Karin Dumstrei, senior editor of the EMBO journal, demystifies the process of academic publishing in her talk, ‘Scientific publishing – behind the scenes.’
Publication is a word well known to all researchers. One of the most significant ways of letting the world know about your research findings, publishing an article in a scientific journal is no easy task. Often revered, but sometimes despised, publications are a significant measure of an individual researcher‘s or a laboratory’s success in the chosen scientific field. For some researchers, especially PhD students, or even a post-doc for that matter, publishing can unfortunately be a confounding art.
The quality of the research, the originality of the methods, and the reliability of the results are key factors that determine the success of your manuscript becoming an accepted journal article. As an editor with the task of reviewing at least three manuscripts per day, Karin points out at the start of the talk that much of her focus initially rests on the results and figures of the manuscript. Novelty, general interest, scope, competence, and technical merit are the factors that qualify the manuscript for the peer review process - 75% of the manuscripts submitted to the EMBO journal are rejected on an average! Interestingly, ethical considerations in the study can sometimes play a role in this decision, too.
Peer review process, the accepted norm, is more than often criticized for both nepotism and deliberate suppression. If you suggest referees at the time of submission, chose them wise. A PhD mentor, or an institution head, is not the best way forward. On the other hand, excluding 3 or 4 reviewers is acceptable, but a number greater than that is clearly imprudent, says Karin, who carefully chooses the reviewers for the manuscripts submitted to the EMBO journal based mainly on their expertise, as well as speed, quality and impartiality. From the 25% of the submitted manuscripts reviewed at the EMBO journal, 52% are rejected, and the rest proceeds to the revision stage. Often, when a manuscript is sent back for revision, it means that the journal is highly interested in publishing the research. When the suggested experiments do not work during the revision time, contact the editors and ask for ideas on how to go forward, encourages Karin. “Do not fear the editors; be open about asking them questions!”
Admirably, the EMBO press offers what is called a review process file alongside the published articles, which includes editorial decisions, anonymous referee reports and authors replies. These files signify transparency and often serve as good guides for anyone wanting to submit a manuscript. The EMBO journal also offers a scooping protection! Then again, what authors importantly need to offer is: scientific integrity. Yes, the pressure of publishing is perceivable, but it is no reason for scientific fraud. Beautification of images is also not a good deed. “Show your data as it is. The journal wants real data even if it’s not pretty,” says Karen. Plagiarism checks and data falsification checks are carried out before a manuscript is accepted. At the end of this rigorous scrutiny, only 12% of the submitted manuscripts get accepted and eventually published.
With the statistics being so unfriendly for publishing research data, how do you deal with rejections? Writing a strongly worded letter to the editor as an appeal is evidently ill mannered. If you believe that there is a need for an appeal, base them purely on scientific reasoning, not emotional outbursts, emphasizes Karin. The amount of time, money and personal effort that goes into research is something an editor knows, but to ensure the quality of publications, editors like Karin have the tough task of saying no most of the time, unfortunately!
I would like to thank Karin Dumstrei for wholeheartedly letting me base this article on her talk. I also thank CiM for organizing the very informative brown bag lunch talk.
Cover image: Artistic interpretation of peer review (Flickr)
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 3433
- Comments 0