: HIV KNOWLEDGE AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOURS AMONG OUT-OF-
SCHOOL ADOLESCENTS IN KUMBA, SOUTHWEST REGION OF CAMEROON
I would be grateful if you would kindly find some time to review the above mentioned manuscript and send your valuable
comments within 21 calendar days (5 June’2014).
Abstract of the manuscript is available in this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ubxp4oe9vtl5o1x/Abstract%202014_I-
SRR_11333.docx). After clicking in this link you will be redirected to the attachment webpage. Then download the
file. If you require the file as E-mail attachment kindly let us know.
Kindly click on this link if you decline to our invitation: Declined to peer review
7/28/2017 The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 93

Peer Review
• Usually 2 - 3 reviewers
• Usually given 2 - 3 weeks to submit review
• May be given detailed instructions about what to evaluate, but not
always
• May provide separate comments to the editor
- Should be consistent with their comments to you, but are not always so
• Quality of reviews varies substantially
7/28/2017 94

Peer Review – What does this mean for
you?
• Similar to triage, but based on a more detailed review
You must convince reviewers that your paper is worth your effort
If a reviewer can’t understand what you did, they will question your research
• Be clear and concise and pay attention to details
If a reviewer can’t understand what you are saying, they will be more likely to
question your work
7/28/2017 95

Peer Review Outcomes
Editor’s decision
• Associate Editor makes recommendation
• ED makes final decision
Possible outcomes
Rejection
• Request Revisions
- Some have “Accept with revisions”
- Never assume that acceptance is guaranteed
- Different levels of revisions, e.g., major or minor
Acceptance
- Very rare for first draft
7/28/2017 96

What to do if your paper is rejected?
• Revise the paper in response to reviewer
• Comments before submitting elsewhere!
- The paper will be better because of it
- You might also end up with the same reviewer
7/28/2017 97

Reviewers are humans with a sense of
comedy!!
• The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live
out of me, is the terrible writing style.
• Done! Difficult task, I don’t wish to think about constipation
……………………………………….. during my holidays!
• The peaceful atmosphere between Christmas and New Year was rapidly disrupted
by reading this manuscript.
• This is a long, but excellent report. [...] It hurts me a little to have so little criticism
of a manuscript.
• Very much enjoyed reading this one, and do not have any significant comments.
Wish I had thought of this one.
(Source: Environmental Microbiology)
7/28/2017 98

A request for revisions is a good sign, but it does not guarantee that your paper will be accepted!
• Respond to every comment or question
• You do not have to do everything that reviewers ask, but pick your battles carefully
- Provide strong justification for not complying
- Use Editor comments for guidance, especially when reviews are inharmonious
• Be as respectful and responsive as possible
- Remember- reviewers are trying to help you
- Assume positive intent!
7/28/2017 99

Your response should be easy to follow.
• Indicate what was changed and where
- Include original & revised text in your response
- Use line numbers if allowed
- Submit “tracked” and “clean” revisions
7/28/2017 100

The publication process
Ahead of Print (AOP) publication
Many journals now publish papers online soon after they are accepted, before the paper
goes into print publication
Often publish a PDF of the final Word version of your paper without any copyediting or
layout
- May or may not give you an opportunity to review the paper a final time before AOP
Some journals will update the AOP copy with copyedited
versions - AOP version ultimately replaced with print version
7/28/2017 101

Copyediting
• Managing editors or copyeditors review papers before publication
Queries
• Grammar and spelling errors
• References and citations
• Ambiguous or inconsistent information
• May provide suggestions re: content or organization
• Respond promptly, politely and completely
• Queries at the page proof stage
7/28/2017 102

Page proofs
• Final copy of the typeset version of the paper
• Review for completeness, typographical errors, errors in references
• Placement and formatting of tables and figures
- Some journals create new figures be sure to check for accuracy
Final check for errors!
• Do not add new information
7/28/2017 103

The Publication Process
Press Release
• Some journals write PRs for selected papers
- Will ask you first
- Your own institution may do a PR for you
• Be sure to review the PR before it is released
Embargo
• Paper accepted but online publication delayed to provide
media with time to prepare stories
• Ask journal about their policy
7/28/2017 104

What leads to ACCEPTANCE – Top 10 list
• Attention to details
• Choose the right journal
• Consider reviewers' comments
• English must be as good as possible
• Present your ideas clearly and concisely
• Take your time with revisions
• Acknowledge those who have helped you
• New, original and previously unpublished work
• Critically evaluate your own manuscript
• Ethical rules must be obeyed
7/28/2017 105

Applying the Workshop Content to Your Manuscript
PLEASE SHARE WITH THE GROUP!
7/28/2017 106

Reference
EndNote, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
For more Visit the resource Mendeley
Others i.e Zotero
Others….. Endnote

Generally Research Article is
• abstract <250 words
http://sciencedomain.org/abstract/6244
..Pandey312014I-SRR10961_1.pdf
• Introduction 250-500 words
• Methodology 750-1500 words
• Results: 1000-2000 words
• Discussion: 500-1500 words
• Conclusion: 250 -500 words
• References: Not more than 60
• Total 5000-7000 words is perfect

After publication
7/28/2017 109

Structure of a manuscript: Day 4 article_writing_note

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Structure of a manuscript: Day 4 article_writing_note

Similar to Structure of a manuscript: Day 4 article_writing_note (20)

More from Ashok Pandey

More from Ashok Pandey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Structure of a manuscript: Day 4 article_writing_note