1. CPD 3 - Advanced Publishing Skills 1 - How to Get Published and to Continue to Get Published in Leading Academic Journals Professor Tarani Chandola with Professor Yanick Crow http://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/employment/training/personal- development/academic-staff/

2. Challenges? Reviewers comments positive but article not accepted Long delays in review process and editors decision Article not sent out for review Reviewers comments don’t seem to reflect content of paper Reviewers comments not objective Article challenging orthodoxy difficult to publish Responded to reviewers comments but article not accepted Coauthor delays in working on their section Coauthor not contributing Article published in top journal but not very positively reviewed in REF

3. Motivation Share principles & experience accumulated as... – researcher – co-editor of a journal – reviewer for many journals

4. Reasons for publishing? To communicate new findings For recognition To get useful feedback from peers For your CV Protect intellectual property

5. Where to publish? “top” journals ID alternative journals if rejected “Papers in a high impact-factor journal receive on average about twice as many citations as the ‘same’ paper in a lower impact-factor journal” http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.3177.pdf

6. High Impact Factor Journals Criteria Short Innovative Also interesting for not specialized colleagues Provides strong evidence for its conclusions Novel Of extreme importance to scientists in the specific field Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines from: Nature Editorial Policies

7. Short vs Long papers Long, authoritative publications= depth of knowledge However, long publications= delays by you, editors and reviewers The number of papers in your CV is important Short papers in good journals are better than a 3 year old draft of an unpublished manuscript Short papers are often simpler to revise. Reviews and synthesis papers are among the most highly cited However, they are time-consuming and sometimes not REF returnable

8. http://cse.unl.edu/~grother/nsefs/03/pubstrats.pdf

9. Golden rules -Target audience -Clear message -Broader context -Explicit innovation -Well structured -Focused and logical reasoning -Well referenced -Clear Figures and Tables -Clear Legends

10. Evaluation criteria for research papers Original contribution Significant problem – here is the solution Sound results – replicable High-quality presentation

11. Originality and Significance Originality – Specify objectives & contribution carefully abstract, intro, conclusion – Compare with related work carefully paper intro, special section – Implement objectives carefully paper body Significance - Discuss why this problem is significant abstract, introduction, conclusion – Discuss why your result is significant intro, discussion section, conclusion

12. Significance of research - Discuss why this problem is significant abstract, introduction, conclusion – Discuss why your result is significant intro, discussion section, conclusion

13. A few typical reviewers’ comments -“the objectives are unclear” -“too little beef” -“the authors seem to ignore...” -“... so what?” -“the paper fails to deliver what is promises” -“unsubstantiated claims” -“opinion paper...” -“premature...” -“the paper provides little evidence that the results do apply in real settings”, “scaleability is questionable”, etc -“evaluation is weak” -“rambling discusion...” -[to editor] “boring”, “unexciting”, “substance-free” http://cse.unl.edu/~grother/nsefs/03/pubstrats.pdf

14. If rejected, take solace… From: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1108

15. Co-authorship Sole authorship Multiple authors Authorship criteria What is important for the CV? -Fewer sole author papers, vs many co-authored -Fewer 1 st author papers vs many 2 nd authored

16. Example: REF criteria- Panel C Originality: engage with new and/or complex problems; develop innovative research methods, methodologies and analytical techniques; Provide new empirical material; and/or advance theory or the analysis of doctrine, policy or practice. Significance: development of the intellectual agenda of the field; may be theoretical, methodological and/or substantive. Rigour: intellectual precision, robustness and appropriateness of the concepts, analyses, theories and methodologies deployed.

17. Example: REF critieria- Panel C Four star (three star) a primary or essential point (important) of reference in its field or sub-field major (important) influence on the intellectual agenda of a research theme or field application of exceptionally rigorous research (robust and appropriate) design and techniques of investigation and analysis, and the highest standards of intellectual precision instantiating an exceptionally significant, multi- user (widely admired) data set or research resource

18. Top Tips Coauthoring and sole authoring are both vital Highlight the submission to the editor and the potential wide interest in it. Can do this in advance. Make sure article is set up according to journal requirements. Respond in detail to reviewers comments. Often they lead to an improved article! Work on your citations, using blogs, networks, social media, target policy makers and key stakeholders, make the most of publishing in open access formats.

19. Questions and ideas to share http://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/employment/training/p ersonal-development/academic-staff/