1. Writing and Publishing

2. The Editorial Process
Reviewers Revise, Editors Decide

3. The Editorial Process Submission Revision Acceptance
Required files submission
Proof correction
Publication (online and offline)

4. The Editorial Process Role of EDITOR-IN-CHIEF (EIC)
Associate EDITOR (AE) and
REVIEWERS

5. Satisfying Reviewers
A research article is usually evaluated by a panel of experts before it is accepted for publication. This process is called “The Peer Review Process”.
The process entails the scrutiny of the paper by a number (usually 3 or more) of eminent authorities or experts in the field. They would study the paper independently (and blind to each other and often to the name of the author) and independently write a report on the suitability of a paper proposed for publication. In doing so, they look for and view the paper from the perspectives – at least - of:

6. Style/language/presentation Interest and relevance
Technical robustness
Clarity
Style/language/presentation
Interest and relevance
Appropriateness for venue
The reviewers usually rate the paper from each of these perspectives and even at times with respect to many attributes of each perspective. Most publications also ask the reviewer to provide an overall “acceptance” rating for each paper.
In addition to comments, the reviewers need to rate the manuscript in each of different aspects (Example)

7. Possible outcomes of the manuscript in the review process
Acceptance without revision (a rare event)
Acceptance with minor revisions
Revise (major changes – usually with additional experiments required; Editor usually sends the revised manuscript back to one or more of original reviewers)
Reject (with encouragement to re-submit after extensive revisions and addition of new experimental data to address the flaws/issues in the original manuscript)
Reject (submit to another journal) – sometimes article transfer

8. Response from the Editors
Desk reject (25%) - Be ready for straight away rejection
Lack of fit with journal
Desk revise (5%)
A new revision may be sent to reviewers
Reject with reviewer comments (30%)
Revise and resubmit (40%)
Of the revise and resubmit requests, almost 50% are eventually published

9. These ratings are usually:
Accept without any modifications
Accept with minor stylistic modifications to the satisfaction of the editor
Accept with minor structural or technical modifications as advised
Accept after modifications sought have been reviewed
Reject out-right

10. A look at the reviewer’s checklist (APL)
Is the paper especially important, interesting, and timely enough to warrant rapid publication in APL?
Is the paper original? (extension of recent work or serial submissions designed solely to meet length requirement are not suitable for publication in APL)
Does the paper contain sufficient Physics, as opposed to recipes or fabrication? (Device proposals without substantial experiment support are unacceptable for publication in APL)
Is the paper well organized?
Is the paper clearly written and free from errors or ambiguities?
The first five are the most important!

11. A look at the reviewer’s checklist (APL)
Is sufficient information included (or cited) to support the assertions made and conclusions drawn?
Is the English satisfactory?
Is the title appropriate and short?
Does the abstract include the important points of the paper?
Are the tables, figures and captions clear?
Are references to related work adequate?
OVERALL RATING:
( ) Poor, ( ) Fair, ( ) Good, ( ) Very Good, ( ) Excellent

12. Reviewer’s Remarks and Recommendation (APL)
Comments to the Author:
Comments to the Editor:
RECOMMENDATION:
Publish in APL as is
Publish in APL with optional revision
Publish in APL with mandatory revision (minor)
Reconsider for APL after mandatory revision (major)
Reject
Recommended referral to another journal
Which journal: -----

13. What gets you accepted? Attention to details
Check and double check your work
Consider the reviews
English must be as good as possible
Presentation is important
Take your time with revision
Acknowledge those who have helped you
New, original and previously unpublished
Critically evaluate your own manuscript
Ethical rules must be obeyed
ACCEPTANCE

14. Reasons for early rejection
Limited interest of paper
Routine application of a well-known method
No novelty
Failure to meet submission requirements
Incomplete coverage of literature
Unacceptably poor English

15. Rejections Articles can be rejected for various reasons
For example, your topic does not have a wide audience (for Nature, Science journal etc.)
Some conferences accept only 15%
But you get valuable reviews
Think twice before complaining (appeal)
Reviewers are anonymous, don’t try to guess who it is
Use the criticism constructively –if they misunderstood you, others will do as well
Consider sending it elsewhere

16. Rejection : not the end of the world

17. Dealing with Rejection
A rejection can be upsetting, and it is often sensible to let at least 24 hours pass before thinking about your next steps.
It is not a good idea to fire off an angry to the editor asking for explanation or saying that the process was unfair.
Even after careful consideration, if you think there has been a misunderstanding or error, some journals would entertain a request for reconsideration, usually in the form of an explaining you the point of view.
In most cases, the best and most time-efficient course is to reassess quickly your choice of journal, fix any weaknesses that may have been pointed out in the review process, reformat the paper for your second-choice journal and send it off.
About 70% of the papers rejected in Science are eventually published elsewhere.

18. If rejected— Submit elsewhere
Understand why it is rejected
Go back and think about the ways the new journal is different
Make your new version different

19. If revision is requested
Try to understand what the reviewers want
Sometimes they were wrong
Sometimes you were wrong
Sometimes you were not clear
Show you are responsive to the issues raised

20. What happens after your manuscript is accepted for publication?
First, the celebration ...
Then:
Some journals publish the paper online as a PDF file of the final manuscript that was accepted for publication (days to weeks).
Within a few weeks, journal sends page proofs of your article as it will appear in printed or electronic form. These proofs need to be read very carefully to check for printer’s errors or other items that need to be corrected. Journals usually want the corrected proofs back within a few days.

21. How to get your paper accepted?
Some tips

22. Revisit the Editorial Process ..
How is AE selected?
EIC picks one in the related area from the Editorial board
How are reviewers selected
Suggested reviewers
Persons he knows or his students or collaborators
Reviewer selection tools
My previous experiences and reviewers
Authors from papers published recently on the same topics
Your reference list etc.
How do reviewers score – satisfaction
How do AEs make decision – Based on reviewers comments

23. Is it possible to guess the Associate Editor and the Reviewers??

24. If you are able to “Guess” what can you do??

25. Speeding up review by continuous tracking …
Regularly track the progress of review.
if necessary (show examples)

26. Dis-satisfied with review
Sometimes you feel not satisfied with the review – you can argue but gently (Example)
Think twice before you argue