Navigating the Academic Publishing Process Successfully

KISS Keep It Simple: .. and get accepted! John Morris KRIS, KMITL previously Engineering, Mahasarakham University Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Auckland Iolanthe II leaves the Hauraki Gulf under full sail Auckland-Tauranga Race, 2007

Negotiating with editors REJECTIONS

Rejections Topics Review cycle Initial letter to submit Editor responses Types of response Not all are complete rejections Your response Possible actions Plagiarism

Procedures REVIEWS

Blind reviewing Some journals and conferences review papers without authors names on them To prevent bias Reviewer may not believe the work of someone he s had an argument with or who criticized the reviewer s work before! Terms Single blind review Reviewer name(s) not known Double blind review Neither author(s) nor reviewer(s) known Normal practice 95% + Sometimes 50% ?

Blind reviewing Preparing for blind reviews 1. Remove your names and institution from the author list I usually substitute some dummy names like Author X, Author Y, etc University ABC 2. Check for references to your institution in the text .. in the Photogrammetry Laboratory at Auckland changes to .. in the XYX Laboratory at PQR University 3. Remove citations to your own work from reference list Again I usually substitute something like Self citation 1: some journal, 2006 Substituting dummy names makes it easy to put the real ones back when the paper is accepted! Layout of the paper will not be changed

Reviewing Journal editor will send your paper to at least two experts in your area They will be asked to write a review of your paper They will comment on Errors Experimental methods Presentation Results Analysis Writing style in fact everything!

Reviewing Editor will send the reports back to you If you agree with the comments of the referees Amend the paper to satisfy referees objections Submit again If you don t agree, then Write a carefully argued response and send to the editor Do not attack the referees personally! Editor may accept your comments and publish your paper or Send them back to the referee This may take several iterations Actual procedure depends on journal policy and editor and may take some time! Allow many months!

Review Cycle Editor Authors Paper Reviewer #2 Reviewer #1 Write report Write report

Reviewing Referees are anonymous You will not be told who they are Don t even ask!! Big mistake of some authors argue personally with the referees Journal editors will not allow it If you start such an argument, your paper is likely to be rejected immediately You will be considered unprofessional You must accept the referees comments as reasonable Even if you don t agree with them! Anonymity is important in the reviewing process Allows the referees to express their opinions freely! Even a junior lecturer can criticize a senior professor IF he or she can justify the criticism!!

Final preparation Editor has advised you that your paper is accepted Make any corrections that the editor or the referees have requested Prepare a final copy of your paper Often referred to as the camera ready copy It will be photographed and bound into the journal Check it carefully!! Any mistakes will end up in print forever! Check formatting requirements too Some journals will ask for original LaTeX files and separate image files

PREPARING YOUR PAPER

Submission Check your paper first!! Spelling Spell checkers are mostly reliable Use them!! Few problems, egwhere, were, wear Mostly easily recognized Dictionaries often incomplete Technical terms missing Word allows a custom dictionary File Options You can add technical terms to it Avoids all those squiggly lines under words it thinks you did not type correctly Proofing

Submission Check your paper first!! Spelling Spell checkers are mostly reliable Use them!! Few problems, egwhere, were, wear Mostly easily recognized Dictionaries sometimes incomplete Technical terms missing

Spell check in operation OK! OK! Note the wavy red line Useful ??? Found two typos

Spell check in operation ??? ??? ??? but Li is an English word??? Thai names confuse it!! Technical terms confuse it too! You can add Sripiachai alatus to the dictionary Don t add Li Could be a typo should be lie

Spell checkers Spell checkers will highlight 90+% of real errors but Always check them! Otherwise you find red book converted to read book becausesome smart AI software thought books are read Let a spell checker run in automatic mode Same as ..

Spell checkers Let a spell checker run in automatic mode or Letting Google translate whole sentences Same as .. English expression: Shooting yourself in the foot Luckily .. Your brain is still better than most AI software!! It has been refining the tool for 300,000 years compared to only 20 years for AI software

Grammar checkers Use with EXTREME care Some will just waste time eg Want you to convert conventional scientific passive to active In principle, active is better but Conventional use is strong With passive, target of an operation is the subject Simple direct active We measured the yield of the with Passive The yield of . was measured with .. Passive version puts emphasis on yield May be your primary concern

Checking Spelling, grammar Journal rules Words in abstract Formatting Numbering sections Reference format ? Figures and tables in text or at end Serious differences may cause your paper to be sent back for correction before Any reviewer has seen it!! Loss of time and slower acceptance Check plagiarism with Turn It In More later

JohnS 24 Hour Rule After you think you have finished Choose one (or more) of the following Go to the pub Go to a movie with friends Go to a concert Play football Play with your kids Run >5 km Long dinner with spouse, paramour, Teach Aj John Your choice ?? Play your guitar Tidy up your desk Cook a proper meal Take a break, minimum 24 hours Read your paper again If you did not find 3 things to correct or improve You did not read it carefully enough! After you corrected 3+ errors or improvements NOW it is finished

Keep it Simple COVER LETTER

Cover Letter Editors are busy .. Help them Nice touch Address the editor(s) by name Dear Sir/Madam Ouch .. You did not even find out the name of the editor!! Politer, less business-like Dear Prof Watson or Dear Profs Black and White Can t find the editor name(s) Dear Editor(s) Better than Sir/Madam

Cover Letter My standard form Dear Prof Watson, We would be grateful if you would consider our paper <Title> by <Authors> for consideration in Journal of xxxxxx. <Follow by ..> <Max 2 sentences explaining why the work is interesting or relevant or > Set title and names clearly in first sentence Editor (or sub-editor) can paste into their database

Cover Letter My standard form Dear Prof Watson, We would be grateful if you would consider our paper <Title> by <Authors> for consideration in the Journal of xxxxxx. <Follow by ..> <Max 2 sentences explaining why the work is interesting or relevant or > Yours sincerely Reason why this paper is relevant to this journal and important VERY SHORT Editor will read the abstract too .. Do not duplicate too much Remind them which journal! Some editors have 2 or more VERY SHORT John Morris KRIS, KMITL, Labrakang, Thailaind

Standard form KRIS, KMITL, .. July 3, 2019 Prof Watson, Editor, <Name of Journal> Dear Prof Watson, We would be grateful if you would consider our paper <Title> by <Authors> for consideration in the Journal of xxxxxx. <Max 2 sentences explaining why the work is interesting or relevant or > Yours sincerely John Morris KRIS, KMITL, Labrakang, Thailand john.mo@kmitl.ac.th

RESPONSE FROM EDITOR

Response types Out of scope Minor revisions Major revisions Reject

Response: Out of scope Editor decided: topic of your paper was not suitable for his or her journal Usually this response is fast Sent directly from editor Quickly .. 1-2 weeks Indicates paper was not sent out for review

Response: Out of scope Your response: none Politely thank the editor for effort You may want to send another paper to same journal No argument or discussion Editor is the big cheese Can set very narrow scope for his or her journal

Response: Out of scope Your action: Do not be disappointed This is NOT a rejection Everyone sees this response some time! Simply send to another journal Before choosing another journal Study topics for the current journal Can you understand why editor considered it out of scope ? Help you to read Call for Papers for next journal

Avoiding this rejection Read Call for Papers for the journal Carefully Look at recent papers in the journal Can you find similar papers? If your paper is next to other similar papers Searching for other papers in same journal MAY lead to your paper too!! Reality Editors sometimes do not set out aims clearly Do not worry .. There are many journals now!!

Rejection: Minor revisions needed Everyone get minor revisions Elsevier comments Only papers from large groups (20+ authors) get acceptances without change These papers come from small communities Papers may have been passed around everyone Before being sent to a journal All potential reviewers have already read it All the rest of us One or more reviewers will find something that needs change!! Editor will simply tell you minor revisions needed and invite you to send a revision Minor Revisions are normal! Everyone gets them!

Rejection: Major revisions needed Paper is not rejected yet Editor considers paper is publishable if Modifications are made Often we see combination of Minor or Major or Reject recommendations Reviewers often do not agree Editor makes a judgement Authors will be able to improve paper Enough to satisfy majority of reviewers Editors vary in level of detail Some simply say Major revisions needed Leave you to decide what you can do (or cannot do) and invite you to send a revision

Rejection: Major revisions needed Paper is not rejected yet Editor considers paper is publishable if Modifications are made Editors vary in level of detail Some simply say Major revisions needed Leave you to decide what you can do (or cannot do) Others give specific directions Things you must do One now common demand certificate that your paper was edited by an expert Generally Invite you to revise

Rejection: Reject Usually requires all reviewers to recommend it Editors tend to continue If 1 reviewer recommends modifications only Reviewers asked to rate strength of comment .. 0 - 100 Generally Invite you to revise Sometimes Invite a new (ie start again) modified submission Your action: Defend or Accept and try again New work Different journal After improvement!

AVOIDING REJECTIONS

Common rejection reasons From experience Rejections brought to me for advice 1. Not sufficiently novel 2. Poor English 3. Technical faults 4. Out of scope Following sections discuss avoiding these reasons .

Rejection reason OUT OF SCOPE

Out of Scope Not very common Avoid by Studying Calls for Papers Looking at other recent papers in same journal but All of us see it sometimes Usually when trying something new No defense possible Usually received quickly 1 2 weeks Because paper did not leave editor s desk Solution

Out of Scope Solution Try another journal Use experience with studying Call for Papers Choose better match with journal scope Consider modifying your approach To match next journal better Learn from rejections! ? Defend Try to show value of paper Hard!! Editors are the big cheese Not recommended Did not leave this editor s desk

Out of Scope Remember This is not a REJECTION Paper might be valuable You just chose the wrong journal Another editor may have very different view

Avoiding Rejection Reasons NOT SUFFICIENTLY NOVEL

Not sufficiently novel Very common rejection reason! Need to read literature thoroughly Very hard in 2019 100s of papers on every topic Many papers on hot topics Accept this! Plan to spend many hours in library or Google searches <1 day / week on reading literature Not sufficiently novel rejections

Not sufficiently novel Large research groups are more successful Working by yourself Not able to cover literature Team work helps Able to cover more papers Regular research meetings More papers Share ideas Share reading load Find important papers Internal review of new papers Less load for KRIS advisors KRIS handles everything Your colleagues and classmates have narrower focus English saying Many hands make light work!

Avoiding Rejection Reasons ENGLISH WEAK

English weak Rule #1 KEEP IT SIMPLE Rule #2 Do not add any unneeded words Rule #3 Make sure every sentence has <subject> <verb> <object> If more than one clause, each clause <subject> <verb> <object> Rule #4 Read KISS before starting

English weak Rule #5 KEEP IT SIMPLE (in case you forgot Rule #1) Rule #6 Make sure somebody checks it carefully Preferably a native speaker Rule #7 Find some good model papers Look in high impact factor journals Native speaker authors But some of them write badly too!! If you can t read the paper, probably others can t read it either Apply John s 24 hour rule

Australian authors Native speakers? Can you understand it? If you want to get cited, Avoid writing like this!!

English weak Rule #8 Apply John s 24 hour rule