Paper writing and submission
Arthur P.J.Mol
Wageningen University
Editor of Environmental Politics
What characterises an excellent paper?
Innovation:
In new empirical material (more than new data
confirming earlier data)
In new subject
In new theory
In new approach
Well-embedded in existing, state-of-the-art, knowledge
Multiple layers of understanding
Well structured and written on different levels (paper,
sections, paragraphs, sentences)
In which journal to publish?
Scope of the journal subject category WoS, aims jorunal,
reference list, editorial board
Acceptance/rejection rate
Costs
Time: review process, acceptance to publication
Open Access
Journal circulation
Journal performance (IF)
High IF correlates with high citations
30%
25%
%T10
20%
2010
2009
2008
2007
y = 0.9397x - 0.3404
R = 0.9851
15%
10%
5%
0%
58%
59%
60%
61%
62%
63%
% Q1
But: IF= journal; citations = papers!
64%
65%
66%
Realist estimations
Make a realist estimation on the quality of your paper
Do not submit to a too high-level journal
All decent journals are overloaded with manuscripts; do
not give them easy reasons to reject
Cite papers form the journal you submit to
If you can give suggestions for reviewers, always do so
A good paper
Title
Only one main idea in title
Use understandable and indexed words
Be concise
A title is a label, not a sentence
Check whether the title matches the final paper version
If possible: make the reader interested
Abstract
Why was this research being done: background &
objectives
How was the research done: methods
What are the important results
What are the main conclusions
Consider maximum length abstract
Do not:
Use unexplained abbreviations
Use concepts and terms that might be unfamiliar
Overload the abstract with numerical results
Spent much text on future research
Introduction
Start with explaining the background and the relevance
of the issue
Tell how other researchers dealt with the issue and what
they found (short literature overview)
Tell what is new about your research (approach)
Eventually delineate your research: what was done,
scope
Give clear objective(s) of the research
If the structure of the paper is not standard: explain
Move from general to specific
Clear paper structure
Follow any guidelines from the journal
A standard structure has a reason: the reader knows
where to find what
Who should be co-author on a paper?
Three relevant scientific activities
Conception and design of the research
Data collection, data analysis, model building, model
calculations, interpretation results
Writing of the manuscript
A co-author should contribute substantially to at
least two of the three research activities
Co-authors accept full responsibility for a paper
Co-authorship is sensitive! Make arrangements
beforehand
Ordering co-authors
Different traditions in different sciences
The first author is always the person with the most
important and integrating contribution; the lead
author
In several natural science traditions, the last
authors is the group leader (=important)
In some disciplines the corresponding author has
meaning
In most social science traditions the order is the
order of importance of contribution, or alphabetical
Submitting a paper
Paper prepared and formatted according to the journal
guidelines
Section names and numbers
Format reference list, make it coherent
Line numbering, page numbering
How to place tables and figures
Maximum length
Is the paper ready and complete? (anonymous, abstract, ref.)
Cover letter to the editor
You want to submit the paper
Why does it fit the journal
Contains original work not submitted elsewhere
Peer review
The process
Authors
Submission to journal
Editor: preliminary assessment
Reviewer
Reviewer
Editor: decision
Minor/major revisions
Rejected
Out
In press
Print proofs
Published iFirst
Published
Elements in preliminary assessment
Fitting in aim and scope of journal
Clear, short and unambiguous title
Clear and well structured abstract
Clear and well written introduction, helping the reader
and getting him/her excited
Length of the paper
References to other papers in journal
Good language, easy lay-out
A transparent, well written, not too long and clearly
structured paper brings the reader in a good mood!
The editor
Examples of outright rejections
Government Response to Enviro Conflicts; Not very systematic
and wide-ranging PhD student's literature review. Reject
6.2.13
Conservation in Amazon; not fitting the journal. Reject 17.2.13
Modelling the effects of pro bicycle infrastructure & policies in
Too specialised, modelling, no politics. Reject 5.3.13
Recalibrating on Collaborative Governance Taiwan. Simple case
study Reject 27.3.13
Knowledge production and polluted soil. Essentially 3 Finnish
case studies, too specialised for EP Reject 30.3.13
De-Stigmatization of polluted areas near 1 factory in Taiwan. no
general knowledge, too specialised for EP Reject 31.3.13
Status of submitted paper
Most journals use an electronic submission system
where you can track and trace your article
Status: with the editor, under review, under revision
Time length can vary greatly:
The workload of the editor
The time required to find reviewers
The workload of the reviewers
A good journal will take 3-4 months for first decision
Preliminary assessment 3 weeks
Review process 8-10 weeks
Decision editor 2-3 weeks
Reasons for paper rejection
Failure to conform to journal scope: bad fit
Poor grammar, style, syntax, structure
Not (clear what is) new, innovative
Inadequate research; can be a matter of
research traditions
No contribution to (new) scientific knowledge
Author is unwilling/unable to revise according
to reviewers and editors suggestions
Much overlap with other papers by the author
Preliminary
assessment
Assessment
after review
Reasons for requiring revision
Insufficient/unclear problem statement/ research goal
Missing relevant literature/too old literature
Unclear conceptual model, framework
Methods unclear, not well described
Methods and results not clearly separated
Unclear or confusing presentation of results in text,
tables, figures
Conclusions not supported by research
Missing or inadequate references
Substandard English
How to revise a paper
Revision does not mean that paper will be accepted in
the end
Carefully read all comments of editor and reviewers
Determine which points have to be solved and which are
optional
Determine points you principally do not agree with
Discuss the comments and solutions with all authors
Ask for more revision time if needed.
Make changes in the paper
Make extensive revision notes in which you explain how
you dealt with the comments
Revision notes
Make a separate document revision notes
Write an answer to all comments, using different fonts
for comments and your answers
Be polite. Thank the reviewer, show gratitude for the
suggestions, indicate that it has improved the paper a lot
Keep in mind that the paper is the central issue. If
something has raised concern by reviewers, the
concerns have to be taken away
Discussions with editors and reviewers usually do not
help
Use line numbering or sections to help the editor and
reviewer to see changes made
Do not hide comments
Final comments
The editor takes the decision: there is no higher
authority
Do not bother editors; they are busy and dont like to be
disturbed with minor details
Use the comments of rejected papers to improve before
submitting to another journal
If you are invited to review a paper, do it! You learn a lot
If you have no time to review a paper, react directly
Thank you!
