# Presentation: 547728

## Preparing Journal Articles and Getting Them PublishedISAJE workshop 

- Richard Pates
- Wales, UK.

## Who runs the Journal?

- The journal is owned by the publisher and they hold copyright on all items published therein.
- The editor or editor-in-chief has a contract with the publisher to produce the copy for the journal
- The editor may have a deputy editor, assistant editors or regional editors

## Who runs the journal?

- They may be a book or media review editor
- Their will be an editorial board usually made up of people form different countries
- The editorial board will be asked to find reviewers, support and promote the journal and review a certain number of papers per year.

## The Process of Peer Reviewed Journals

- Process of having a paper accepted by a journal is quite long and complex
- By thinking ahead you may increase your chances of having your paper published
- Peer review process is designed to protect the integrity of contributors and the reputation of the journal

## Stage 1

- Paper is submitted to the journal either in paper version or increasingly, electronically
- Editor and assistants will triage the article to see whether it is appropriate to send for peer review

## Stage 2

- If paper deemed appropriate it will be sent out to two peer reviewers
- A list of suggestions regarding what the journal expects will accompany the paper to the reviewer
- A time limit will be set for return of the paper

## Stage 3

- Paper will be returned by reviewer with one of 4 possible recommendations:-
- Accept
- Accept with minor amendments
- Accept with major changes
- Reject
- Very few papers are accepted on first presentation without changes

## Stage 4 

- Paper is returned to author with reviewers recommendations
- Author decides to accept the journals conclusion, makes changes or submits elsewhere
- If the author feels unfairly treated may appeal to the editor

## Stage 5

- Author makes amendments and resubmits
- Editor checks changes. If minor will make decision whether changes have been made. If major may decide that the paper needs to be re- reviewed
- If accepted paper then gets passed to the publisher

## Stage 6

- Several weeks or months later author receives proofs from typesetters for checking and correction. (This is not an opportunity to add new material!)
- Author sends back and waits to see the paper in print

## Why might papers fail at the triage stage?

- Too long
- Not original
- Too badly written
- Very poorly referenced
- Not appropriate for this journal (recommendation for submission elsewhere)
- Too similar to other recently accepted papers

## Why might papers fail at the triage stage?

- Too poorly organised
- Obvious ethical problems
- Major methodological weaknesses
- instructions to authors have been flagrantly ignored
- The report is purely descriptive, has no hypotheses or reaches no conclusions

## Selection of referees

- Recognised expertise in the field of the manuscript
- Previous invitations to referee papers have resulted in thorough well written reviews returned within time specified
- Record of recent publications in the field
- Specific expertise for particular paper

## Selection of referees

- The following are reasons to exclude referees:-
- Those who have very close connection with the authors or who may have conflict of interest with the authors
- People currently refereeing other papers from journal
- Excessive praise or criticism of reviewers work in manuscript

## Selection of referees

- Referees are expected to be unbiased and constructive in their comments.
- Number of referees used per paper is usually two but occasionally three might be used
- Where there is disagreement (one says accept another reject) it is usual to send to a third referee

## Referees reports

- The referee will be asked to comment to the authors and probably confidentially to the editor, his /her views on the paper.
- They should make suggestions to help the author improve the paper
- List criticisms that the author needs to address if the paper is to be publishable

## Reasons for rejection

- Insufficient size of sample
- Incorrect use or interpretation of statistics
- Makes claims which are not substantiated
- Draws inappropriate conclusions from non significant associations or differences.
- Poorly written or confused language
- Poor referencing

## How to enhance your chances of success in getting published

- Approach the editor for guidelines for authors.
- FOLLOW THESE!!
- Make sure your paper is complete including references
- Write in clear language and do not use unnecessary jargon
- Make sure the paper flows in a logical sequence

## How to enhance your chances of success in getting published

- Ask a colleague to read it before you submit it and if there are doubts listen to these
- Try presenting your work to a group of colleagues before submitting
- If the language of the journal is not your first language ask a native speaker to check the paper for you
- Remove anything that is superfluous

## How to enhance your chances of success in getting published

- If in doubt speak or write to the editor first for advice about suitability and length
- Ensure that the abstract is clear and describes the paper and findings accurately
- Ensure your discussion includes the possibility of different explanations for your findings if this is appropriate

## Unhappy with the decision?

- Do not respond immediately!
- If you think the paper has been misunderstood contact the editor (this is unusual but sometimes your knowledge may be greater than the reviewer and you have not expressed yourself well)
- Rewrite the paper taking careful note of suggestions and criticisms

## Resubmission

- When you resubmit attach a covering letter explaining how you have made changes or why you have or have not altered something
- Remember that the editor is safeguarding your and the journal’s reputation. Editors won’t reject you work out of malice!