Taylor’s University, Malaysia Enhancement Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency and Strategies to Publish an Article in Reputable International Journals Paolo Mura Taylor’s University, Malaysia

Understanding the current global academic scenario… Universities competing in ranking systems to attract more students Publications in high impact journals and citations as one of the criteria to rank universities The multiple roles of scholars (teachers, researchers, administrators, supervisors, editors, reviewers, consultants, trainers, networkers, travelers, etc.) Increasing expectations on scholars – pressure from funders and peers Work-life balance?

Evaluation of Scholars (Kalwij & Smith, 2013) Number of publications in Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science listed journals The impact factor of these journals Citation count Hirsch’s h-index A point of criticism – are scholars humans or numbers?

Visibility or Merit? Citations might be the result of: an article’s visibility an article’s merit a combination of both merit and visibility Publications need to be found, read, and cited (Kalwij & Smith, 2013)

33 ways of increasing citations (Ale Ebrahim et al., 2013) Use appropriate keywords that identify the article Publish in journals with high impact factor Self-archive articles

33 ways of increasing citations (Ale Ebrahim et al., 2013) Keep your professional web pages and published lists up to date Make your research easy to find Open Access (OA) increases citation rate

33 ways of increasing citations (Ale Ebrahim et al., 2013) Publish with international authors Join academic social networking sites (e.g. ResearchGate, Academia.edu) Write a review paper Create a podcast describing the research project

How to publish in a top journal? “The current peer-review system is groaning under a disproportionate number of manuscript submissions that increasingly exceeds the available reviewers and publication space in journals” (Kalwij & Smith, 2013, p. 28) High Rejection Rate (More than 90%!) More work for editors More work for reviewers

7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal (Aijaz A. Shaikh, 2016) 1. Do not rush submitting your article for publication It takes time, dedication and devotion

7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal (Aijaz A. Shaikh, 2016) 2. Select an appropriate publication outlet Finding the right journal for your article can dramatically improve the chances of acceptance and ensure it reaches your target audience.

7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal (Aijaz A. Shaikh, 2016) 3. Read the aims and scope and author guidelines of your target journal carefully

7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal (Aijaz A. Shaikh, 2016) 4. Make a good first impression with your title and abstract. The title should summarize the main theme of the article and reflect your contribution to the theory. The abstract should be crafted carefully and encompass the aim and scope of the study; the key problem to be addressed and theory; the method used; the data set; key findings; limitations; and implications for theory and practice.

7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal (Aijaz A. Shaikh, 2016) 5. Have a professional editing firm copy-edit (not just proofread) your manuscript, including the main text, list of references, tables and figures.

7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal (Aijaz A. Shaikh, 2016) 6. Submit a cover letter with the manuscript. A good cover letter first outlines the main theme of the paper; second, argues the novelty of the paper; and third, justifies the relevance of the manuscript to the target journal.

7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal (Aijaz A. Shaikh, 2016) 7. Address reviewer comments very carefully. Editors and editors-in-chief usually couch the acceptance of a manuscript as subject to a “revise and resubmit” based on the recommendations provided by the reviewer or reviewers.

'Eight reasons I rejected your article‘ (Peter Thrower, 2012) 1. It fails the technical screening The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal The manuscript is not complete The English is not sufficient for the peer review process The article does not conform to the Guide for Authors References are incomplete or very old

'Eight reasons I rejected your article‘ (Peter Thrower, 2012) 2.  It does not fall within the Aims and Scope For the journal Carbon, the material studied may contain carbon, but is not carbon. The study uses a carbon material but the focus is on something different. There is no new carbon science.

'Eight reasons I rejected your article‘ (Peter Thrower, 2012) 3.  It's incomplete. The article contains observations but is not a full study. It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.

'Eight reasons I rejected your article‘ (Peter Thrower, 2012) 4.  The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective. The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics. The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated. The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.

'Eight reasons I rejected your article‘ (Peter Thrower, 2012) 5.  The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid. The data does not support the conclusions. The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature.

'Eight reasons I rejected your article‘ (Peter Thrower, 2012) 6.  It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors. Findings are incremental and do not advance the field. The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible.

'Eight reasons I rejected your article‘ (Peter Thrower, 2012) 7.  It's incomprehensible. The language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit can't be assessed. Have a native English speaker read the paper. Even if you ARE a native English speaker.

'Eight reasons I rejected your article‘ (Peter Thrower, 2012) 8.  It's boring. It is archival, incremental or of marginal interest to the field The question behind the work is not of interest in the field. The work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journals.

Some final tips from my own experience… Do you want to publish in XY journal? Read the articles published in XY journal, understand which type of articles are accepted, familiarize yourself with the rules of the journal, understand the audience of the journal Seek feedback on your article from colleagues and peers before submission – no fear of being criticized! Try to be innovative in the selection of the topic – read extensively and passionately, question theories, challenge knowledge Be innovative in your methodological choices (it’s not just about methods) Conduct research on topics that somehow relate to you and/or your context – research is about you, not outside you

And a last tip… Even when your paper gets rejected, never give up! Keep fighting, there is no rejection that can stop your passion for research!

Thank You