Writing great papers in High Impact Journals

An introduction for researchers

Your host

Dr. Anne Deveson, Deputy Editor, Chemistry - A European Journal

The publishing process

Chemistry journals at Wiley-VCH Roles of journals How journals work Open Access A look to the digital future

Wiley in USA

Wiley in Canada

Wiley in Europe

Wiley in Asia

Wiley in Australia

Hoboken Indianapolis San Francisco Somerset Boston Ames

Toronto

THE WILEY WORLD

Chichester Bognor Ealing Oxford Edinburgh Newbury London Weinheim Berlin Zurich Moscow Copenhagen Madrid Dubai Singapore Bangkok Beijing Hong Kong New Delhi Seoul Tokyo Taiwan Shanghai Manila Jakarta Kuala Lumpur Taipei City Brisbane Melbourne

Sao Paolo Wiley in South America

Wiley-VCH chemistry journals

30 Journals

The in-house family

The mother of them all

1949

1988

1995

2000

2000

2005

2006

2006

2008

2009

2012

2012

2012

People in Publishing

ChemistryA European Journal The team

Peter Wiley and Senior Management in Weinheim

Chemistry journals in Weinheim

Authors, speakers, board members, editorial at Chemistry A European Journal 10th Anniversary Symposium

ChemPubSoc Europe
16 National Chemistry Societies Austria Belgium (2x) Czech Republic France Germany Greece Hungary Italy The Netherlands Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Slovakia

History of ChemPubSoc Europe

1999 P: SPQ 1997 GR: EEX NL: KNCV H: MKE E: RSEQ I: SCI 1995 1998 D: GDCh B: KVCV & A: GCH CZ: SCH SRC S: SK F: SCF PL: PTCH I: SCI

2007/08 Asian Chemical Editorial Society (ACES) supports Chemistry - A European Journal and ChemSusChem

2009 SK: SCS 2010 CH: SCG

Societies Titles

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Merging of Journals

Average Impact Factor 0.871

Vision: Fewer journals with higher quality

After the Merger: Twin Journals

Impact Factor 3.329

Impact Factor 3.049

Vision: Fewer journals with higher quality

Since 1995 ChemPubSoc Europe 15 journals ceased publication 10 new journals Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) 9 journals ceased publication 25 new journals American Chemical Society (ACS) no journals ceased publication 20 new journals

Poland and ChemPubSoc Europe Journals

160 60 50 120 40 80 30 20 40 10 0 2004 0 2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2006

2008

2010

2012

Submissions to ChemPubSoc Europe Journals

Published articles in ChemPubSoc Europe Journals

Poland and ChemPubSoc Europe Journals

L. Latos-Grazynski et al. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2012, 4115

E. Frackowiak ChemSusChem 2012, 5, 1181 W. K. Rybak et al. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2012, 3675

W. Grochala et al. Chem. Eur. J. 2011, 17, 10524

Why publish at all?

Fame
Recognition by your peers

Fortune
Promotions, grant applications, research funding

Responsibility
To society, taxpayer-funded research, contribution to progress

Making your research public

If your research does not generate papers, it might just as well not have been done. George Whitesides (Harvard University)

Papers provide the basis for further research!

The role of scientific journals

Registration: Recording author precedence and merit
Other systems of publication do not necessarily offer all four functions (e.g., open archives)

Peer Review: Selection, quality control and

improvement

Dissemination: Sharing results and methods

Archiving: Maintaining records of publication

Increasingly important

Search & Navigation:

In the internet ageraising the discoverability

Choosing your research topic

If you are a chemist in your mid-20s and have your mind set on an academic career, then the only worthwhile advice I have to offer is whatever you do, tackle a "big problem" in chemistry. Although the road you will travel along will be quite unpredictable, it will reveal an endless supply of surprises and the experience will be a rewarding one." Fraser Stoddart (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 12902)

Publishing a paper
Writing a manuscript

The editorial workflow

The technical workflow Editorial decision making requirements

Peer review process

First, write your paper

Title - be specific (not too technical) and concise and
authors

Abstract - should be short, you do not have to give all the

details

Introduction - why did you do the research

Results and Discusssion what you did, what does
it mean and why it makes a difference

Conclusion - ake home message

Experimental Section how you did it

Extra tips
Are there any data, figures or results are still needed to complete the paper Use simple English Wiley-Blackwell Author Services
http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/english_language.asp

Avoid using too many buzz words

This is yet another example of a nanoscience paper with nanonovelty and nanocontent Anonymous Referee

Artwork

Use one typeface (preferably Arial) Use one size of typeface Avoid use of shadows/glows/reflections For ChemDraw pictures use object settings for a Wiley document

How to write resources

http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/more_resources.asp

How to write resources

Essays: Tips for Writing Better Science Papers by Richard Threlfall on Chemistry Views http://www.chemistryviews.org/ Webinar: Coloration Technology: Getting Published on Chemistry Views http://www.chemistryviews.org/ Whitesides Group: Writing a Paper G.M. Whitesides Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1375

A Brief Guide to Designing Effective Figures for the Scientific Paper M. Rolandi, K. Cheng, S. Prez-Kriz Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 4343

Ten Tips for Authors B. Johnson Chem. Asian J. 2011, 6, 2859

Selecting the journal

Journal Impact Factor is not everything! Where do you read papers related to your research? Which do you like the most? What is the scope of your candidate journal? Who reads your candidate journal? What is the format of your candidate journal?

What are the implications of your research?

How important will others find your research?
In your field? In related fields?

Where were your literature references published?

Writing the cover letter

Together with the conclusions section of your paper, the cover letter is one of the first things the editor will see, so make it count! Why is this topic important? Why are these results significant? What is the key result? (breakthrough!) Why is it an advance on previous work? Why are you submitting to this journal? Why will this journals readers read it? State related manuscripts published or submitted Disclose conflicts of interest Provide reviewer suggestions

Tip: Keep the letter as short as possible the longer it is, the easier it becomes to overlook something important.

The editorial workflow

Manuscript submitted Editors examine & make initial decision Manuscript sent out for peer review Editor makes decision based on reports Manuscript rejected on topic Manuscript rejected on format but re-invited (e.g., shorten)

Manuscript rejected on reports Manuscript rejected on reports but re-invited if major revisions promising

Manuscript is accepted as is or with minor revisions

Manuscript transferred to technical workflow

Revisions requested if possible in short time

Revision
Carefully consider reviewer comments
Not all changes have to be made but need convincing arguments for changes not made

Prepare revision
Revise manuscript
Highlight changes in manuscript

Point-by-point response to all reviewer issues

Changes made Why changes not made

Response may go back to reviewers!

Need to convince editor and reviewers

Rejection
Direct (in-house, on topic)
Outside scope Wrong format Novelty unclear Impact/importance unclear Interest unclear

On reports
Technical/scientific issues Motivation unclear/unimportant Less novel, less original Conclusions do not support the data Results less important Results less interesting Ethical questions Unclear presentation

Should I appeal?
Usually, no
Risk of long time to publication Good papers are cited Editors and referees know journal Criticisms may be valid!

Occasionally, yes
Importance / impact / novelty missed by editor/referees
Need for a good cover letter!

Factual errors in referee reports that led to rejection

The technical workflow

Electronic files received Article edited and typeset Proofs checked (by author) Corrections made & checked Article ready for publication Issue compiled Issue published online Issue printed & dispatched Article published online on EarlyView

What editors look for (suitability)

Initial screening
Scope? Does the topic fit my journal? Might better fit a sister journal ... Format? Communication, full paper, review, ...? Too long should this be a full paper instead?

Make sure the journal of your choice publishes the article type of your paper!

What editors look for (significance)

After the initial check for scope and length is done, the manuscript is examined more closely:
Is the novelty high enough? Difference to prior work? Important to researchers in this field?

Most important hurdle: Important to the whole readership?

Publishing space is limited choose a journal whose readership will be keen to see your results!

Where will the editor look?

Cover letter

Conclusions section of manuscript

Keywords Literature references Abstract Visual information If Im interested, my readers will be, too!

Why peer review?

Selection for publication Verification & improvement

True / credible? Reproducible? Important, relevant? Communicated effectively? Quality?

Interpretation of results Reasoning Presentation Critical feedback New / additional ideas

Peer review because it is competitive and cooperative!

Why peer review?

Peer review is definitely not perfect, but its the best form of research evaluation so far developed.
or, put differently,

All alternatives that have been suggested so far havent got past the controversial discussion stage.

Selecting reviewers
Quality of peer review depends on good reviewer choices
Our reviewer database
> 10,000 active reviewers Are found via keywords, interests, own publication history, or reviewing history

Suggestions from authors

Very helpful! Not just the biggest names please others as well Also list people with conflicts of interest who should not be asked to review

Suggestions from other reviewers

Can provide leads to further candidates

Suggestions from our Advisory Board Members

Especially in difficult cases, appeals or disputes we are supported by our board members

Editors own knowledge of the community

Contacts from conferences, prominent scientists, regular authors, etc.

You can help keep decision times short with good keywords and reviewer suggestions!

What we ask our reviewers to look for

Quality of peer review depends also on clear reviewer reports
Is the motivation clear? Is the motivation important? Is the work novel and original? Are the conclusions supported by the data? Are the results important? (Are they interesting?) Are there any ethical questions? Were any flaws or mistakes found? Should anything be added or removed? Is the presentation clear?

Besides your general opinion, please give clear reasons for rejection or acceptance!

Academic Publishing Depends on Trust

Science should, ideally, be competitive but fair Ethics lay down a standard code of conduct for scientists

Authors, referees, and editors have a responsibility to behave in an ethical fashion

Editor responsibilities
Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript processing

Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts

Make the final decision for accepting or rejecting Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for their own research Ensure fair selection of referees Respond to suggestions of scientific misconduct Deal fairly with author appeals

Author responsibilities
To gather and interpret data in an honest way To present a concise and accurate report of their research

To give due recognition to published work relating to their

manuscript To avoid undue fragmentation of their work into multiple manuscripts To consider publishing related manuscripts in the same

journal

Author responsibilities
To inform the editor of related manuscripts under consideration for publication To ensure that a manuscript is submitted for publication in only one journal at a time. To give due acknowledgement to all workers contributing to the work To revise the manuscript according to the referees suggestions as far possible

More information can be found in the Author Guidelines section at the journals homepages

Reviewer responsibilities
Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts Inform editor quickly if not qualified or unable to review

Judge manuscript objectively and in timely fashion

Return to editor without review if conflict of interest

Explain and support recommendations with arguments and references where appropriate

Reviewer responsibilities
Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for ones own research Inform editor of similarities between submitted manuscript and published or unpublished manuscripts elsewhere Inform editor if plagiarized or falsified data is suspected More information can be found under For Reviewers at the journals homepages

Ethical misconduct
Examples of ethical misconduct that are not tolerated: Falsifying data Fabricating data Plagiarism Multiple concurrent submissions Image manipulation Authorship misrepresentation Duplicate publication

All of the above can have serious consequences for the author, ranging from a letter of reprimand all the way up to criminal proceedings (e.g., Jan Hendrik Schn, Woo Suk Hwang)

Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest arise when ...
... two scientists are working towards the same research goal ... a referee is a collaborator of an author ... a referee is a personal friend, family member or former supervisor of an author ... a referees intellectual beliefs are at odds with those stated in a paper ... a referee and an author do not like one another (personal, political, professional)

All of these factors may lead to unethical behavior

Ethics resources
www.wiley.com/bw/publicationethics/ ON BEING A SCIENTIST A guide to responsible conduct in research By Carolyn Bartozzi www.euchems.eu Ethical guidelines from chemical societies

www.acs.org http://publicationethics.org/

Open Access Publishing Types of Open Access

Green OA Nobody pays

Gold OA Paid open access

Green OA
Nobody pays (not true there is no such thing)

Better expressed as Nobody Pays to Grant Access

Author self-archiving under investigation via the PEER project in the EU, a five year study into the effects of self-archiving on journal usage and citation not clear if self-archiving can exist without the existing publishing infrastructure. Government funded research should be free to access Often driven by publishing mandates from interested parties (governments, funding bodies, universities)

The Gold Road

Distinction to be made between wholly gold (pay to publish) and hybrid models (such as Online Open pay to make OA, NOT pay to publish). Major wholly Gold players are PLoS, BioMedCentral, Hindawi, Copernicus. Most publishers offer some form of OA, either one or two wholly gold titles or hybrid OA articles in subscription titles

Concern with hybrid models if the % uptake of OA payment becomes significant, users may end up paying twice for the same content double dipping

Wiley and Open Access

Gold Road 2 provisions Wiley Open Access Journals and Online Open
Online Open hybrid model whereby authors can elect to make a publication in a suscription journal open access for a fee of 3000 USD Wiley Open Access Journals new journals launched in 2011 and 2012 (mainly Life Sciences and Medicine titles) which are solely open access.

Wiley and Open Access

High standard, rigorous peer review
Each journal has an appointed Editor-inChief and Editorial Board

Rapid publication
Authors retain Copyright Wiley Open Access Journals - licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC , compliant with Open Access mandates Widest possible dissemination Automatic transfer into PubMed Central

What do the Authors think?

It depends what field you work in (and where you work) overwhelmingly, the greatest amount of Online Open business is in Medicine and Life Sciences, with UK-based authors the most active in uptake. SOAP survey 2010 (Society for Open Access Publishing)
Claims 90% of scientists surveyed believed OA would improve their research field, BUT Only 8-10% of articles were actually OA 29% of survey did not publish in OA journal quality, lack of established journals/visibility, cost Survey sample heavily skewed (biomedcentral and sage mailing lists) towards pro-OA areas of research

Even so, prevailing message OA is fine as long as its not my research.

Cost of Publishing
Printingthe story so far Personnel Paper Postage Warehouses Digital future

Personnel Programmers tagging of manuscripts behind Wiley Online library Storage/digtal archive

Digital futureinformation retrieval

Journal homepages

Free services Google PubMed ScienceWatch.com HighlyCited.com

Subscription-based services Web of Knowledge Web of Science Chemical Abstracts Scifinder Reaxys Cochrane Library Scopus

Portals
www.chemistryviews.org
News

Journal Highlights
Videos Webinars Conferences & Events Books Ezine

www.chemistryviews.org

The Smart ArticleTM

Cross-linked, enriched chemistry content to support and expedite the chemists research

Digital future Angewandte Chemie and The iPad App

Enjoy a new reading experience

Thank you for your attention

Any questions?
ADeveson@wiley-vch.de