Elsevier Author Workshop: Publishing in Insurance: Mathematics and Economics IME Conference Dalian, China July 15, 2007 IME Conference Dalian, China July 15, 2007 Rob Kaas, University of Amsterdam Marc Goovaerts, KU Leuven, Univ of Amsterdam Elias Shiu, Univ of Iowa, Hongkong Univ Jeroen Loos, Elsevier

2 Overview of talk Publishing in IME  How does the EES work? ( E lsevier E ditorial S ystem)  Peer review process  Procedure at IME  Tips on revising your paper (1–5)  Aims and Scope of IME  What is a ``good'' paper? (1–9)  Ethics in scientific publishing

3 How does the EES work?  Visit (or search for EES IME)  Read the 'Tutorial for Authors' (to be found on the top-right)Tutorial for Authors  Read the 'Guide for Authors'Guide for Authors  But do submit a pdf, it is in fact the best way (worry about figures, TeX-source etc. later)  To start a submission, click 'Submit paper' (on top of page)

4 Peer review process: Procedure at IME 1. EES notifies Managing Editor of submission 2. Managing Editor assigns 'Handling editor' 3. Handling editor seeks referees 4. Referees study paper for 6 weeks (or many more  ) 5. Submit review through EES 6. Handling editor takes decision  Revise (then loop )  Reject (60-65%)  Accept 7. Average time for IME between submission, decision and publication is ±36 weeks plus ±40 weeks

5 Peer review process: Revision 1. Revision after review  Accompany the resubmission a letter of responses to the reviewers’ comments. Address the comments for each reviewer and the Editor point by point.  Cut and paste each comment, answer it directly below. Do not miss any point.  Identify where on the manuscript changes have been made (page and line number).  You are encouraged to provide a convincing, solid and polite answer if you think a reviewer is wrong!

6 Peer review process: Revision (2)  Remember: editors and reviewers hate to see the same mistake twice!  If you want to submit the rejected manuscript to a different journal, begin as if you are going to write a new article. Re-evaluate your work according to the comments from the reviewers. And do read the Guide for Authors of the new journal.  Do not resubmit the rejected manuscript directly to a similar journal without any significant revision. It is entirely plausible that it will be sent to the same referee(s)!

7 Peer review process: Revision (3) 2. Revision before submission  One of the most important things before submission: make every attempt to make the manuscript as good as possible.  After you complete the first draft, take several days of rest. Refresh your brain with different things. And come back with critical eyes.  Ask your colleagues and supervisors to review your manuscript first.  Generally, taking enough time to revise your manuscript before submission will bring you an early decision in return.

8 Peer review process: Revision (4) Which procedure do you prefer? 1. Send out a sloppily prepared manuscript  get rejected after 4-6 months  send out again only a few days later  get rejected again  …  sink into despair 2. Take 3-4 months to prepare the manuscript  get the first decision after 4 months  revise carefully  …  accepted You are SUBMITTING your manuscript to a scientific journal, not THROWING it out. Please cherish your own achievements!

9 Peer review process: Revision (5) To improve your chances of your paper being published:  A  A ttention to detail  C  C heck and double check your work  C  C onsider the reviews  E  E nglish must be as good as possible  P  P resentation is important  T  T ake your time with revision  A  A cknowledge those who have helped you  N  N ew original and previously unpublished  C  C ritically evaluate your own manuscript  E  E thical rules must be obeyed

10 Aims and Scope of IME  Insurance Mathematics comes first  Editors, not authors, decide if an article fits in the scope  "Insurance: Mathematics and Economics publishes high quality research papers of international interest, to strengthen communication between those producing and applying research results in insurance and finance, and to integrate the currently fragmented research in both fields. The subject matter of the journal includes theory, models and computational methods of life insurance, non-life insurance, reinsurance and other risk-sharing arrangements, and risk management. It also includes innovative insurance applications of results from fields such as probability and statistics, computer science and numerical analysis, economics, operations research and management science."

11 What is a ''good'' paper?  Content is essential  Presentation is critical You need a GOOD manuscript to present your contributions to the science community!

12 What is a ''good'' paper? (2)  Contains a scientific message that is clear, useful, and exciting.  Conveys the authors’ thoughts in a logical manner such that the reader arrives at the same conclusions as the author.  Is constructed in the format that best showcases the authors’ material, and written in a style that transmits the message clearly.

13 What is a ''good'' paper? (3)  A good manuscript makes readers (especially reviewers and editors) grasp the scientific significance as EASILY as possible. Writing a good manuscript is NOT easy! Be prepared to work hard on it!

14 What is a ''good'' paper? (4) REMEMBER:  Cherish your own work – if you do not take care, why should the journal?  There is no secret recipe for success – just some simple rules, dedication and hard work.  Editors and reviewers are all busy scientists, just like you – make things easy to save their time!

15 What is a ''good'' paper? (5) References – Typically, there are more mistakes in the references than any other part of the manuscript. It is one of the most annoying problems, and causes great headaches among editors…  Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based  Do not over-inflate the manuscript with too many references – it doesn’t make a better manuscript!  Avoid excessive self-citations  Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region  BUT Make sure you know the relevant literature, to avoid:  “The result proved by the authors is in fact a special case of the more general model in...”, or the like.

16 What is a ''good'' paper? (6)  Make the reference list and the in-text citation conform strictly to the style given in the Guide for Authors! (This is also a task for the Journal Editor at Elsevier)  But presentation in the correct format is the responsibility of the author, not the Editor!  Checking the format is normally a large job for the editors. Make their work easier and they will appreciate the effort.  Check the following:  spelling of author names, year of publications  Usages of “ et al. ”, and punctuations.  Also be sure to spell the Editor's name right! (For example, my name is Kaas, not Kass )

17 What is a ''good'' paper? (7)  Keep consistent throughout the manuscript. (Yes)  Double line spacing and 12 font is preferred: make it convenient for reviewers to make annotations. (No)  Do not right-justify. (No)

18 What is a ''good'' paper? (8) Author names  Keep consistent in the style of writing your full name and the abbreviation for all your publications – for the efficiency of indexing and searching. For example, Standard: Ouyang Zhongcan (Ouyang Z. ), or OUYANG Zhong-can (Ouyang Z.C.), Following are also found in literature: Ou-yang Zhong-can, Ouyang Zhong-can, Ou-Yang Zhongcan, Ouyang, Z.C, Zhongcan Ouyang, Zhong-can Ou-Yang, ……

19 What is a ''good'' paper? (9)  If the language prevents reviewers from understanding the scientific content of your work, the possibility of acceptance will be lowered greatly.  At the minimum, you should provide the best English you can manage along with your high quality science. Please have a skilled writer or someone fluent in English help to check your manuscript before submission.

20 Ethics in scientific publishing Two quite obvious rules are important: 1. Submit your paper to one journal at a time (editors and reviewers hate wasting their time; remember that the number of experts on your topic is small; it may well be that the same reviewer is consulted) 2. Never submit other people's work under your own name (this is a criminal offense and might ruin your scientific career) See also the Ethics in Publishing: Instructions to Authors at the final stage of the submission procedure

21 Questions?

22 Thank you!