1 of 46

How to Write a World-Class Paper

… and improve your chances of publication

Wendy Hurp - Publisher, Food Science, Elsevier w.hurp@elsevier.com

April 2011

2 of 46

2

Elsevier publishes more than 20 journals in the food science area

In 2010, more than 20,000 papers were submitted to these journals

In 2010, 5000 papers were published in these journals

3 of 46

Outline

  • Why is it so important to write a GOOD paper?
  • Why do scientists publish?
  • What is a good manuscript?
  • How to write a good manuscript
    • Preparations before starting
    • Building your article
    • Some technical details that need special attention
    • Language
    • Revision and response to reviewers
    • Ethical Issues
    • Conclusion: what leads to ACCEPTANCE

3

4 of 46

Why is it important to write a good paper?

Before submitting an article make sure it is

as good as you can make it.

Not only because it makes YOUR life easier

-  your chances of acceptance will be increased -

…but also the lives of the Editors and Reviewers

Editors and Reviewers are already overloaded.

Incomplete or poorly written manuscripts create great frustration.

4

5 of 46

An international editor says:

“The following problems appear much too frequently”

  • Submission of papers which are clearly out of scope
  • Failure to format the paper according to the Guide for Authors
  • Inappropriate (or no) suggested reviewers
  • Inadequate response to reviewers
  • Inadequate standard of English
  • Resubmission of rejected manuscripts without revision 

Paul Haddad, Editor, Journal of Chromatography A

5

6 of 46

…and my own publishing advice is:

  • Submit to the right journal
  • Submit to one journal only 
  • Do not submit “salami” articles
  • Pay attention to journal requirements and structure 
  • Check the English 
  • Pay attention to ethical standards
  • Ask your colleagues to proof read the article
  • Be self-critical

6

7 of 46

Why do scientists publish?

7

What is your personal reason for publishing?

Get Promoted?

Get funding?

PhD degree?

However, editors, reviewers and the research community

do not care about these reasons!

8 of 46

Your article should be of value…

  • To the research community

A research study is meaningful only if it is clear/understood/reproducible….. and USED

  • To yourself

Your article is your passport to your scientific community

8

9 of 46

Are you ready to publish?

You should consider publishing if you have information that advances understanding in a certain scientific field

This could be in the form of:

  • Presenting new, original results or methods
  • Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results
  • Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field

9

10 of 46

Can I publish this?????

  • Have you done something new and interesting?
  • Have you checked the latest results in the field?
  • Have the findings been verified?
  • Have the appropriate controls been performed?
  • Do your findings tell a nice story or is the story incomplete?
  • Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
  • Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?

If all answers are “yes”, a good, strong manuscript is what is needed next

10

11 of 46

What is a good manuscript?

  • A good manuscript makes readers grasp the scientific significance easily
  • It has a clear, useful and exciting message
  • It is presented and constructed in a logical manner

11

2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine awarded to Elizabeth Blackburn

12 of 46

How to write a good manuscript:�Preparations before starting

Decide which type of paper is most appropriate

  • Full articles/original articles/research articles
  • Review papers/perspectives
  • Letters/rapid communications/short communications

12

13 of 46

Who is the audience??

  • Do you want to reach specialists, multidisciplinary researchers, or a general audience? You will need to adjust information and writing style accordingly
  • Journals, even in similar subjects, reach readers with different backgrounds
  • Each journal has its own style; read other articles to get an idea of what is accepted
  • Is the readership worldwide or local?

13

14 of 46

Preparations before starting:�Choose the right journal

Investigate all candidate journals to find out

    • Aims and scope
    • Accepted types of articles
    • Readership
    • Current hot topics (look at abstracts of recent publications)
    • Articles in your references will guide you to right journals

“Never submit work to a journal that you do not read yourself. If you do, the chances are your work will be rejected. This is because you will not have the necessary ‘feel’ about what is appropriate. You won’t have the necessary sense of the ‘culture’. “(Prof Michael Curtis)

14

15 of 46

What about the Impact Factor?

  • the IF can give guidance but should NOT be the sole reason to submit to a journal.
  • The IF indicates the cites to recent items / number of recent items (published in a 2 year period) in a journal

15

16 of 46

What influences the Impact Factor?

  • Editorial policies of journals can influence the number of citations/article, which in turn will influence the IF.
  • The turnover of research in a certain field influences the IF as more recent citations will be made in a very “fast” area like genetics (bear in mind the IF window of two years).
  • The article type influences the IF, reviews are generally better cited.

16

0

1

2

3

4

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Average cites per item

Article

Review

Conference Paper

Source:

17 of 46

WARNING!

  • DO NOT gamble or take risks by submitting your manuscript to several journals. Only submit once!
  • International ethical standards prohibit multiple/simultaneous submissions, and editors DO find out – and your paper will be rejected.

17

18 of 46

Preparations before starting:�Read the Guide for Authors

CRITICAL ADVICE

Apply the Guide for Authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc.). It will save your time, and the editor’s.

18

19 of 46

Building your article

Each section of a paper has a definite purpose

  • Title
  • Abstract
  • Keywords

  • Main text (IMRAD)
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • And
    • Discussions

  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • References
  • Supporting Materials

19

Make them easy for indexing and searching (informative, attractive, effective)

Journal space is precious. Make your article as brief as possible.

If clarity can be achieved in n words, never use n+ 1

20 of 46

The Title

  • Tell readers what your paper is all about

  • Attract the reader’s attention

  • Be specific

  • Keep it informative and concise

  • Avoid jargon and abbreviations

20

21 of 46

The Abstract

  • This is the advertisement of your article. Make it interesting, and easy to be understood without reading the whole article. 
  • You must be accurate and specific!
  • A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your work is further considered.
  • Keep it as brief as possible!!!

21

22 of 46

Keywords – for indexing and searching

  • Don’t be too narrow, or too broad
  • Avoid abbreviations
  • Check the Guide for Authors!

 

22

TIP: Search for your keywords online.

 

Would readers find YOUR article using these keywords?

23 of 46

Introduction – convince readers you know why your work is useful

Introduction

Proteins are efficient emulsifying agents and stabilizers of food oil-in-water emulsions under conditions where solubility is good and the aqueous phase environment is suitable for effective steric and electrostatic stabilization (Dickinson & Stainsby, 1982Proteins are efficient emulsifying agents and stabilizers of food oil-in-water emulsions under conditions where solubility is good and the aqueous phase environment is suitable for effective steric and electrostatic stabilization (Dickinson & Stainsby, 1982). On the other hand, emulsifying behaviour can become poor under certain conditions due to aggregation or precipitation of protein and the associated loss of colloidal stabilizing characteristics. This instability is typically most pronounced at pH values close to the protein's isoelectric point and at high concentrations of electrolytes (Damodaran, 1996).

It is now well-recognized that impressive improvements in protein solubility and interfacial functionality can be achieved via the complexation and covalent linking of proteins to polysaccharides (Dickinson, 1995It is now well-recognized that impressive improvements in protein solubility and interfacial functionality can be achieved via the complexation and covalent linking of proteins to polysaccharides (Dickinson, 1995; Ledward, 1994It is now well-recognized that impressive improvements in protein solubility and interfacial functionality can be achieved via the complexation and covalent linking of proteins to polysaccharides (Dickinson, 1995; Ledward, 1994; Samant, Singhal, Kulkarni, & Rege, 1993It is now well-recognized that impressive improvements in protein solubility and interfacial functionality can be achieved via the complexation and covalent linking of proteins to polysaccharides (Dickinson, 1995; Ledward, 1994; Samant, Singhal, Kulkarni, & Rege, 1993; Schmitt, Sanchez, Desobry-Banon, & Hardy, 1998It is now well-recognized that impressive improvements in protein solubility and interfacial functionality can be achieved via the complexation and covalent linking of proteins to polysaccharides (Dickinson, 1995; Ledward, 1994; Samant, Singhal, Kulkarni, & Rege, 1993; Schmitt, Sanchez, Desobry-Banon, & Hardy, 1998; Syrbe, Bauer, & Klostermeyer, 1998). In particular, for the stabilization of emulsions and foams, it has been demonstrated that Maillard-type conjugates produced by the dry-heating of a mixture of these two kinds of biopolymers can have excellent functional properties

Whey protein–maltodextrin conjugates as emulsifying agents: An alternative to gum arabic

Mahmood Akhtara and Eric Dickinson, Food Hydrocolloids Volume 21, Issue 4, June 2007, Pages 607-616

23

Give overall picture, keep it brief

Current state of know-ledge

24 of 46

Introduction – convince readers you know why your work is useful

Most of the previous investigations of emulsion stabilization by protein–polysaccharide conjugates have been concerned with model systems based on hydrocarbon oils or triglyceride oils under nearly ideal aqueous solution conditions. The present paper aims to demonstrate the potential of this type of conjugate for making and stabilizing more challenging and complex emulsion systems of low pH and raised ionic strength. The compositional conditions are focused here towards carbonated beverage systems based on an emulsified flavour oil in the presence of a commercial colouring agent.

24

What is the problem? Are there any existing solutions?

What are the main limitations?What do you hope to achieve?

Do NOT mix introduction with results, discussion and conclusion

25 of 46

Methods – how was the problem studied?

25

Include detailed information

so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment

However, use references and supplementary materials to indicate the previously published procedures

26 of 46

Results – what have you found?

Results and discussion

3.1. Appearance and solubility of whey protein–maltodextrin conjugates

The dry mixture of WP and MD was white. After heat treatment at 80 °C for 2 h the mixture was of a pale golden brown and silky appearance, and having a pleasant smell.

The most obvious immediate benefit of coupling poly-saccharide to WP is the striking improvement in the ease of dissolution and the solubility around pI. Conjugates were found to dissolve immediately in citrate buffer (pH 3, ionic strength 0.2 M) to give pale brown solutions. In contrast, the original WP sample took about 2 h to dissolve into a clear solution whilst stirring at ambient temperature. And at pH 4.7 the WP solutions were turbid, whereas the equivalent conjugate solutions remained clear throughout the tested pH range from 3.0 to 5.5.

  • Tell a clear and easy to understand story
  • Only representative results
  • Be structured

26

27 of 46

Discussion – what the results mean

 

27

Don’t ignore work in disagreement with yours – confront it and convince the reader you are correct

Describe

  • How the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses
  • How the findings relate to those of other studies
  • All possible interpretations of your findings
  • Limitations of the study

Avoid

  • Making “grand statements” that are not supported by the data
  • Introducing new results or terms

28 of 46

Conclusions – how the work advances the field – don’t repeat the abstract!

A major potential application of this type of protein–polysaccharide complex is in the stabilization of citrus oil emulsions as an alternative to GA. We have demonstrated here that concentrated orange oil-in-water emulsions stabilized by WP–MD19 conjugates of 1:2 or 1:3 ratio do indeed have excellent stability in terms of the absence of precipitation, flocculation or phase separation upon mixing with colouring material over the pH range 3.2–5.5. In addition to the extended shelf-life of the concentrates, it has been shown that these systems can be successfully diluted with carbonated sugar syrup to produce stable dilute coloured emulsions, with direct relevance for commercial soft drink applications.

28

What have you shown?

What does it mean for the field?

Indicate possible applications and extensions

29 of 46

Acknowledgements

  • Acknowledge anyone who has helped you with the study, including:
    • Researchers who supplied materials or reagents, e.g. vectors or antibodies
    • Anyone who helped with the writing or English, or offered critical comments about the content
    • Anyone who provided technical help
  • State why people have been acknowledged and ask their permission
  • Acknowledge sources of funding, including any grant or reference numbers

29

30 of 46

References

Typically, there are more mistakes in the references than any other part of the manuscript.

It is one of the most annoying problems, and causes great headaches among editors…

  • Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based
  • Do not inflate the manuscript with too many references
  • Avoid excessive self-citations
  • Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region
  • 25-30 references are appropriate for a full text article

30

31 of 46

Cover letter

This is your chance to speak to the editor directly

  • Submitted along with your manuscript
  • Mention what would make your manuscript special to the journal
  • Note special requirements (reviewers, conflicts of interest)
  • Indicate approval of all authors for submission

31

32 of 46

Some technical details

  • Pay attention to length of manuscript
  • Consider supplying data as supplementary material
  • Text layout
  • Always number the pages, and number lines if required
  • Abbreviations
  • Names of potential reviewers – authors in your subject area, not collaborators or friends, international

32

Check the Guide for Authors of the selected journal for specific instructions – not all guides are the same!

33 of 46

Language – Why is it important?

Correct use of language saves your editor and reviewers the trouble of guessing what you mean

Complaint from an editor:

“[This] paper fell well below my threshold. I refuse to spend time trying to understand what the author is trying to say. Besides, I really want to send a message that they can't submit garbage to us and expect us to fix it. My rule of thumb is that if there are more than 6 grammatical errors in the abstract, then I don't waste my time carefully reading the rest.”

33

34 of 46

Characteristics of good writing

  • Good writing possesses:
  • Clarity
  • Conciseness
  • Correctness (accuracy)
  • Good writing avoids:
  • Repetition
  • Redundancy
  • Ambiguity
  • Exaggeration

34

35 of 46

Do publishers correct language?

  • Yes…
    • Publishers often provide resources for authors who are less familiar with the conventions of international journals , but these are generally author-pays services. Traditional copyediting by the publisher is rare.
    • Some publishers may perform technical screening prior to peer review
  • But…
    • It is the author’s responsibility to use proper language prior to submission
    • Copyediting is only done after an article is accepted and is done by typesetters, not editors

35

36 of 46

Final checks before submission

  • Ask colleagues to read and be critical
  • All requirements from Guide for Authors are met
  • Scope of paper is appropriate for journal
  • Have your manuscript checked for language, either by a native English speaker or an editing service
  • Ensure that the literature cited is balanced and that aims, purpose and significance of results are clear
  • All listed authors agree to the submission
  • Use a spellchecker!

36

37 of 46

Revision and response to reviewers

Many journals adopt a system of initial review by the editor. Editors may reject a manuscript without sending it for review.

Why?

The peer review system is overloaded

37

38 of 46

Example from one journal’s Guide for Authors

“…..The Editor-in-Chief and Editors have the right to decline formal review of the manuscript when it is deemed that the manuscript is 1) on a topic outside the scope of the Journal, 2) lacking technical merit, 3) focused on foods or processes that are of narrow regional scope and significance, 4) fragmentary and provides marginally incremental results, or 5) is poorly written.”�

Make sure your manuscript does not fall in any of these categories or it will fall at the first hurdle!

38

39 of 46

How to respond to a request to revise your paper

    • Prepare a detailed letter of response
    • State specifically what changes you have made to the manuscript.
    • Provide a scientific response to the comment you accept; or a convincing, solid and polite rebuttal to the point you think the reviewer is wrong.  
    • Revise the whole manuscript
    • Minor revision does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision.

39

40 of 46

…and if your paper is rejected

  • Don’t be desperate – it happens to everybody 
  • Try to understand WHY, consider reviewers advice
  • Be self-critical
  • If you want to submit to another journal, begin as if you are going to write a new article. Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal, again and again.

40

41 of 46

Accepting rejection – and moving on

Suggested strategy for submitting elsewhere:

  • In your cover letter, declare that the paper was rejected and name the journal
  • Include the referees reports and show how each comment has been addressed
  • Explain why you are submitting the paper to this journal; is it a more appropriate journal?

41

42 of 46

Ethical issues in publishing

Unethical behaviour can earn rejection and even a ban from publishing in some journals. Unethical behaviour includes:

  • Scientific misconduct
  • Falsification of results 
  • Publishing misconduct
    • Plagiarism
    • Different forms / severities
    • The paper must be original to the authors
    • Duplicate/multiple submission
    • Redundant publication
    • Failure to acknowledge prior research and researchers
    • Inappropriate identification of all co-authors
    • Conflict of interest

 

42

43 of 46

Consequences of breaking ethical rules

43

Authors of this article committed plagiarism. It won’t be removed from ScienceDirect. Everyone who downloads it will see the reason for retraction

44 of 46

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

44

Nigel John Cook

Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews

45 of 46

45

A final thought…..

If your paper is accepted, you may be asked to review papers for the journal in future.

Please accept this invitation – your accepted paper is only published thanks to the work of editors and other reviewers, and your participation in the review process will be a positive contribution to the scientific community.

46 of 46

For more information

  • Each journal has its own website with information on aims and scope, and links to guides for authors
  • Visit www.elsevier.com/foodscience for a list of food science journals and links to these pages
  • Visit the Authors Home page for even more information: www.elsevier.com/authors

46