科技论文写作 与发表
北卡州立大学
NC STATE University
李百炼 bailian_li@
Improve the chances of getting your manuscript accepted
如何提高英文科技 论文的接受率
Suggestions from my experience as Authors and Associate Editors for several International journals
Send to Reviewers
EIC Makes Decision
Reject
Accept
On-Line Version
Print Version
Preliminary Screening
- Appropriateness of subject matter - Significant advances in the field - New or novel concept or approach - Overall quality of the study - Clarity and readability - Compliance with instructions
supplemental materials?
Originality
• Papers must not be published in print or online elsewhere at time of submission
• Clearly different from work already published
Criteria Used for Screening
• Scope of the journal • Characteristics of the paper* • Administrative criteria* • Originality* • Theme relevance • Projected impact • Ethics
Identifying a Target Journal
• Select a journal that publishes work relevant to your area of research
• Consider journals that you have cited in your work •Do not write the paper and then look for a journal
What to do when a paper is accepted
• Revise and resubmit promptly.
• Include a letter saying what revisions were made.
• If you received a list of requested revisions, address each in the letter. Provide a page and line number when referring to revisions made in the manuscript.
Manuscript Editor
-文字编辑、核对修改细节
- Associate Editor = Reviewers
Manuscript Review Process
Preliminary Screening
Reject without Review
Assign to Associate Editor
Cover letter
• Originality 原创性 • Exclusive submission 一稿一投 • Ethnics of Scientific publication 学术道
德和人道标准
• Recommend reviewers 推荐评审人 • 把握“推销”的最好机会
Example of Cover Letter
•Associate Editors and Editorial Review Board
Selection criteria
• Readership • SCI and Impact Factor • Access (open access vs. subscription only) • Review process • Publication time (e-pub ahead of print) • Likelihood of acceptance
what to do when a paper is rejected what to do when a paper is accepted •Some suggestions
Writing a good paper
• Is there a story to tell? 研究有新的发现和观点吗？ • Did I have a clear hypothesis? 你是否有清晰的研究假设? • What was the rationale for the project? 理论依据是什么？ •Did I perform a thorough literature review? 我是否做了详尽的文献研究
Dear Editor:
We would like to submit an original manuscript entitled “xxxxxxxxx” to be considered for publication in EHP jornal as an original article.
reproduction? • Are the references in the appropriate format? • Is the Competing Financial Disclosure form
complete and accurate? • How much material could be placed into
•Request to be reconsidered
•Revise based on comments and suggestions
-Check with the editor before you submit it again
•Submit it to another journal
-ITA (作者指南） -Cover letter -Don’t ignore comments from the reviewers
• Addresses a new or novel concept or method
• Adds to “weight of the evidence” in any particular discipline or field
科技论文写作与发表
•Writing a good paper •Indentifying a target journal •Instructions to Authors •Communicating with editors and reviewers
Instructions to Authors
• Scope of the journal
• Manuscript submission • Maximum length of article/abstract • Sections to include in the article • Guidelines regarding writing style • Guidelines for figures and tables • Format of references
agenda ?
Administrative Criteria
• Will the paper need significant editorial assistance? • Is the paper within guidelines for page limits? • Does the paper conform to EHP format? • Are the figures of sufficient quality for
High Competition and Demand for Good Papers
• Increased manuscript submissions • Especially from China and other developing
countries • High %Papers rejected without review • 40% Papers rejected after review • 60% Papers accepted after review • 35% Overall acceptance rate
Writing a good paper
•What is the historical context of the work? 过往的研究的历史背景 • Did the experiments test that hypothesis? 你的实验是否验证了你的假设？ • Is the experimental design defendable? 你的实验设计是否经得起推敲？ • How do my findings relate to the existing knowledge? 你的发现与现有的知识有何关联？
• Are the methods appropriate? • Are the results explained in a logical manner? • Are the results consistent with the conclusions? • Does the paper have an obvious ideological