DOCSLIB.ORG

Writing and Getting Published Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Writing and Getting Published Overview Overview 1. Before you start to write 2. Scientific writing basics Writing and getting published 3. The peer review process 4. Journals and how to pick the right one OU Developing as a Researcher conference for postgrad students 2015 Anna Sharman ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Why publish? • Career • To establish priority • To join the conversation • To learn and improve • To be built on BEFORE YOU START TO WRITE • To change the world • To prevent waste ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Preparation for paper writing Record keeping • Keep good records • Keep all raw data – Methods • Use reference management software – Results • Note who helped with what – Interpretation, thoughts, problems – References • Read a lot (especially papers) • Write a lot ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 5 ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 6 Read papers… Writing practice • To know the field • Lab notebook • To learn how papers • Reports are written • Draft parts of thesis early • To practice reading • Social media them efficiently • Blogs • To get to know journals ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 8 Writing vs editing • Separate out writing and editing • First draft: just write • Have a break (days) • Later: edit your draft • Remember… SCIENTIFIC WRITING BASICS ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Outlining • Creative writing: just start writing • Academic writing: do an outline first • Use outline to plan writing process • Linear or mind map • Main point of each paragraph ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Making time for writing Aids to writing • Little and often • Pomodoro technique® • Set aside time and defend it • Write with others • Remove distractions eg internet – In person • Write with others – Online • Use free writing to get started • Set goals • Reward yourself ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Getting feedback Feedback people • Don’t leave it too long People Purpose • Get friendly feedback first Supervisor/PI Essential • Get used to feedback – build your resilience Coauthors Essential Others in field Spot gaps in logic, missing references Friends and family Spot bits that are unclear to layperson Language experts Spot ambiguities and grammar problems ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 16 The structure of a paper • Usual structure: – Title Writing papers – Abstract – Introduction – Methods – Results Results and Discussion – Discussion – Conclusions – References ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Principles Conventions • Put info where readers expect it • Introduction: poses the problem • Signal parts of the paper • End of Introduction: Summary of approach – With headings • Methods and Results: explain details – With wording • Start of discussion: Summary of results • Discussion: explains how you solved problem • End: Summary of conclusions ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 20 Title Abstract must contain: • Not too long • Background – Up to 12 words • Rationale – Up to 2 lines in pdf/print – Depends on journal • Results • Informative • Conclusions • No abbreviations (unless essential) • Implications • Sometimes also Methods (brief) ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 22 Common errors in abstracts Common errors in abstracts Rationale not clear 1 Rationale not clear 2 “We discovered that J “Others have done X. causes Q…” We did Y…” But why should I But why did you care what causes do Y? What was Q? wrong with X? ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Common errors in abstracts Common errors in abstracts Too much methodological detail Vague conclusion “We added 3.57 ml of Z to a 4.76 l solution of “These results give W and stirred for 15 minutes. The resulting precipitate was significantly better than the insights into how A previous compound (p = 0.0087, CI = 1.45-2.67, works…” Student’s t-test…” Why is all that What insights? guff in the How does A abstract? work? ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. First 3 rules of writing style for papers Basic rules Clarity SI units ml, kg, °C, mmHg Full stops for 0.5% not 0,5% Clarity decimal points Clarity Species/names Homo sapiens, GAPDH italic Define Charge coupled device (CCD) Full sentences Sorted! The strategy succeeded. No contractions can’t cannot ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 28 Person and voice Past tense • First person is allowed! For: “We examined the samples” –what previous papers did “I analysed what happened” (if only one author) “Bloggs et al. showed…” –what you did • Passive is OK when needed, but don’t overuse “Next we analysed…” “The samples were processed (by the machine)” ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Perfect tense Present tense For: For: – looking back in the paper –what is known Conclusions section: “Here we have shown…” “Volcanoes erupt unpredictably” –For generalising about past and ongoing –(sometimes) for methods work “We generally produce it like this” “No-one has yet identified the mechanism…” –what you present in the paper “Figure 1 shows…” ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Use active verbs Avoid stacked nouns “Isolation of the active component was “We identified strong private sector achieved by filtering of the solution” manager performance prediction factors” “To isolate the active component, we “We identified factors that strongly predict filtered the solution” the performance of managers in the private sector” ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Presubmission Submission enquiry Peer Initial filter review Manuscript Decision preparation Rejection Acceptance Experiments Revision Copyediting Journal publishing Typesetting Checking by author Proofreading Authors Print/online publication THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS Editors Production Subscription/access Others Reading ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Presubmission enquiry Cover letter • Email to editors • Editors have little time for each paper, so… • Include title, abstract, authors, addresses – Make the advance clear • Brief letter saying why paper interesting – Be brief – • Ask if they would consider paper Get journal name right • Statements to include: • Get a quick yes/no answer – Not under consideration elsewhere • Saves time if they say no – All authors have approved the manuscript • Check if journal encourages ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 37 ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Decision Dealing with the decision Simple rejection • If rejection, give yourself time to get over it • Read editor's letter carefully Rejection, but might reconsider • If you disagree with revisions requested: Revisions invited (more analyses) Most – Ask editor for advice common – Argue in revision letter Minor revisions invited – Go elsewhere Accept as is ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Response to reviews Remember: • Be polite and reasonable Editor makes final decision • Concise to editor, full for reviewers • Quote each point, then respond NOT reviewers ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 42 The impact factor and more JOURNALS: HOW TO PICK THE RIGHT ONE Impact factor Problems with Impact Factor A = times articles published in 2011 1. Citations ≠ impact and 2012 cited during 2013 2. 2 years B = total "citable items" published by 3. Average (mean) - can be skewed journal in 2011 and 2012 4. Can be gamed 5. Errors unknown 2013 impact factor = A/B (released June 2014) ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Citations per paper Acta Crystallographica A 50 44 Uses of impact factor 45 40 35 32 • Compare two journals in same field 30 25 • Quick assessment of citation rate 20 15 10 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Not: 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1999 • To judge a paper • To judge a researcher Reason: “This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of the open-source SHELX programs… are employed in the course of a crystal-structure determination.” A short history of SHELX. 2008;64:112-22. Cited over 48,000 times. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 47 ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Alternative metrics Journal metrics • Other journal metrics • Citations of paper itself SNIP • Downloads, views • Mentions in mainstream media • Social media shares • Saves in reference management • Wikipedia citations IPP • Data reuses ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 49 ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ImpactStory profile ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Open access: definition • Free to read online • Anyone can (full text): – Download Open access – Copy – Distribute – Print – Search • Anyone can reuse for any lawful purpose • No financial, legal or technical barriers • Authors must be credited (Budapest Open Access Initiative 2001) ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Open access - why? Open access - how? • More shares and citations • Via journal (gold) • More people can read: – Open access journal – Patients – Hybrid journal – Policy-makers • Via repository (green) – Students in poorer universities – Immediately or delayed – Inventors – Published version or final author version • Mandated by funders (eg RCUK, Wellcome) • Essential for REF2020 ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 56 Copyright Copyright Old way: © • Copyright is a valuable asset… Authors Journal • Don’t give it away • If you give away your copyright: – you will have to ask permission to reproduce your New way: Licence own work Authors Journal © – you can’t post it elsewhere with permission ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. 58 Creative Commons (CC) licences • By: Attribution • NC: Only non-commercial reuse How to get your paper out fast • ND: No derivative works allowed • SA: Share-alike Eg “CC By-NC-ND” ©2015 Cofactor Ltd. Speed Cascading peer review With editor With reviewers With authors With production Not significant Submission to 1st decision time Review by Acceptance to publication time enough, but Rejected
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Downloaded, Cited, Published, and Discussed Online
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.04.433874; this version posted March 4, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. Linguistic Analysis of the bioRxiv Preprint Landscape This manuscript (permalink) was automatically generated from greenelab/annorxiver_manuscript@7744221 on February 26, 2021. Authors David N. Nicholson 0000-0003-0002-5761 · danich1 · dnicholson329 Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, USA · Funded by The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF4552); The National Institutes of Health (T32 HG000046) Vincent Rubinetti · vincerubinetti · vincerubinetti Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, USA · Funded by The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF4552); The National Institutes of Health (T32 HG010067) Dongbo Hu · dongbohu Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, USA · Funded by The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF4552); The National Institutes of Health (T32 HG010067) Marvin Thielk 0000-0002-0751-3664 · MarvinT · TheNeuralCoder Elsevier, Philadelphia PA, USA Lawrence E. Hunter 0000-0003-1455-3370 · LEHunter
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibition Guide 10-12 April 2017 Harrogate Convention Centre 2
    1 Exhibition Guide 10-12 April 2017 Harrogate Convention Centre www.uksg.org 2 ACCUCOMS Stand No: 83 Website: www.accucoms.com Contact: Rasmus Andersen / [email protected] ACCUCOMS is a leading provider of sales and marketing services to academic and professional publishers worldwide. Since 2004 ACCUCOMS has acquired extensive expertise in global representation, telesales and business intelligence services to clients ranging from large publishing houses to specialist society publishers. Our multilingual staff operate from our locations in The Netherlands, USA, Latin America, India, South East Asia, Turkey and the Middle East. ACCUCOMS is specialized in projects aimed at contacting librarians on behalf of publishers interested in boosting their sales, expanding their readership worldwide, and increasing customer retention by means of customer support and training services. ACS Publications & CAS Stand No: 76 & 77 Website: http://pubs.acs.org/ Contact: Alastair Cook / [email protected] ACS Publications and Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) combine to be the world’s leading source of scientific information and search technologies in the chemical and related sciences. ACS Publications provides more than 50 of the most trusted and most cited journals, 1,500+ peer-reviewed eBooks, and the flagship industry news magazine, C&EN Global Enterprise. CAS provides advanced search and analysis solutions including SciFinder and STN. Find out more about new products, new open access initiatives and more at stand 76-77. Adam Matthew Stand No: 105 & 106 Website: www.amdigital.co.uk Contact: Oliver Stacy / [email protected] Adam Matthew publishes unique primary source collections from archives around the world. Our award winning collections span the social sciences and humanities and cover a multitude of topics ranging from Medieval family life and Victorian medicine to 1960s pop culture and global politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Scholarly Communication and Peer Review the Current Landscape
    Scholarly Communication and Peer Review The Current Landscape and Future Trends A Report Commissioned by the Wellcome Trust Research Information Network CIC March 2015 1 Contents Executive Summary page 2 1. Introduction page 4 2. Scholarly communication and journals page 5 3. What is peer review and what are its purposes? page 6 4. The roles of editors, reviewers and publishers page 8 5. Critiques of peer review page 9 6. Types of peer review page 14 7. Reproducibility, reliability and data page 18 8. Post-publication reviews and comments page 19 9. Training, guidance and quality of reviews page 22 10. Rewards for reviewers page 23 11. Independent peer review platforms page 25 12. Conclusions page 27 References page 31 List of interviewees page 32 Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Wellcome Trust for their support of this study, and to colleagues at the Royal Society for their inputs throughout the project. We thank all of those who gave up significant amounts of their time to talk to us candidly about the questions we asked on peer review. 2 Executive Summary Peer review plays a central and critical role in the systems of publishing and communicating research results, from the perspectives of researchers and also of publishers. There is currently much experimentation in different approaches to peer review, both pre- and post- publication. The experiments are in part a response to concerns – some of them longstanding, others that have arisen more recently – about the effectiveness and fairness of current systems. But they have also been stimulated by the potential of new technologies, and new entrants to the scholarly communications market.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Creative Commons? 1
    creative commons CREATIVE COMMONS for Educators and Librarians CREATIVE COMMONS for Educators and Librarians ALA Editions purchases fund advocacy, awareness, and accreditation programs for library professionals worldwide. CREATIVE COMMONS for Educators and Librarians CREATIVE COMMONS CHICAGO 2020 Available in print from the ALA Store and distributors. © 2020 Creative Commons. Unless otherwise noted, Creative Commons for Educators and Librar- ians is licensed Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creative commons.org/licenses/by/4.0). This book is published under a CC BY license, which means that you can copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the content for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, indicate if changes were made, and do not impose additional terms or conditions on others that prohibit them from exercising the rights granted by that license, includ- ing any effective technological measures. A digital version of this book is available for download at https://certificates.creativecommons .org/about/certificate-resources-cc-by. Extensive effort has gone into ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information in this book; however, neither the publisher nor the author make any warranty, express or implied, with respect to its content. Additionally, this book contains third party content, such as illustrations, photographs and graphs, that may not be owned by Creative Commons but that is licensed by the third party under a Creative Commons license. Neither the publisher nor Creative Commons war- rant that re-use of that content will not infringe the rights of third parties. Reasonable efforts have been made to identify that content when possible.
    [Show full text]
  • News from Biology Open in 2020 Rachel Hackett* (Managing Editor Bio)
    © 2020. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd | Biology Open (2020) 9, bio051821. doi:10.1242/bio.051821 EDITORIAL News from Biology Open in 2020 Rachel Hackett* (Managing Editor BiO) Fears that a long-planned meeting of the Biology Open (BiO) Editor team would be disrupted by the then-scheduled Brexit were unfounded, with the team from the BiO editorial office and the majority of BiO’s Editors gathering in Oxford on Halloween 2019. This was the first Editor meeting hosted by current Editor-in-Chief Steven Kelly, who treated the Editors to a tour of his college. The meeting itself involved an in-depth review of BiO’s progress, and a lengthy discussion of how to meet the challenges faced by BiO in the ever-evolving publishing ecosystem (e.g. the implications of Plan S, becoming an affiliate journal for Review Commons). The Editors also heard from an early-career ambassador, Steven Burgess from the University of Illinois and previously eLife Editorial Community Manager. Steven touched on the involvement of early-career researchers (ECRs) in the review process, highlighting the importance and advantages of using ECRs and dispelling certain myths. The issue of ghost-writing of peer reviews by junior researchers was also mentioned (and has been highlighted elsewhere). BiO encourages authors and Editors to consider BiO Editor meeting. Yishi Jin (Editor), Sue Chamberlain (BiO Editorial diversity in career stage, geographical location, gender and Administrator), Kendra Greenlee (Editor), Cathy Jackson (Editor), Steve ethnicity when suggesting and selecting appropriate reviewers for Kelly (EiC), Sjannie Lefevre (Editor), Laura Machesky (Director of The a manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint Alleges That OMICS Group, Inc., Along with Two Affiliated Companies
    Case 2:16-cv-02022 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 54 1 DAVID C. SHONKA Acting General Counsel 2 IOANA RUSU GREGORY A. ASHE 3 Federal Trade Commission 4 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20850 5 Telephone: 202-326-2077 (Rusu) Telephone: 202-326-3719 (Ashe) 6 Facsimile: 202-326-3768 7 Email: [email protected], [email protected] 8 DANIEL G. BOGDEN United States Attorney 9 BLAINE T. WELSH 10 Assistant United States Attorney Nevada Bar No. 4790 11 333 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 5000 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 12 Phone: (702) 388-6336 13 Facsimile: (702) 388-6787 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 18 Case No. 2:16-cv-02022 Plaintiff, 19 COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT v. INJUNCTION AND OTHER 20 EQUITABLE RELIEF OMICS GROUP INC., a Nevada corporation, 21 also d/b/a OMICS Publishing Group, IMEDPUB 22 LLC, a Delaware corporation, CONFERENCE SERIES LLC, a Delaware corporation, and 23 SRINUBABU GEDELA, 24 Defendants. 25 26 Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), for its Complaint alleges: 27 28 Page 1 of 16 Case 2:16-cv-02022 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 54 1 1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 2 (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) to obtain permanent injunctive relief, rescission or 3 reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten 4 monies, and other equitable relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of 5 Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Open-Access Mega-Journals
    Journal of Documentation Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review Valerie Spezi Simon Wakeling Stephen Pinfield Claire Creaser Jenny Fry Peter Willett Article information: To cite this document: Valerie Spezi Simon Wakeling Stephen Pinfield Claire Creaser Jenny Fry Peter Willett , (2017)," Open-access mega-journals The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review ", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 73 Iss 2 pp. 263 - 283 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082 Downloaded on: 17 March 2017, At: 02:47 (PT) References: this document contains references to 65 other documents. The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1231 times since 2017* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2017),"Resisting neoliberalism: the challenge of activist librarianship in English Higher Education", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 73 Iss 2 pp. 317-335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0076 (2017),"Reading databases: slow information interactions beyond the retrieval paradigm", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 73 Iss 2 pp. 336-356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2016-0030 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 02:47 17 March 2017 (PT) About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
    [Show full text]
  • Sorush Nik Namian Resume (CV)
    Sorush Nik Namian Resume (CV) Brief Degree and Biography: (MAJ Dr. Sorush Niknamian PhD CRFM PE APA_FPD OMS-IV AICP MWSES MLPI MACRO MTMA MRSB FIMS FChE EMBS FNNECOS FTSCO ANCC, AANP, ACPE, ACHE, ADA CERP APA FMDCSCO FSASS) Ph.D. in Cell and Molecular Biology and Oncology and Professor of Cell and Molecular Biology, Oncology and Biological Attacks. He is a Professional Biologist, Senior Research Scientist, Chartered Scientist and Registered His Science Council ID is: A-0008833. He is one of United Kingdom and Indiana Cancer Consortium (ICC) certified. He is a Registered Researcher in the U.S. Government's System for Award Management, Registered Scientist at National Center for Biotechnology Information. He is studying Medicine/Military Medicine at Liberty University (LU), Lynchburg, VA, United States of America. He holds Bachelor’s Degree in Mechatronics Engineering, applied Mathematics, Civil Engineering and Management. He is a Member of US Government National Science Foundation, Member of Hera Swiss Volunteers (ID: 198036), Member of US Army American College of Physicians Chapter, Ambassador of American Cancer Society (ACS CAN) and former Ambassador of European Association for Cancer Research (EACR), Active Member of Federal Health Professionals at US Army Forces and Certified Member of American Red Cross and Food Regulatory Affairs Professionals. He is an Honorary Board Member and contributor of Weston A Price 1 Foundation (WAPF) in Washington DC, United States of America. He Holds Honorary Doctorate of Cancer Biology and Doctor of Science from Violet Cancer Institute. He is preserved and nominated for the preserved as Position Title: DIRECTOR OF MILITARY SUPPORT, Agency: Army National Guard Units.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Library of Science RFI Submission
    To: Office of Science and Technology Policy ( [email protected] ) From: Public Library of Science (PLoS) Email: [email protected] Subject: Response to the OSTP RFI on Public Access to Digital Data Date: January 11, 2012 The Public Library of Science (PLoS) welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Request for Information (RFI) on the topic of Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting From Federally Funded Research. PLoS is a nonprofit publisher and advocacy organization with a mission to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication. PLoS was founded in 2000 by three scientists: Harold Varmus, President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York; Patrick Brown, Professor, Stanford University School of Medicine and Howard Hughes Medical Institute in California; and Michael Eisen, Associate Professor at the University of California, Berkeley. PLoS became a publisher in 2003 and currently publishes seven peer-reviewed fully open-access journals. They are PLoS ONE , which publishes all rigorous science across the full range of life and health sciences; the “community” journals ( PLoS Genetics , PLoS Computational Biology , PLoS Pathogens , and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases ); and our flagship journals, PLoS Medicine and PLoS Biology , highly selective journals publishing fewer than 10% of submissions along with a range of informative and influential non-research content. From publishing only 15–20 articles a month when PLoS Biology was launched in 2003, the PLoS corpus now comprises almost 42,000 peer-reviewed articles, most of which are the research output of public funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Why ONE Is More Than 5
    Editorial Why ONE Is More Than 5 Catriona J. MacCallum* Public Library of Science, Cambridge, United Kingdom PLoS ONE is five years old this month. reject articles. Instead, any article can be both to the reviewers and to readers on Though still young in age, the journal has published if it is technically sound, ethi- any published article). Indeed, by publish- grown up remarkably rapidly, to the cally and appropriately reported, and its ing so many papers, PLoS ONE has an extent that it is now the largest peer- conclusions are supported by the data. opportunity to help set reporting standards reviewed journal in the world. In the past Thus, PLoS ONE publications include in science rather than follow existing ones. five years, it has both garnered huge negative results, methods papers, and (Some countries and institutions, for respect and support from authors, readers, studies that replicate (but do not duplicate) example, have no independent ethical and editors, and drawn the criticism and others, as well as articles that potentially committee overseeing animal studies; al- ire of many commercial publishers and represent a major advance for the field. though assessed on a case-by-case basis, establishment figures still fighting to main- And because PLoS ONE covers all of such papers are generally rejected.) Every tain the science publishing status quo. science (albeit with a current focus on article submitted to PLoS ONE, therefore, Their fight now appears to be in vain, the life and medical sciences), and because goes through a series of rigorous checks to however: this past year a series of journals the publication fee ensures that each ensure that appropriate standards have emerged that are very similar in scope to article covers its own editorial and pro- been met, before an academic editor or PLoS ONE (Table 1), suggesting that the duction costs, there is no limit to PLoS reviewer even sets eyes on the paper.
    [Show full text]
  • The Preprint Server for Biology
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/833400; this version posted November 6, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology Richard Sever1, Ted Roeder, Samantha Hindle, Linda Sussman, Kevin-John Black, Janet Argentine, Wayne Manos, and John R. Inglis1 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1 Bungtown Road, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, USA 1 Corresponding authors: [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract The traditional publiCation proCess delays dissemination of new researCh, often by months, sometimes by years. Preprint servers deCouple dissemination of researCh papers from their evaluation and CertifiCation by Journals, allowing researChers to share work immediately, reCeive feedbaCk from a muCh larger audienCe, and provide evidence of productivity long before formal publication. LaunChed in 2013 as a non-profit Community serviCe, the bioRxiv server has brought preprint praCtiCe to the life sCiences and reCently posted its 64,000th manusCript. The server now reCeives more than four million views per month and hosts papers spanning all areas of biology. Initially dominated by evolutionary biology, genetics/genomics and computational biology, bioRxiv has been inCreasingly populated by papers in neuroscienCe, Cell and developmental biology, and many other fields. Changes in Journal and funder poliCies that enCourage preprint posting have helped drive adoption, as has the development of bioRxiv teChnologies that allow authors to transfer papers easily between the server and Journals.
    [Show full text]
  • STM Report 2015
    The STM Report An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing Celebrating the 350th anniversary of journal publishing Mark Ware Mark Ware Consulting Michael Mabe International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers Fourth Edition March 2015 The STM Report, Fourth Edition March 2015 © 2015 STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers Fourth Edition published March 2015; updated with minor revisions November 2015 Published by International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers Prins Willem Alexanderhof 5, The Hague, 2595BE, The Netherlands About STM STM is the leading global trade association for academic and professional publishers. It has over 120 members in 21 countries who each year collectively publish nearly 66% of all journal articles and tens of thousands of monographs and reference works. STM members include learned societies, university presses, private companies, new starts and established players. STM Aims and Objectives • to assist publishers and their authors in their activities in disseminating the results of research in the fields of science, technology and medicine; • to assist national and international organisations and communications industries in the electronic environment, who are concerned with improving the dissemination, storage and retrieval of scientific, technical and medical information; • to carry out the foregoing work of the Association in conjunction with the International Publishers Association (IPA) and with the national publishers associations and such other governmental and professional bodies, international and national, who may be concerned with these tasks. STM participates in the development of information identification protocols and electronic copyright management systems. STM members are kept fully up to date (via newsletters, the STM website, and e-mail) about the issues which will ultimately affect their business.
    [Show full text]