Kathryn Chaloux
Kathryn Chaloux
Associate Editor, Wiley

Lily Pulitzer print.gifFor a new prospective author, selecting which journal to publish in can be a bit like my process of selecting an outfit in the morning- and if your research is anything like my wardrobe, this can be a difficult task. Questions running through your mind probably mirror mine every day- What do I want to communicate to the world? How exactly do I want to do that?

You may want to publish in the classic, multidisciplinary Ralph Lauren cable knit sweater of academic journals, or maybe you’re willing to explore the experimental, niche journal that makes a statement akin to a colorfully patterned Lilly Pulitzer dress. As you know, selecting a journal to publish in makes a statement to your community and the world around you, and you want to choose the journal best suited (OK, pun intended) to your research. Below are a few first steps.

The options for selecting an academic journal to submit to are endless, and it’s important to find the right journal to ensure the best chance of your article’s acceptance. There are four main components that you can look out for when selecting a publication: ease, quality, reach, and impact.

1. Ease
There are tens of thousands of academic journals to choose from, and Wiley alone publishes more than 1,600 journals across life, health, and physical sciences, social science, and the humanities. It can be difficult to narrow down which journal is best suited to your article, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that your research should be relevant to the journal you select. Try beginning your search by using keywords, or seek out the journals colleagues in your specialty are publishing in. Wiley Online Library allows you to search for journals alphabetically, by subject area, keyword, or contributor.

Further, the most importance resource to any author is their own network. Along with consulting closely with any co-authors you may have, don’t be afraid to ask colleagues, peers, advisors or fellow society or association members for advice on the best fit for your research.

2. Quality
Of course, you want to make sure that the journal you select entertains a reputation of both high quality and publishing excellence. Visit the journal’s homepage, which contains any society or association affiliations, editorial board information, as well as aims and scope for the journal. Equally as important for any author is to select a journal that follows the highest standards in publishing ethics.

3. Reach
Making sure that your article is accessible to a wide, global audience is also imperative. Look into whether the journals on your shortlist are widely distributed and published on a recognized online platform. Many publishers (including Wiley) also partner with philanthropic groups such as Research4Life to put content in the hands of readers and researchers in developing world institutions at little or no cost.

4. Impact
Publishing in a high impact journal is likely of utmost importance to you. Though the impact factor may still reign supreme among metrics, article-level metrics such as Altmetric, are emerging as important tools to represent the multidimensional impact of a journal. Many early career researchers are keen to see how their research impacts the larger community.

Remember to keep ease, quality, reach and impact at the forefront of your mind when searching for a journal to publish in. And best of luck on your journey to making a statement-whether it be through fashion or publication.

Image Credit:Lily Pulitzer print Source: http://www.lillypulitzer.com

    Charon Pierson
Charon Pierson
Editor, Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners

nurses in OR2.jpgJournals in clinically related disciplines may feature manuscripts with a clinical focus, yet much of the guidance about reviewing manuscripts is focused on the research manuscript For reviewers accustomed to doing research or reviewing research manuscripts, the switch to reviewing clinically focused work can be difficult. Additionally, clinicians not experienced in scholarly writing might be reluctant to even agree to review a submitted manuscript.

General guidelines about the ethical conduct of peer review apply to all reviewers , but the following specific considerations will improve the experience for reviewers of clinical manuscripts.

1. The purpose of clinical manuscripts is to inform clinicians of new applications of research to practice. The important point to remember is a clinical article should be organized around a clinical question, not a research question. Reviewers need to ask themselves, will this manuscript lead clinicians to a new understanding of a disease process, therapies, behavioral interventions, assessment techniques, or genetic foundations of some condition. If the answer is no, then the manuscript is not likely to appeal to a clinician.

2. Clinical advances lag behind research, so timeliness is very important in clinically focused articles. If the information is “old news” then the manuscript is not likely to appeal to a busy clinician trying to translate evidence into practice. A reviewer’s expert knowledge of the field is a valuable asset here.

3. Clinicians are busy people tasked with caring for patients or running departments. They make many decisions in a day that have great impact on the lives of people. A useful article for this audience will contain accurate, complete, and current evidence presented in an easy to read style and format. A concise abstract, helpful tables, figures, photographs, and links to additional resources are key elements that will attract a busy clinician. A summary statement that clearly identifies a “take home” message will drive interested readers to the article.

4. Information on drug therapy is a particular issue for clinically focused manuscripts. Statistical significance in drug comparisons is not particularly helpful (p values), yet that is likely what is reported in research. Clinicians need information about clinical significance or importance of the findings. The author should provide a concise description of the magnitude of the effect of a drug and should clarify whether or not the research is sufficient to change clinical practice. For example, research that demonstrates a 2mm Hg decrease in blood pressure by drug A over drug B may produce statistical significance, but that difference is not clinically important enough to change a patient’s medication regimen. This is an important area for comment by the reviewer.

5. Evidence-based practice is the hallmark of health care in the 21st Clinicians make decisions based on current scientific evidence, their own clinical expertise, and patient factors. Some of those patient factors include financial issues, literacy of the patient, and personal preferences or religious beliefs of patients. For example, low cost generic drugs might be as effective as higher priced trademarked drugs; complicated regimens of multiple medications might not be feasible for low literacy or homeless patients; and some interventions, although highly clinically effective, might be in opposition to patients’ religious beliefs. A good reviewer will address these specific issues if applicable.

6. A clinically focused manuscript might include a case study of a real patient to illustrate the application of evidence to practice. Reviewers should always question whether or not the patient could be identified from the clinical data, including any photographs, radiographs, or genetic information provided. Protection of patients’ privacy is a serious ethical issue for journals and many require a patient consent to publish a case study. If this is not clear in the manuscript, the reviewer should raise the question.

Peer review is an important part of the production of scholarly work. When peer review is done well, authors benefit from the opportunity to improve their work; editors benefit from the clinical or research expertise of reviewers; and most importantly, the consumers of scholarly work such as journal readers, clinicians, patients, institutions, and the public, are reassured of the value and accuracy of the scientific record.

Source: Tyler Olson/Shutterstock

    Elizabeth Lorbeer
Elizabeth Lorbeer
Library Director, Western Michigan University School of Medicine

468963875_285439714_285439715_256224451 (1).jpgEach year I make my professional pilgrimage to Charleston, South Carolina to attend the Charleston Conference. In its 35th year, the conference serves for many as an opportunity to take a yearly pulse on the world of scholarly publishing and the role libraries play in acquiring and disseminating the written word. It’s also a chance for librarians, publishers, consultants, and vendors of library materials to share and exchange ideas. The conference promotes harmony and growth as we seek out solutions in making content available to our users, ensuring our longevity as providers, and finding a common ground in which to do so. In our fellowship, our common purpose is to share our ideas with each other, encourage understanding and healthy debate. We know we are better together.

This year’s Charleston Conference had an upbeat vibe. We’re doing more interesting things, expanding our territories in the academy, as we’re finding newer ways to distribute content. Print collections are moving offsite, or being recycled, in favor of repurposing the library space for collaborative activities. The way our users interact with library materials is changing too.   Although we still engage in some traditional activities, we’re using social media channels, marketing, and harnessing the power of library champions to expose our collections and services. As Jim O’Donnell pointed out in his session “Star Wars in the Library”, while we continue to grapple with what to do with our baby boomer book collections-materials too young to be in the public domain and too old to be digitized-there is still a sense of urgency to be good custodians and preserve published literature.   On the flip side, we have the ability to offer large amounts of published work on demand in the digital environment. Our collections grow larger each year thanks to demand driven systems, the increase of Open Access publications, and successful indexing of our institutional repositories in our quest to become an information paradise.   Although imperfect, we’re still sorting out the reasonable path to removing the barriers of digital rights management (DRM) for electronic textbooks. We’re still counting usage on our collections. We continue to be fascinated by how users use our subscribed content, and we continue to introduce new methods of counting the importance of a work. We want to know the impact the work and its author has on the discipline, while finding new ways to increase our role in helping to expose our institutional authors. We’re still trying to have it all, but instead of talking about publisher package deals, we’re talking about alternative means to acquiring content. We’re still seeking pricing models that allow us to provide content at the point of use that is fair and reasonable for all parties.

Librarians continue to talk about our place in the scholarly publishing continuum. We know where we’re headed, and it is a new season of opportunities for libraries and publishers to greet a new generation of users. We’re producing and disseminating new knowledge faster then ever before, and need special skills in text mining and data science to keep up. We need each other to distribute and preserve knowledge, we need diversity amongst our ranks, and a common understanding that subject content serves many masters. Some of us have completely digital operations, where others of us serve both a print and electronic master, but we can all agree that our physical library space has changed. Our traditional space welcomes new campus tenants as we push our stacks and accompanying print content to storage, and direct traffic to our online discovery systems. Some of us no longer call ourselves librarians, but use the term informationists, interactionists, and digital strategists to describe our work.

Credit Image:Source - Getty Images

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Last year, we wrote about the steps Wiley is taking to target plagiarism. For each manuscript submitted to a Wiley Open Access journal using the ScholarOne submission system, an automatic report is generated using the iThenticate anti-plagiarism software, a process that benefits authors and editors alike by ensuring high ethical standards across the open access programme. Plagiarism however, continues to be a huge problem in scientific publishing. In order to address these ongoing issues, a deeper knowledge and understanding of the nature of plagiarism is required. With this in mind, iThenticate have conducted a survey of scientific researchers, in which respondents were asked to both rate the severity and commonness of ten forms of plagiarism. The following infographic (used with permission from iThenticate) shows the ten types, along with percieved commonness and seriousness. You can also view the survey summary here.


Research ethics plagiarism infographic.png

research ethics.PNG

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: