1. Publishing 101 Dos and don’ts of publishing in APS journals
Kim E. Barrett, Chair, APS Publications Committee
Margaret Reich, APS Director of Publications and Executive Editor
Editor Panel: Dennis Brown, AJP-Cell; Alberto Nasjletti, AJP-Heart

2. Preparing your work for publication in APS journals
Kim E. Barrett
Chair, Publications Committee

3. Preparing your work for publication
The overall process
Issues to consider before you start to write
Authorship
Journal
Elements of a journal article
The review/revision process
Tips to enhance your chances of acceptance

4. Why is publication so important?
No publication, no project
Your results must be available for others, or it is as if they don’t exist
No publication, no promotion
Yardstick of productivity
No publication, no funding
What have you done for me lately?
Publishing your work is vital for success

5. Completion of research
Preparation of manuscript
Submission of manuscript
Assignment and review
Decision
Rejection
Revision
Resubmission
Re-review
Acceptance
Rejection
PUBLICATION!
Adapted from a figure by Dale Benos

6. Authorship Decide on authors, and their order, as early as possible
Preferably before even starting the project
Authors should include only those who have made a substantive intellectual contribution to the project reported, and can defend the data and conclusions publicly

7. Criteria for authorship
Generate at least part of the intellectual content
Conception or design of the work
Data analysis and interpretation
Draft, critically review, or revise the intellectual content
Approve the final version to be submitted
All three criteria should be satisfied

8. Who’s an author?
The student who did the experiments and wrote the first draft of the manuscript?
The technician who measured cytokine levels in 150 samples?
The PI who had the idea in the first place, guided the student, and reviewed the manuscript?
The department chair who provided space and resources for the study, dropped by the lab occasionally to chat, but knew little or nothing about the experiments?

9. Choosing the right journal
Target audience
“Who would be interested in reading this paper?”
Import and significance of the findings
Seek input from colleagues
Decide on the journal before beginning to write

10. Essential elements of a manuscript
Based on what was known and unknown, why did you do the study?
Introduction
How did you do the study?
Methods
What did you find?
Results
What does it mean in the context of the existing body of knowledge?
Discussion

11. Tips for success
Know the journal, its editor, and why you submitted your paper there
Read the instructions
Avoid careless spelling, grammar, formatting mistakes
Make sure references are appropriate and accurate
Remember who your reviewers might be!
Ensure appropriate file format, including figures
Is the on-line version the one you want the reviewers to see?
Confirm receipt

12. The revision process
If your paper is returned for revision, you are in good company
It’s OK to get mad, but don’t act on it!
Try to understand what the reviewers are really saying
If the reviewers did not understand your work, is it because you didn’t present it clearly in the first place?
Look for clues from the editor (the final arbiter) as to the extent of revision needed

13. Responding to reviewers
Complete additional experiments if needed
Address all comments in a point-by-point fashion
Resist the temptation to prepare an impassioned response to points with which you disagree
Stand firm (diplomatically) if that is truly the right thing to do
Sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for helping you to improve your work
They have invested a lot of time, mostly on a voluntary basis
Ask a neutral colleague to review your response

14. Major reasons for rejection
Inappropriate for the journal
Do your homework
Merely confirmatory/incremental
Avoid LPU’s (least publishable units)
Describes poorly-designed or inconclusive studies
Focus on your hypothesis
Poorly written
Great science in an ugly package can still be rejected

15. Summary Do the study with the paper in mind
Assign authorship appropriately
Chose the right journal
Seek input from colleagues
See the wood as well as the trees
Remember who the reviewers might be
If unsure about ethics, ask!

16. Ethical pitfalls in scientific publishing
Kim E. Barrett
Margaret Reich
Alberto Nasjletti (Editor, AJP-Heart)
Dennis Brown (Editor, AJP-Cell)

17. Ethical responsibilities of a scientist
Intellectual honesty
Accurate assignment of credit
Fairness in peer review
Collegiality in scientific interactions
Transparency in conflicts of interest
Protection of human and animal subjects

18. Ethical issues at APS
Ethical cases are increasing among submissions to APS journals, and in the scientific literature overall
Ignorance of appropriate standards
Funding, promotions pressures?
APS takes ethical matters very seriously, and has developed clearly-stated policies
Authors found to have violated these policies are subject to a variety of actions, up to and including notification of their institution and/or sanctions for the most serious offenses
The Publications Committee recommends on the disposition of ethical issues to the Executive Cabinet of APS, with the APS Council serving as an appeals body if necessary
Our goal in this session is to provide you with information that should allow you to avoid ethical pitfalls

19. Common ethical issues (in order of prevalence at APS)
Redundant publication
Animal welfare concerns
Authorship disputes
Duplicate publication
Human welfare concerns
Data fabrication/falsification
Increasingly, includes inappropriate manipulation of figures
Plagiarism
Conflicts of interest
Others (e.g., reviewer bias, submission irregularities)

20. Prior publication APS defines this as: Data
Extended verbatim text passages
Tables or illustrations

21. Redundant publication
Definition
Using text or data from another paper/prior publication (usually your own) in a new paper
Also called auto- or self-plagiarism
How to avoid
Do not include material from a previous study in a new one, even for statistical analysis
Repeat control groups as needed

22. Human and animal welfare issues
Definition
Treatment of experimental subjects that does not conform with accepted standards and journal policy
How to avoid
Obtain prospective IRB/IACUC approval for the study protocol
Do not deviate from the protocol
Obtain approval for amendments as needed before altering the protocol

23. Authorship disputes Definition How to avoid
Disputes arising from the addition, deletion, or change in the order of authors
How to avoid
Agree on authors and their order before starting the study
Ensure all authors meet criteria for authorship
Sign publishers’ authorship forms

24. Duplicate publication
Definition
Submission of or publication of the same paper or substantial parts of a paper in more than one place
How to avoid
Do not submit a paper to more than one journal at a time
Wait until your paper is rejected before submitting elsewhere
Withdraw a paper if you decide not to re-submit after being invited to do so

25. Data fabrication/falsification
Definition
Changing or making up data in a manuscript
Intended to “improve” the results
Includes digital manipulation of images (blots, micrographs, etc.)
How to avoid
Present the exact results obtained
Do not withhold data that don’t fit your hypothesis
Don’t try to beautify images with Photoshop – any manipulations must apply to the whole image

26. Unacceptable figure manipulation
Improper editing
Improper grouping
Improper adjustment
Authors should not:
Move
Remove
Introduce
Obscure
Enhance
any specific feature within a image. Images should appear as captured in the lab.

27. Improper editing

28. Improper grouping
Authors should not generate composite images, even if obtained in a single capture, unless dividing lines are inserted to make clear that the resulting image was not visible in the actual experiment

29. Improper adjustment
Authors should not adjust contrast, color balance or brightness unless applied to the entire figures and the adjustment does not obscure, eliminate or misrepresent the originally-captured information. Adjustments should be disclosed in the figure legend.

30. Plagiarism Definition How to avoid Taking the work of another
Copying a figure, table, or even wording from a published or unpublished paper without attribution
How to avoid
Provide citation to the work of others
Obtain copyright permission if needed
Do not copy exact wording from another source, even if referenced, unless in quotes

31. Conflicts of interest Definition How to avoid
Real or perceived conflict due to employment, consulting, or investment in entities with an interest in the outcome of the research
How to avoid
Disclose all potential conflicts to the Editor and within the manuscript

32. Reviewer issues Reviewers can also engage in unethical behavior
Bias
Conflict of interest
Misappropriation of privileged information
Reviewers are obligated to:
Maintain confidentiality
Inform the editor if circumstances preclude a unbiased review or could represent even a perceived conflict
Provide fair and collegial assessments