How to get published

1
How to get published an editors view

• Sjak Smulders
• Professor of Economics
• Former co-editor Resource and Energy Economics

2
Overview

• Perspective of the editor
• Perspective of the author

3
Editors perspective

• My own background
• Co-editor in chief of Resource and Energy
  Economics 2005-2011
• Impact factor 1.8
• Immediately below top-field
• 4 issues a year
• 1054 pages published in 2011
• handled about 600 papers
• Guest Editor (JEEM, EER)
• Referee (40 journals), economist, author

4
Warning

• My advice contained here not necessarily improve
  the chances that your research papers will be
  published.
• By staying in this room, you agree that
• In no event shall the presenter be liable for any
  indirect, incidental, collateral, exemplary,
  consequential, or special damages or losses
  arising out of your use of rules suggested.
• Adapted from Kwan Choi http//www.roie.org/howi.h
  tm.

5
Before submitting
6
Before submitting

• Research strategy
• One or two fields. Focus and specialize become
  an expert
• Diversify within your expertise
• Choose topic
• Not too old, not to radically new
• Make small but significant steps
• Watch the literature working papers (SSRN), top
  (field) journals (papers in press)
• Get comments
• Talk to supervisor, colleagues, seminar speakers,
  
• Present your work in Tilburg and at
  conferences/workshops
• Send work for comments (but do not expect too
  much)
• Think and polish

7
When to submit?

• Depends on your career
• Job Market candidates better have a promising
  working paper than a rejected paper
• Tenure trackers Better have a finished paper on
  a referees desk than on your desk
• Submit three years before publication -)

8
Where to submit?

• Aim at (sub)top field journal
• Diversify journals
• Portfolio of papers in different stages and
  different topics
• Invited papers and book chapters not for new
  stuff!

9
What is a paper that brings you further?

• Not a survey
• Not a comment
• Not telling what we know not just a method
• Not a book
• Not a novel
• Novel insight
• Not long lt 30 pages, lt 30 equations, lt 30
  references

10
What is novel?

• Novel insight
• Paper1 ingredients A,B,C,D
• Paper2 ingredients C,D,E
• Your paper ingredients A, B, E ?
  maybe applied paper
• Your paper ingredients A, C, X ?
  promising
• Original papers add something and dare to
  eliminate some old notions. Do not worry about
  compatibility with old papers.
• Adapted from Kwan Choi http//www.roie.org/howi.h
  tm.

11
Submitting the paper

• Electronic submission systems
• Follow guidelines
• Cover letter (at first submission)
• Submitted along with your manuscript
• As short as possible
• Will the editor read this?
• Note special requirements (suggest reviewers,
  conflicts of interest)
• Make sure it just looks very good. Does it look
  like a paper?

12
The review process
13
The review process
Michael Derntl Basics of Research Paper Writing
and Publishing. http//www.pri.univie.ac.at/dernt
l/papers/meth-se.pdf
14
First check by the editor

• Scope-test Does the paper fit the journal?
• Topic
• Novelty-test Similar work by same/other authors?
• Reference list
• Later on when looking for referees
• Does the paper look professional?
• Mentioning trivial facts in introduction
• One table with regression results only
• 20 tables with regression tables
• Dense line spacing, changing fonts, poorly edited
  equations

• Implication for authors
• Stick to the conventions
• Use a template
• Boring but effective

15
Desk rejections

• Rejection without consult of referees
• Up to 50
• A blessing for editors, referees, and authors
• Quick and clear
• But you don t get comments
• Journals are not copy editing offices
• Editors are not supervisors
• Motives
• Editor has to keep referees happy
• Editor wants speedy and easy process
• Dictator-editor (but there are slave-referees)

16
Desk acceptance?

• Extremely rare
• Sometimes based on previous reports in a higher
  journal

17
Looking for referees

• Who comes first to mind (editors network)
• Author can suggest referees
• Editor will try to find out why exactly these
  referees are mentioned
• Extensive search
• Editor typically invests substantial amount of
  time in search
• Referee pool?
• In principle, everybody can be approached,
• but rarely co-authors, close colleagues, or
  people thanked in acknowledgements
• Reputation matters most
• Reliability matters (quality, speed)

• Implication for authors
• Do not use strategically
• references
• referee suggestions
• acknowledgements

18
Who is a referee?

• The expert who has recently published on the
  topic in a good journal
• A comparable journal
• A (slightly) higher ranked journal
• The same journal (editor knows referees as
  authors)

• Conspiracy?
• Closed shop of referees
• Partly true, but only partly
• variety of submissions is too big
• number of submissions is too big
• editor turnover is rather fast

19
Anonymous?

• Despite double blind refereeing
• The referee often is anonymous
• The authors hardly ever are anonymous

20
Referee search tool for editors
21
Waiting for reports

• Time-consuming process
• Referees are busy or lost interest in topic
• Wrong choice of referee

• Implication for authors
• Track the submission system
• Polite email to editor helps in case of delays
• Paper not sent to referees?
• No response even after reports received?
• First response gt6 months (!)
• Mention your position (tenure decision)

22
First decision reject or accept

• Accepted

• Rejected

• Very rare, but it happens
• Congratulations!
• Cake for the department
• Now wait for page proofs and then for your
  article online and in print

• Probability 40-90 ...

Do not despair It happens to everybody Try to
understand WHY Consider reviewers advice Be
self-critical If you submit to another journal,
begin as if it were a new manuscript Take
advantage of the reviewers comments The same
reviewer may again review your manuscript! Read
the Guide for Authors of the new journal, again
and again.
23
First decision RR

• RR revise and resubmit
• Minor revision
• Basically, the manuscript is worth being
  published
• Some elements in the manuscript must be
  clarified, restructured, shortened (often) or
  expanded (rarely)
• Textual adaptations
• Minor revision does NOT guarantee acceptance
  after revision!
• Major revision
• The manuscript may be worth being published
• Significant deficiencies must be corrected before
  acceptance
• Involves (significant) textual modifications
  and/or additional experiments

24
Manuscript revision

• Cherish the chance of discussing your work
  directly with other scientists in your community.
• 1. Cover letter to editor now it is very
  important, editor will read it
• 2. Detailed Response Letter to referees (and
  editor)
• Copy-paste each reviewer comment, and type your
  response below it
• State specifically which changes you made to the
  manuscript
• Include page/line numbers
• No general statements like Comment accepted, and
  Discussion changed accordingly.
• Provide a scientific response to comments to
  accept, .....
• ..... or a convincing, solid and polite rebuttal
  when you feel the reviewer was wrong.
• Write in such a manner, that your response can be
  forwarded to the reviewer without prior editing

You spent months of research to produce the
manuscript Why then run the risk of rejection
by not taking manuscript revision
seriously?
25
Follow the referee or the editor?

• The editor -)

• Two models of running a journal
• Post office model
• Dictator model
• In practice a mix,
• depending on match between
• topic paper and expertise editor.

• Follow (also) your own standards
• It is your paper
• The reader has a final say

26
What not to do
27
Publish AND Perish! if you break ethical rules

• International scientific ethics have evolved over
  centuries and are commonly held throughout the
  world.
• Scientific ethics are not considered to have
  national variants or characteristics there is a
  single ethical standard for science.
• Ethics problems with scientific articles are on
  the rise globally.

M. Errami H. Garner A tale of two
citations Nature 451 (2008) 397-399
28
Plagiarism Detection Tools

• Elsevier is participating in 2 plagiarism
  detection schemes
• Turnitin (aimed at universities)
• Ithenticate (aimed at publishers and
  corporations)
• Manuscripts are checked against a database of 20
  million peer reviewed articles which have been
  donated by 50 publishers, including Elsevier.
• All post-1994 Elsevier journal content is now
  included, and the pre-1995 is being steadily
  added week-by-week
• Editors and reviewers
• Your colleagues
• "Other whistleblowers
• The walls have ears", it seems ...

29
Publication ethics How it can end .....
I deeply regret the inconvenience and agony
caused to you by my mistake and request and beg
for your pardon for the same. As such I am facing
lot many difficulties in my personal life and
request you not to initiate any further action
against me. I would like to request you that all
the correspondence regarding my publications may
please be sent to me directly so that I can reply
them immediately. To avoid any further
controversies, I have decided not to publish any
of my work in future. A pharma
author December 2, 2008
30
How it can end, even in Tilburg
31
Data fabrication and falsification

• Fabrication Making up data or results, and
  recording or reporting them
• the fabrication of research data hits at the
  heart of our responsibility to society, the
  reputation of our institution, the trust between
  the public and the biomedical research community,
  and our personal credibility and that of our
  mentors, colleagues
• It can waste the time of others, trying to
  replicate false data or designing experiments
  based on false premises, and can lead to
  therapeutic errors. It can never be tolerated.
• Professor Richard Hawkes
• Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy
• University of Calgary

• The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a
  slightly distorted truth.
• G.C.Lichtenberg (1742-1799)

32
The article of which the authors committed
plagiarism it wont be removed from
ScienceDirect. Everybody who downloads it will
see the reason of retraction
33
How to get accepted?
34
What leads to acceptance ?

• Attention to details
• Check and double check your work
• Consider the reviewers comments
• 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
• Nigel John Cook
• Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews

How to get published editors perspective
35
Todays research environment
...where the young researchers need
guidance. (Cliquez sur la flèche bleu pour
retrouver le film en ligne sur YouTube)
36
Todays research environment
http//www.youtube.com/watch?vMwbw9KF-ACY
...where the young researchers need
guidance. (Cliquez sur le lien pour retrouver le
film en ligne sur YouTube)
37
Bigger Brains!!!
Find additional info on www.biggerbrains.com
38
Further reading

• http//www.bus.lsu.edu/hill/writing_economics_pape
  rs.htm
• Hal Varian (1997) "How to build and economic
  model in your spare time"
• John Duffy "How to research and write a economics
  term paper"
• Dan Hammermesh "How to publish in top journals"
• Donald Davis "Ph.D. thesis research Where do I
  start?"
• David Romer's Rules
• Kwan Choi "How to publish in top journals"
• Michael Kremer's writing paper checklist
• John Cochrane's writing tips for PhD students
• Peter Kennedy's Ten Commandments
• Ngan Dinh Advice page
• Thom Brooks publishing advice
• David Weil's (Brown Univ.) "Pep Talk"
• Succeeding in economics. Demsetz, Harold.
  American Economist, Fall 2008 v52 i2 p1(5)
• Journals, editors, referees, and authors
  experiences at the Journal of Economic
  Literature. Pencavel, John. American Economist,
  Fall 2008 v52 i2 p6(8)
• Practitioner of the dismal science? Who, me?
  Couldn't be!! Freeman, Richard B. American
  Economist, Fall 2008 v52 i2 p14(12)
• Econ agonistes navigating and surviving the
  publishing process. Pressman, Steven. American
  Economist, Fall 2008 v52 i2 p26(7)
• Epistemic flagpoles economics journals as
  instrumental rhetoric. Bromley, Daniel W..
  American Economist, Fall 2008 v52 i2 p33(9)
• Edifying Editing. R. Preston McAfee

39

• Thank you!
• Questions?