English language journals are rapidly being launched in China by Chinese universities and publishers, according The Publishers Association’s new report PA Market Report China Journals. The report released on 24 August states that the Chinese journal market, which is worth around 24 billion yuan, is expanding rapidly with the addition of new English journals. “New English journals are springing up like mushrooms,” state Chu Xiaoying (Vice General Manager of Charlesworth China) and Professor Paul Richardson (an international publishing consultant and educator) who have authored the report.

China has slowly been inching towards becoming one of the key players in global science. The country generates around 20% of all research papers published worldwide, second only to the US (approximately 23%). While most of the journals published in China are in the native language, the report observes that China is attempting to gain international readership and have a global impact by publishing in English. Therefore, apart from launching English journals, the journals that publish in Chinese are translating certain papers into English and including abstracts in English.

Most of the new English journals belong to the science, technology, and medicine (STM) fields and many have succeeded in having a high global impact. The report states that 185 of these journals were included in the 2016 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report, which lists the world’s most cited journals. Moreover, the authors observe that with the government supporting Chinese publishers and the Chinese publishers’ improved understanding of the publishing business, more number of Chinese English-language journals can be expected. They add that “China seems certain to be one of the most exciting and important markets for specialist publishing in the 21st century.”

References:

China launching increasing number of journals in English

Growing Chinese journals market 'too big to ignore', PA report says

[This content was created for Wolters Kluwer’s author newsletter Author Resource Review and has been republished with permission. It has been authored by Deborah A. Chyun and Susan Henly.

Deborah A. Chyun, PhD, RN, FAHA, FAAN, is the Associate Editor of Nursing Research, published by Wolters Kluwer Health. She is also the Executive Associate Dean and Dr. John W. Rowe Professor in Successful Aging at New York University Rory Myers School of Nursing.

Susan J. Henly, PhD, RN, FAAN is Editor of Nursing Research and Professor Emerita, University of Minnesota. Her research interests are psychometric methods for nursing research and health over time (health trajectories). She is the Editor of the Routledge International Handbook of Advanced Quantitative Methods in Nursing Research.]

Aspiring scholars rightly recognize publication of their first peer-reviewed paper as a critical career milestone. It signals active engagement with the discourse in a field and contribution to the body of knowledge. As editors, we celebrate along with those who receive a decision letter beginning with “Congratulations!”, even as we also applaud the efforts of all students advancing into the publication arena with query letters and first submitted papers.

Student and trainee publication is thrilling in a positive way when it is successful but, in many cases, is also fraught with challenges and pitfalls. Inexperience and competing interests in the high-stakes endeavor of academic publishing can generate a quivering of negative emotion when the process goes awry. As editors, we see the gamut of beginning publication experiences. Our purpose in writing these editorial comments is to provide information about some common issues and guidance about how to best approach them to engender a positive experience.

Learning about publication

Publication is central to the larger process of scientific communication. The communication process continues to include traditional seminars, colloquia, and conference proceedings¹ but has now been extended to include dissemination via e-journal sites, aggregator sites, and digital libraries and archives.² Across all these activities, the key concept is communication, the exchange of information that allows accumulation and use of new knowledge within and between disciplines. Author/investigators communicate with scientists from the past when they read and cite seminal articles or catalogue and critique the history of an idea in a review of literature, they share ideas with their contemporaries in face-to-face venues and current contents of journals, and they convey their ideas and accomplishments to future scientists in their field when their papers are published. New scholars benefit from front-of-mind awareness of these communication dynamics when they compose their papers.

Scientific communication is a competitive endeavor, where writers jockey for space in journals and the attention of readers. Naturally, success in joining the scientific dialogue by publishing a peer-reviewed paper requires knowing the nuts and bolts of the process. A good idea and the skill to communicate it in writing are essential. As in other spheres of life, enjoyment of the activity eases the labor, and practice improves performance.³ Consistent with the American Association of Colleges of Nursing⁴ curricular elements for PhD programs, most PhD programs in the United States require that students obtain competence in scholarly tools involving speaking and writing for dissemination.⁵ Skills can be learned in a formal classroom setting or as part of research practica or assistantships, where students and trainees work with investigators to develop ideas and write papers arising from their joint work on a research project. Students and trainees also learn about writing and taking part in the dissemination process as part of a hidden curriculum, where they receive unwritten, unofficial, and sometimes unintended lessons about the values and perspectives of a group such as a community of scientists.⁶ The hidden curriculum conveys expectations about rigor, originality, and ethics in scientific work; transparency in communication with editors and responses to reviewer comments; fairness in allocation of authorship credit; and linkages among publication, application for grant support, and promotion in academic positions. In the best situations, the formal and hidden curricula impress a discipline of the mind needed for careful, accurate, original scientific work throughout a student’s career. In unfavorable situations, students learn that “successful” competition is the be all and end all of scientific publishing; regrettably, this perspective may be associated with lack of transparency in communications, irregularities in allotting authorship credit, and salami publishing (where the “winner” is the author with the most articles).

Writing to learn, learning to write for publication

Students and trainees write many papers during the course of their academic careers. Many times, assignments are designed to facilitate student learning about a topic, a research method, or a dissemination component (e.g., literature review). Not all papers are suitable for publication. For example, the Information for Authors for Nursing Outlook states that “papers written to meet course requirements are not accepted unless they have been edited and conform to the mission and scope of Nursing Outlook.”⁷ This is a reasonable and clear expectation arising from differences in the objectives when writing to learn compared with writing for research publication.

An assignment to “write a paper for publication” offers the opportunity to dissect the anatomy of a scientific paper. Nursing scientists publish in a variety of literatures, which creates the additional challenge of learning to write following multiple styles of scientific writing defined by diverse publication manuals such as the American Psychological Association’s Publication Guideline⁸ and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Recommendations,⁹ for example. The anatomy of papers written using these styles is very different, especially in terms of presentation of the argument and evidence for the research being reported and the preparation of citations to the literature. Styles should not be mixed. Regardless of style, learning to write an informative title is critical. Titles should be concise and informative; often, the methodology should be included. Clever or funny titles should be avoided. It is helpful to learn to use MeSH keywords (www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/MBrowser.html) in titles. Well-written titles aid discoverability of a published work and entice readers to delve more deeply into a paper. Whatever referencing format is used, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association should be required reading for all PhD students; Chapter 2 titled “Manuscript Structure and Content” is especially helpful.⁸ When papers written to learn to write for publication address significant topics, have potential to add to the literature, match the editorial mission of a journal, and are prepared following instructions for authors, they may be submitted for peer review and consideration for publication.

Authorship

Authorship is defined as “not only those who do the actual writing but also those who have made substantial scientific contributions to a study.”⁸ Authorship poses many challenges for new scholars, both in regard to who they should include on their publications as well as when and where they should be included on someone else’s manuscript. The question often arises in relation to a dissertation committee being included as authors. In most instances, provided that they are an active member of the core dissertation committee, authorship would be appropriate. Internal or external readers may or may not be suitable to include, depending on the level of involvement and feedback. Students and new scholars often have opportunities to work with more senior faculty or researchers on a manuscript or study, and here, they should be clear on their role early on in the project. Will they make a contribution to justify authorship, and if so, where in the order of authors will their name appear? Principal authorship and the ordering of other authors should be determined by the contribution that everyone has made, with the person who has made the primary contribution being listed first.⁸ In terms of the dissertation, if the work is “an independent and original contribution devised by the student,” the student should be listed first on all subsequent papers.⁸ In all instances, the scholar should make authorship order clear, along with the expectations of everyone on the team to maintain authorship. It should be understood, however, that levels of contribution may change and this may have implications for authorship order.

Dissertations

The traditional four- or five-chapter dissertation serves to organize and comprehensively present all aspects of the research project, showing that the student has synthesized the available literature, identified the knowledge gap/problem to be studied, developed questions/aims, detailed appropriate methods to address the problem under study, presented the results of the data analyzed, and discussed the findings in light of other research findings, along the implications for clinical practice, policy, and further research. The dissertation should serve as the basis for subsequent dissemination, usually in the form of one or more manuscripts. The problem is that, often, these dissertation-related manuscripts are never developed for a variety of reasons. Research is meant to be disseminated; in fact, there is an ethical imperative to disseminate results. In an attempt to assure that research findings are shared so that they can then contribute to further knowledge development, many PhD programs are now providing a three-paper option rather than the traditional dissertation format. In addition, other formats have been suggested such as digital dissertations that engage the reader or intended audience.¹⁰

The limitations of a “single dissertation” publication are many and support the acceptance of the three-paper option. The underlying literature review is often worthy of publication in its own right. When it appears as part of one research article, it has been so shortened by space constraints that valuable insights are lost. Innovative methods, including analytical approaches, can also experience the same fate, and frequently, study findings cannot be adequately presented in a single paper. Students should be encouraged and assisted in developing these manuscripts, and when the three-paper option is not appropriate, publication of the dissertation findings should still be the expectation.

In considering the three-paper option, option is the key word. Not all dissertations will be suitable for this approach. In deciding on which option is right for the individual student, in addition to the characteristics of the dissertation, student ability must be taken into account. Reducing the traditional dissertation into a publishable manuscript has proven difficult for many students, and “skipping” the step of having all the elements in one cohesive whole is not going to simplify that process. Even if the research problem under study is amenable to a three-paper option, this may not be the best approach for all students. Careful consideration must be made, and the manuscript option must be individually evaluated for each student. PhD programs vary widely in the mentorship experiences provided to students with regard to writing and publication. Requiring that one or more manuscripts be accepted for publication before graduation demands that learning opportunities and adequate support are provided to students throughout their course of study. It is not the journal’s responsibility to transform a poorly written manuscript into a publishable paper so that the student can graduate. This is the responsibility of the student, the dissertation committee, the PhD program, and the program’s faculty. This process begins on admission with assessment of the student’s writing ability and continues throughout course work where writing should be stressed and detailed feedback should be provided on all writing assignments and opportunities for revision of course and/or candidacy papers. Students also learn to write by critiquing the work of others, so that in addition to stressing critique of published literature, opportunities for mock reviews of grants or critique of other student papers provide helpful learning opportunities, as do publishing opportunities with faculty. Nursing Research’s Open Manuscript Review provides a learning opportunity for both faculty and students to see how peer-review process assists in manuscript development. Advanced PhD students and postdoctoral trainees can gain invaluable experience by participating in peer review of papers submitted to research journals, and journals and authors/investigators also benefit from insights of new voices with recent, cutting-edge research training. At Nursing Research, new scholars are invited to serve on the review panel once they have been first author on a published paper. In addition, Nursing Research reviewers may involve predoctoral students and postdoctoral trainees in manuscript reviews as long as permission of the editor is obtained in advance and the protocol posted in the Reviewer Guidelines is followed (for Reviewer Guidelines, see http://journals.lww.com/nursingresearchonline/Pages/reviewerguidelines.aspx).

Academic requirements and journal priorities

Requiring publication of manuscripts, regardless of whether they are related to the dissertation, has somewhat shifted responsibility for the student’s success to journal editors and reviewers. This needs to be reframed, and cautions about requiring journal acceptance need to be acknowledged. Journals, and research journals in particular, publish cutting-edge, high-quality research consistent with their mission and of interest to their readers. Topics important to the student and their dissertation committee may not be of interest to journals. The dissertation is usually the beginning of one’s research career, and the product may not be suitable for publication. Lack of adequate funding may not allow the student to attain a large enough sample size or other necessary methodological requirements. Doctoral research is, after all, a learning experience. (Reviews are available at http://journals.lww.com/nursingresearchonline/Pages/openmanuscriptreview.aspx.) We also all know that it is difficult to get papers with nonsignificant findings published. What happens in this case, as the decision of what type of dissertation product to produce, is made well before results are available. From an academic standpoint, should there be distinction between journals in which students would be allowed to publish? Will Open Access, impact factors, and other types of ratings be a consideration? Should they be? What are the criteria—submission versus acceptance versus publication? Academic requirements may not always be consistent with journal priorities and timelines. Academic requirements need to take publishing considerations into account, particularly time and the need for multiple revisions before acceptance. Journals do not publish papers to accommodate academic calendars and meet student deadlines. Many journals provide an opportunity for shorter, brief research reports. These may be more suitable for dissertation findings, yet will these be acceptable from an academic standpoint? (At Nursing Research, brief reports are peer reviewed and, if published, are indexed like regular articles.) It is rare that any paper is accepted for publication on first submission. How will student authors reconcile reviewer recommendations with those of the dissertation committee when there are conflicts?

Communicating with the editor

Submission of a paper involves communication with the journal editor. Queries, submission letters, responses to critiques, and questions should have a professional tone. As these documents are prepared, awareness of the roles and responsibilities of editors is helpful to know. Editors select content, oversee the editorial office, manage peer review for accurate and fair appraisal of submissions, and ensure the integrity of the scientific record; these responsibilities are the foundation for concerns that editors raise in correspondence. Many editors like to receive queries before submission (we do at Nursing Research) because they allow us to provide developmental feedback to authors and plan for peer review. Queries should include a proposed title for a paper, authors, and a structured abstract. Letters to the editor included with manuscript submissions should address issues including approval of the protocol by relevant institutional review boards or institutional animal care and use committees; conflicts of interest; and a complete list of all other papers published, in press, or under review based on the same research database as the submission. Our view is that it is helpful to know that a submission is based on new scholar research because it aids in understanding issues that may arise, especially related to authorship, but the information is not used in any way as a criterion for publication. Questions often arise during the review of a manuscript, so editors query authors to obtain relevant information. A query from an editor should be answered in a straightforward manner so that questions can be answered and issues can be resolved.

As editors, we are excited at the prospect of having more high-quality manuscripts submitted and having a role in developing future nursing scientists. It is critical, however, that PhD faculty and programs provide the needed student support to adequately prepare them for publication. We are committed to advancing nursing science and working collaboratively with students, while keeping in mind the different roles of faculty advisors/mentors and the dissertation committee and that of journal editors and reviewers. We look forward to hearing from new scholars about their research and engaging with them in the publication process.

REFERENCES

1. Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: Empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8, 123–136.

2. Hurd, J. M. (2000). The transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 1279–1283.

3. Saver, C. (2014) Anatomy of writing for publication for Nurses (2nd ed). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.

4. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2010). The research-focused doctoral program in nursing: pathways to excellence.  Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/education-resources/PhDPosition.pdf

5. Wyman, J. F.,&  Henly, S. J. PhD programs in nursing in the United States: Visibility of AACN core curricular elements and emerging areas of science. Nursing Outlook, 63(4), 390-397.

6. The Glossary of Education Reform. (2015). Hidden curriculum. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum

7. Nursing Outlook. (2015). Editorial policies. Retrieved from  http://www.nursingoutlook.org/content/authorinfo

8. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed). Washington, DC: Author.

9. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2014). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations

10. Morton, P. G. (2015). What is the future of the PhD dissertation? [Editorial]. Journal of Professional Nursing, 31, 1–2.

Reprinted from Nursing Research: July/August 2015 - Volume 64 - Issue 4 - p 231-234.

The usefulness of the journal impact factor (JIF) continues to be a contentious topic. Last month, a group of academics and editors at popular journals wrote an article (Lariviere, Vincent, et al. "A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions" bioRxiv 2016: 062109) detailing why the JIF is not a useful measure of any article’s individual impact. Unfortunately, academia is deeply rooted in tradition, and for a long time the major currency among academics has been publication impact, as defined by the JIF. Further, “high impact” journals like Nature and Science seem to have a disproportionately high value for authors, due to their high JIF.

In this post, I’d like to talk about the excessive focus on the JIF and question whether these journals deserve to be valued so highly and if they are truly worth the costs associated with publishing in them. 

The costs of publishing in a high impact factor journal are large. Costs, here, include the large time investments researchers have to make. It can take a long time to produce sufficient results to even get past the initial review by the editor. It has gotten to the point where a single article in a high impact factor journal is actually just a large number of individual results strung together to tell a “single” story. This is self-evident in the enormous size of the Supplementary Information Section in most high impact factor journals.

Also, the review process in these journals is usually very long, with reviewers feeling obliged to make the authors do more work to prove the 'impact' and 'importance,' which is often very time consuming for the author. Often, multiple rounds of reviews and revisions are required, which increases the time taken to publish. A recent study has reported a rough correlation between the impact factor and the time between submission and publication.

Image source: http://www.nature.com/news/does-it-take-too-long-to-publish-research-1.19320

In the figure above, the long times to publish for low impact factor journals may be due to the fact that there is now a large number of such journals that may not have the resources and systems in place to get reviews to authors quickly. The delays in publishing at the high impact factor journals could be due to higher expectations from reviews or higher volume of revision requests from reviewers.

So is the impact-factor chase worth the effort for authors? Let’s look at some of the benefits:

1. Prestige/Perceived value: The perceived benefit of publishing in a high profile journal is high. It is well known that a researcher needs to go through a lot of pain to get published in a journal like Science, Nature, or Cell, so simply accomplishing this carries high value. This value is entirely independent of the true citation count that the article would end up getting, of course.

2. Citation value: A major marketing benefit of “high impact” journals is that they have a high impact factor. This simply means that the average number of citations per year for articles in these journals is high. However, this does not imply that every article published in these journals will be cited. In fact, citation patterns of prestigious journals tend to be skewed, with few articles getting cited a lot and most articles getting cited very little, as Lariviere, V. et al have reported in their article. In Nature for example, the average number of citations for an article is 121 (over its life, till date).  However, the median is 24 citations, and over 40% of articles are cited less than 10 times!* 

3. Publicity value: Another major marketing advantage is that traditional and other mass media look to “high impact” journals to publish attractive articles about cool, new science. Several of these journals are not field specific, which means that they cater to a wide readership; additionally, the language used is such that most of the articles are comprehensible by any good scientist. Often, such journals also feature a News and/or Views section, where current or trending topics in scientific research are discussed or reported; typically, the general reader finds these sections easy to understand and other media agencies, such as BBC or CNN, also report them.

So how can scientists reap the benefits without the costs of a high impact factor journal?

Now that we have a fairly strong understanding of the various benefits a researcher obtains through publication in a high impact factor journal, we can elicit an important insight, that all of the benefits a high impact factor journal provides are on the marketing side of the paper. Therefore, logically speaking, if you can figure out strategies to market your paper using other channels, you don’t need to depend on high-impact journals for the marketing benefits!

One aspect of the marketing value is ‘brand’ awareness, via the reputation value of high impact factor journals such as Nature or Science, for example. While branding yourself is difficult, it is achievable thanks to social media these days. Some faculty are already in on the game and are very active on social media.

The other benefits outlined above all boil down to a single insight, that high impact factor journals push articles to more eyes. It is pretty clear given the citation analysis above that your article must provide some substantive value for people to cite it. However, just writing a quality article is not enough for it to gain a good number of citations. In addition, you will also have to make sure that your article is read by others by ensuring maximum discoverability. Thankfully, publishing in a prestigious journal is not the only way to give your article a wide readership. 

Here are some other channels through which you yourself can promote your article and give it maximum visibility:

1. Social media: Use Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn to promote your research. Your network and beyond will potentially read your work if you self-promote effectively.

2. Blogs: Write a lay version of your article, i.e., your own ‘news and views’ so that it can be easily understood by non-scientists on a personal blog to make your research accessible by a large audience.

3. News agencies: Contact your university newspaper/magazine and have them report on your findings. If your study is interesting enough, it might be reported it in mainstream newspapers.

4. Direct e-mails to colleagues: You can directly e-mail people in your field about your new work asking for their perspective/thoughts. That will definitely increase the number of people reading your work.

So let’s return to the original question: is publishing in high impact factor journals worth the hassle? It seems to me that the value these journals provide can be replaced with lower cost alternatives. In fact, not only can scientists avoid the pain of trying to publish in these journals, they can do better by influencing directly the visibility and access to their work. The cherry that tops it off is that all of the content and marketing work they put in is owned by them and remains an asset of the scientist as opposed to that of the journal. I am excited to see more and more scientists take ownership of their work, and build a stronger scientific ecosystem!

* This data was generated by the author using Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science tools

Note: This post is part of the Researcher Voice series, where guest authors share their views and experiences on various issues related to academic publishing. We invite and encourage you to comment with your own views. This post was originally published on LinkedIn. It has been republished on Editage Insights with some modifications and with the author’s approval.

In an unprecedented move, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has charged OMICS Group, Inc. for deceiving researchers and academicians about publication fees, peer review process, and the nature of its publications.

On its official website, OMICS claims that it operates more than 700 “peer reviewed, open access journals” and has “50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations” in various fields. However, the complaint registered by FTC states that these claims are false, and most of the papers published by the OMICS journals do not follow a peer review process. Further, it accuses OMICS of listing editors without seeking their consent and declaring a high impact factor without any appropriate evidence. The most concerning part of the charge is that OMICS does not reveal its publication charges until after accepting an article for publication. Moreover, it does not allow researchers to withdraw their manuscript. Therefore, those who have submitted their paper either have to pay to get their paper published or risk their paper being held hostage.

Incidentally, Jeffrey Beall, a librarian renowned for maintaining a list of publishers with questionable practices, had listed the OMICS Group as one of the probable predatory publishers. Taking a stance against questionable publishing, Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection said, “It is vital that we stop scammers who seek to take advantage of the changing landscape of academic publishing.” If FTC succeeds in winning the suit, the court might order OMICS to return money to the affected researchers. While the exact amount has not been specified, this would be a big step in bringing predatory publishers to justice.  

Reference:

U.S. government agency sues publisher, charging it with deceiving researchers

Recommended reading:

Saving oneself from the clutches of a predatory journal: A case study

Simple steps authors can follow to protect their research from predatory publishers

Interview with Jeffrey Beall

In my previous article, I had explained that it is an acceptable practice to rewrite content from a PhD thesis or dissertation and publish it as a journal article. However, you have to remember that a thesis and a journal article are two completely different sub-genres of academic writing, meant for different audiences and written for different purposes. They follow different styles and set very different expectations. This post will guide you on how you can reframe your thesis into one or more journal articles.

To begin with, it is important to understand the difference between a thesis and a journal article. Theses or dissertations are usually long discourses written by students as part of their course. It, therefore, has an educational purpose and needs to be presented before a committee that evaluates whether the candidate is worthy of receiving a degree. Thus, the purpose of a dissertation is to demonstrate how much you know, which leads to a general tendency towards presenting everything that you know about the topic in a dissertation. Typically, a lengthy introduction, an exhaustive literature review, a detailed description of the research approach and methodology, elaborate reporting and over-interpretation of results are some common characteristics of a thesis.

Journal articles, on the other hand, are read by busy scientists and researchers who are looking for practical ideas that are backed with evidence. Journal articles, therefore, have to be extremely focused in terms of presentation. These articles are expected to follow a specific format, and include a concise literature review, a controlled presentation of methods, only the main findings, and a succinct discussion section.

Here are some of the elements that you will need to work on to successfully create a journal article from your thesis:

Length: A journal article is much shorter than a dissertation or thesis, and consequently, requires a tighter framework and a more compact style. While a dissertation can run up to a few 100 pages and has around 20,000 words, a journal article can be anywhere between 3000-6000 words, depending on the field and the journal. Therefore, each section of the manuscript has to be shortened considerably. This should be done by selecting and rewriting content from the thesis, not by copying and pasting. Selecting and repurposing are the key elements here: you need to be extremely careful to preserve the essence of the study while leaving out the redundant details.

Abstract: The abstract for a journal article typically ranges anywhere between 150-250 words. However, a dissertation abstract is longer, usually around 350 words. Read the instructions of your target journal carefully. Some journals require a structured abstract while others prefer an unstructured one. Graphical abstracts and video abstracts are also gaining popularity and some journals ask for these.

Introduction: A thesis usually has a more detailed introduction as students demonstrate their familiarity with the existing literature through an exhaustive literature review. However, in a journal article, the literature review is more succinct and should include only as much as is required to understand the gap in research that led to the study. If your thesis/dissertation includes more than one research question, make sure you narrow down the focus to just one research question for your journal article.

Methods: The materials and methods section of a thesis usually includes an extensive discussion of the research approach and methodology. However, a journal article requires a more controlled presentation of methods: you should limit yourself to describing only the details of the methodology used, specifically, the experiments conducted; a comprehensive discussion of the research approach is not required here.

Results: While a thesis/dissertation usually reports each and every result in considerable details, a journal article reports only the main findings. In fact, as a result of inexperience or over-interpretation, students often end up reporting results in their thesis that are not strong enough. However, when it comes to journal articles, strict standards of reporting should be followed, and you should only report results that are directly relevant to your research question and backed by strong evidence. Secondary findings may be included as supplementary information if you wish.

Discussion: The discussion section of a thesis/dissertation is again more detailed, providing a thorough interpretation of all the results with an aim to show the student’s complete understanding of their data. Additionally, students need to demonstrate their interest in future research directions by engaging in extensive speculation. The discussion section of a journal paper should be clear and to-the-point. Do not make the mistake of repeating your results in this section.  

References: Dissertations typically have an exhaustive list of citations, sometimes, even a bibliography. However, journal articles include a limited number of citations, and the reference section includes only works that have been cited within the article. Some journals actually specify the maximum number of references that can be included. Similarly, it is fairly common to have a ‘Definitions’ section in dissertations, but this should not be included in a journal article.

The above tips are intended to give you a sense of direction on how you can reframe your thesis into a journal article. However, it is by no means an easy task and requires a lot of care and effort. Most importantly, remember to reference your thesis in the article and mention in the cover letter that the article is based on your thesis. With the help and guidance of the editor and peer reviewers, the published article will definitely be very different from and probably better than your thesis.

You may also be interested in reading the following posts:

• The basics of converting your PhD thesis into journal articles

• Guidelines for young researchers on tackling common problems in scientific publishing

CRITERIA FOR PUBLICATION

Nature Methods publishes contributions of broad interest, which contain "thorough assessments of methodological performance and comprehensive technical descriptions that facilitate immediate application." Contributions are published in a variety of formats. Primary research formats are of four types: articles, brief communications, analyses, and resources. Other formats are Correspondence, News and views, Reviews, Perspectives including historical perspectives, Commentaries including historical commentaries, and Application notes. The features of each type of contribution are given here:
www.nature.com/nmeth/authors/article_types/index.html.

EDITORIAL POLICIES AND SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Nature Methods prefers to receive all manuscripts through online submission system at http://mts-nmeth.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex. New authors are required to register first. The online system also accepts pre-submission enquiries. A guide to authors is available at www.nature.com/nmeth/gta.pdf.
 

MANUSCRIPT REVIEW PROCESS

All submissions are initially reviewed in house: each new submission is read by a primary editor, who, in consultation with the other editors, decides whether the submission should be sent out for peer review. Authors may suggest possible referees as well as those who should be excluded from the review process, although the final decision rests with the journal.

GOOD PUBLISHING PRACTICES

Nature Methods shares many resources for authors with other journals published by NPG, the Nature Publishing Group. Authors are encouraged to use the active voice and to avoid jargon and acronyms where possible. All accepted contributions are copy-edited in house to ensure that the language is grammatically correct; the writing is logical, clear, and concise; and usage is consistent with search terms and terminology used in earlier articles published in the journal. Resources for authors are available at www.nature.com/authors/author_resources/how_write.html.

INDEXING & METRICS

The impact factor for 2014 is 32.072.

USEFUL LINKS

Journal homepage: www.nature.com/nmeth/index.html

Instructions to authors: www.nature.com/nmeth/gta.pdf

Editorial board: www.nature.com/nmeth/about/about_eds/index.html

Descriptions of difference categories of contributions:
www.nature.com/nmeth/authors/article_types/index.html

Resources for authors: www.nature.com/authors/author_resources/how_write.html

A previous article explained how you can express quantities such as speed, concentration, or dose in your manuscript. Apart from these, expressions of rates – milligrams per litre, kilometres per hour, and tonnes per hectare, for example – are common in research papers. Rates can be expressed in several ways: the three examples above can be rendered as mg/L, km/h, and t/ha or even as mg L^–1, km h^–1, and t ha^–1. Which method should you use? The choice depends first on the target journal: examine a recent issue of the target journal and follow the method used by that journal. Negative exponents are typically seen in journals, never in magazines. Expressions using ‘per’ are common in most non-technical writing. Some trade journals use yet another alternative: kmph, for example, instead of kilometres per hour, but that is not in line with the style prescribed by Comité International des Poids et Mesures, the CIPM (known in English as the International Committee for Weights and Measures). Although all the methods are correct and acceptable, each has its small points of style, and this article explains some points of style related to the method of using negative exponents.

1. Remember to use the minus sign (or the en dash); never use the hyphen.
2. If the font provides true superscript characters, use them. Most fonts provide superscript 2 and superscript 3 (inserted, respectively, by the combinations alt + 0178 and alt + 0179) and some provide all the numerals from 1 to 9 both as superscripts and subscripts. You can easily see the difference for yourself. Type the numeral 2, for example, select it, and make it a superscript. Next to that, insert the true superscript character (alt + 0178). The true superscript is as black as the rest of the characters whereas the formatted superscript 2 looks lighter.
3. Use the non-breaking space (alt + 0160) for the gap between the two symbols (between km and h^–1 for instance). The asterisk and the middle dot (·, alt + 0183) are also seen; if the target journal uses either of these, use it.

I hope these tips help you in your writing. You can also read these articles for more guidance:

Converting non-SI units to SI units: psi, mesh number, and quintals

Tips on using major headings, subheadings, minor headings in research papers

How to include author-year citations into the text of research papers

Exactly a year ago, we shared our first good reads post to bring you up to speed with the most recent discussions in academic publishing and scholarly communications. We’d confessed that, “Our team of editors loves to stay on top of goings on in the academic publishing industry. We leave no stone unturned to bring you the content that helps you stay ahead of the curve, which translates into a lot of reading and referencing.” Our passion for knowing about all things related to scholarly publishing and our commitment to sharing them with you remain unchanged. This month, to make our recommendations more worthwhile, we have added a couple of interviews and blogs, which will quell your curiosity about what researchers and publishing professionals are talking about. We hope you enjoy reading these!

Open access publisher, OMICS, sued: The U.S. government agency Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued OMICS Group, Inc. for deceiving researchers about its “reviewing practices, publication fees, and the nature of its editorial boards.” OMICS claims to publish over 700 high-quality open access journals. However, many researchers complain that the publisher does not reveal its publication charges until after accepting an article for publication. It also does not allow researchers to withdraw their manuscripts. Authors risk their papers being held hostage if they choose not to pay the publication fees. Explaining the reason behind the suit, Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection said, “It is vital that we stop scammers who seek to take advantage of the changing landscape of academic publishing.” If FTC wins the suit, OMICS might be forced to pay back to the affected researchers. Could this be the beginning of serious efforts to put an end to predatory publishing?

What are the real costs of publishing? For long, the expenses of the publishing industry in the digital era have been under wraps. However, eLife, a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal for the biomedical and life sciences, revealed that it spends £3,147 on each paper. This revelation has sparked several debates because the costs declared by eLife are allegedly lesser than those of the journal Nature, which estimated that its costs were £20,000 to £30,000 per paper. It is unconventional for journals to reveal their publishing costs, but this move by eLife could introduce a shift toward greater transparency in journal publishing.

How much are we spending on bad science? We know about the wonderful advances that science has made, but we rarely think about the resources that are wasted on bad research. Professor Simon Gandevia, Acting Director at Neuroscience Research Australia, says Australia could be wasting billions of dollars each year on bad science. “In essence, there are what you might call "false discoveries" that are a result of "unconscious biases about how we perform our work," he says. He attributes this problem to the fact that universities are ranked based on the number of PhD students they produce and to the immense pressure to publish that shifts researchers’ focus away from publishing genuine discoveries.

Can educating students about ethical publishing help reduce cases of research misconduct? A study conducted by Dr. Lee Adam, education research fellow at the University of Otago, revealed that many students do not completely understand the long-term implications of plagiarism for their careers. While the study participants knew what plagiarism meant, they felt it was unfair to punish researchers for unintentional plagiarism. Dr. Adam stated that, "What students were trying to articulate was ‘why do you expect us to be able to do this?" Thus, she suggests that institutions and students view the purpose of university education differently since students think university education is a stepping stone to finding a job rather than associating it with learning about academic writing and best practices. This study highlights the need for educating students about ethical publishing and its significance.

Forensic psychology and research misconduct (Interview): In this fascinating interview with Retraction Watch, Cristy McGoff, Director of the Research Integrity Office at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro talks about how she applies the principles of forensic psychology to analyze and correct cases of academic misconduct among researchers. "I think that while competition plays a part in the quest for funding, ego can be a large barrier to ethical conduct of research," she says, while explaining the behavior of serial fraudsters, i.e., researchers who are prone to repeatedly engage in unethical behavior. She also talks of the need for bringing about a mindset change in research labs.

Scholarly identities on social media  (Interview): Here's another great interview with Dr. Bonnie Stewart, an educator whose work focuses on digital scholarship, networked identities and influence, and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Dr. Stewart briefly talks about her research on the concept of scholarly identity, i.e., the identities that researchers project when they are online. She explains how social networking platforms such as Twitter can be of great use to researchers especially for their professional development. But public spaces also introduce risks and researchers should ideally be aware of them, she adds.

The Hardest Science (Blog): Moderated by Sanjay Srivastava, an Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Oregon and director of the Personality and Social Dynamics Lab, The Hardest Science is a psychology blog that documents Dr. Srivastava's thoughts about his field and other topics. We recommend this blog to anyone who has a deep interest in the field of psychology and is interested in knowing what researchers think about the reproducibility crisis.

Starts With a Bang (Blog): Blogging is about sharing your thoughts on topics you feel passionately about. And Ethan Siegel’s blog Starts with a bang, as its name suggests, is all about astrophysics, a subject he is passionate about. As a theoretical astrophysicist with a background in nuclear, particle, computational, gravitational, and astrophysics, Ethan writes about the universe and how it works. From dark matter and phantom planets to eclipses and breathtaking images from space, this blog has it all.

Have you come across something you’d like to share with other researchers or publishing professionals? We’d love to read it too! Simply share your recommendations in the comments section below. And if you’d like to stay tuned to important happenings in the journal publishing industry, visit our Industry News section.

Kaz leads and mentors a team of journalists and editors across the globe to communicate science effectively, telling stories of research that enhance knowledge and engages varying audiences. For over 20 years, Kaz has been working as a radio and online producer, initially at the BBC, and most recently here at SciDev.Net.

Prior to that he worked as a teacher and course coordinator with a long track-record of designing and facilitating training workshops and creating University pre-sessional courses for non-native speaker postgraduate students. He has an array of experience from producing radio programmes in collaboration with researchers for local radio stations in Africa, to the development of varying multimedia content in visual and audio formats at SciDev.Net. He has worked in many parts of the world, including London and Borneo, and has a postgraduate degree in science communication.

The pressure to publish is no longer limited to the biomedical sciences; researchers in the humanities and social sciences too are faced with the pressing need to get their manuscripts accepted by English journals. Therefore, as part of its mission to help authors get published,Editage conducted two intensive 3-day workshops for researchers in the humanities and social sciences at Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul.

The workshops were led by Steven Ward, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Chosun University, in collaboration with two senior Editage editors, Marisha Fonseca, ELS, and Rachelle Rego, ELS. Steven has worked with Koreans in the academic training environment since 2004 and conducted workshops for researchers across Korea on various topics since 2006. Marisha has over 6 years of editing experience and is currently in charge of quality and processes for key accounts at Editage. Rachelle has over 8 years of editing experience and currently manages the Humanities and Physical Sciences editing teams at Editage. In their editing careers, both have worked on over 5000 manuscripts in various disciplines.

While Editage has conducted over 486 events across the world, these 3-day workshops were unique as they combined informative sessions with actual on-the-job support through Editage’s editing, journal selection, and translation services. This meant that during the workshop, researchers could get in-depth advice on language that was tailored to their manuscripts and research fields. They could thus deepen their understanding of the publication process as well as improve their writing skills.  Each workshop had 10-12 authors participating. They were mostly from the humanities and social sciences.

The sessions covered various topics of importance to researchers, such as choosing the right journal, tips on becoming a productive writer, and selecting a research question. They were followed by practical tips on grammar, punctuation, word choice, sentence construction, manuscript structure, manuscript formatting, and subject-specific writing conventions. Many of these were backed by examples from the participants’ own manuscripts.

Of note, the small group size made it possible for participants to have one-on-one consulting sessions with the trainers. Some participants also invited their co-authors or graduate students to these consulting sessions, which lasted typically from 20 to 60 minutes per participant; participants booked multiple sessions if needed. Individual consulting was not necessarily limited to the manuscripts currently being handled by Editage; participants were allowed to discuss any of their on-going papers or research projects. Their queries were quite diverse and ranged from how to paraphrase ethically to how to condense a manuscript and improve its focus.

Feedback on the workshops was overall positive, with participants expressing a desire for a follow-up session or a similar workshop the next year. The one-on-one sessions were particularly well received, as they were an opportunity for authors and editors to directly interact and understand each other’s points of view.

Given the participants’ responses to the sessions and their interest in acquiring a more in-depth understanding of how to get published, Editage hopes to conduct many more such workshops in the future. 

On August 10 and 11, 2016, Clarinda Cerejo, Editor-in-Chief of Editage Insights, and I attended the 2016 meeting of the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE) at the Carlton Palace Hotel in Deira, Dubai. The meeting was attended by 180 participants including ACSE members, journal editors, researchers, and publishing professionals. The two-day program included short courses on the first day and learning sessions, including one by Clarinda, on the second. 

Both academics and journal editors are under intense pressure to publish and stay ahead in the academic publishing game. This pressure is known to be particularly intense in Asian countries, where researchers and journals struggle to meet international publication standards, increase the discoverability of their research to gain global recognition, or adapt to current publication trends. This was also the general theme of discussions at the ACSE 2016 meeting. The aim was to stimulate discussion and debate on topics relevant to academic publishing in Asia: research impact measurement and bibliometrics; predatory publishing and publication ethics; peer review trends; open access publishing; and the need for bridging the gap between authors and journals.

On the first day, Prof. Gazi Mahabubul Alam, Vice President of the ACSE, presented the keynote address and urged the publishing community in Asia to openly discuss and find solutions to its problems even though this implied dealing with conflicting views or interests. He also explained how this year’s ACSE meeting aimed to provide a platform for such an exchange of ideas. He then invited Philip Purnell, Director of Research & Publishing Services, at Knowledge E (a provider of knowledge and consultancy services to publishing professionals in the Middle East), to conduct a short course on bibliometrics. Philip’s session covered the basics of bibliometrics for journal editors, including how the concept evolved and how other measures of research impact, such as citation metrics, work. He emphasized that in Asia, the publish- or-perish culture has led to an impact-factor chase and a poor understanding of other indicators of research impact, i.e., altmetrics. Since the impact factor is a hot topic in Asia, this session witnessed heavy participation with journal editors asking several questions and sharing their experiences and challenges.

In the second next session, Pippa Smart, an experienced independent publishing consultant, advised journal editors about improving their journal quality. She encouraged them to (1) publish good/high-quality content, (2) improve the visibility of their publication, and (3) increase the impact of their journal. She also mentioned that, often, journal editors fail to understand authors’ needs and do not to adhere to established reporting guidelines, e.g., the EASE Toolkit for Authors and COPE Principles of Transparency in Scholarly Publishing. Given her experience with helping journals, Pippa received a lot of questions about how their Asian journals could become more competitive and international. The day ended with interesting discussions on topics such as authorship and journal processes.

Day two had a long and interesting line-up of sessions and speakers. The first learning session of the day was conducted by Lars Bjørnshauge, Managing Director and Founder of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Speaking of the advancements in open access publishing, Lars emphasized that open access is inevitable and publishers must adapt to the changing scenario. According to Lars, real open access results in greater discoverability of research and extensive re-use rights. He also spoke about the difference between academic freedom and academic responsibility and discussed the implications of open access publishing in Asia and the Middle East. Since Editage Insights follows open access trends closely, Clarinda and I found this session quite interesting and were able to relate to some of Lars’ points.

UNESCO Laureate Prof. Zabta Khan Shinwari led the next session and discussed the topic he is passionate about – research and publication ethics issues faced by researchers in Asia and the Middle East. Prof. Shinwari insisted that it is possible for publishers to strike a balance between ethics and business. He also highlighted the urgent need to reform research, teaching, academic evaluation, and scientific communication systems in Asia and the Middle East.

Next, Philip Purnell, Rachael Lammey (Product Manager at CrosssRef), and Matthew Buys (Regional Director, Africa, Middle East, and Canada, at ORCID) led sessions on Knowledge E, CrossRef, and ORCID, respectively. Philip introduced Knowledge E as the upcoming open access publishing platform in the Middle East; Rachael explained how CrossRef supports publishers and helps solve their problems; and Matthew discussed the importance of ORCID’s persistent digital identifiers.

The session that followed focused on Editage Insights. Clarinda introduced Editage Insights as a platform that bridges the gap between authors and journals by sharing useful resources and best publication practices. She described the range of resources available on the platform: tips on manuscript preparation and submission, a Q&A forum for researchers, resources for ethical publication, and interviews with industry experts who share their views and advice on academic publishing. Clarinda also mentioned how Editage Insights partners with journals, publishers, and institutions to help them reach out to their researchers and authors. Several journal editors and authors were keenly interested in collaborating with, contributing to, and following Editage Insights.

The concluding session on peer review trends was conducted by Pippa Smart. Pippa brought journal editors up to speed with top global discussions about peer review. She mentioned how post-publication peer review is catching up and reviewer recognition is being discussed widely. She then shared some tips on how journal editors can incentivize reviewers.

In the panel discussion that followed, participants discussed the main issues in scholarly communication in Asia and the Middle East:

• Local journals are in a dilemma – despite publishing high-quality research, they struggle to compete with international journals either because they do not have an impact factor or because the research they publish is not easily discoverable globally.
• Publication ethics, open access, tools for researchers (e.g., ORCID) and publishers (e.g., CrossRef), and the need for bridging the gap between the East and the West and between journals and authors are emerging as main discussion points in these regions.

The 2016 ACSE meeting was truly productive as the attendees were highly participative and interactive during and between all sessions. The meeting was a great way for us to meet authors and editors and discuss some of their challenges across the table.

Here are some photos taken by the ACSE during the event.

Left: Participants paying close attention to the speakers at ACSE 2016

Right: Philip Purnell, talking about Knowledge E

Left: Pippa Smart sharing some useful advice for journal editors

Right: Lars Bjørnshauge discussing the implications of open access publishing

Left: Prof Zabta Khan Shinwari talking about academic misconduct

Right: Clarinda Cerejo introducing Editage Insights

Left: A Participant leafing through Editage resources at ACSE 2016

On August 30, the U.S. Patent Office issued a patent titled “Online peer review system and method” to the leading academic publisher Elsevier. The patent revolves around Elsevier’s online article-transfer service, which is used for managing article submissions and peer reviews. Many publishers are already using similar services related to journal recommendation or “waterfall,” which means when a journal rejects a manuscript, the author is suggested another journal owned by the same publisher to which the manuscript can be transferred. Therefore, the news about the patent granting has evoked strong reactions from the advocates of open access publishing.

Open access has gained a strong footing in academic publishing. Many journals and universities have embraced open access policies. Resultantly, Elsevier’s step towards patenting received a lot of flak on social media and other online platforms. Ben Werdmüller, a web technologist based in Silicon Valley, called the patent “unbelievably harmful” since it could hamper innovation. Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California-based non-profit digital rights group, has doled out harsh criticism against the patent, calling it “stupid, invalid, and an indictment of the system.” Defending its stance, Elsevier’s Vice President Tom Reller stated that, “There is no need for concern regarding the patent. It’s simply meant to protect our own proprietary waterfall system from being copied.”

Many experts have expressed skepticism regarding the patent because the article-transfer system is not a novel idea; hence, patenting it is being looked down upon. Although Elsevier filed for the patent in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation states that even at that time, the concept of journal recommendation was already known to the science community.

It is too early to understand how the patent will impact other journals until the time Elsevier tries to enforce it.

What are your views on this topic? We would love to hear your views and opinions.   

References:

Elsevier’s New Patent for Online Peer Review Throws a Scare Into Open-Source Advocates

Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review