Thread by @meredithyoung1, Hanging out in a workshop on scholarly publication put on by @ElsevierConnect [...]

Hanging out in a workshop on scholarly publication put on by @ElsevierConnect @TheLancet at @McGillMed by Rebecca Cooney (North American Executive Editor at The Lancet). Will try to summarize main points on the fly. 1/

When publishing/selecting a journal, remember that journals have personalities & cultures. They have different: values, audiences, & perspectives on what is important. So, when picking where to submit, think about who you want to speak to, & why your paper is relevant to them /2

The role(s) of publication: registration (who documents idea/discovery first), certification (ensure the validity of findings and integrity of findings), dissemination medium for sharing discoveries), preservation and posterity. /3

What makes a strong manuscript: an important message, logical presentation, significance to the field is made clear (plus a dash of novelty). An abstract works as a 'commercial' for your paper (interesting and understandable, accurate and specific, brief and to the point). /4

Tips for an introduction: Summarize where the field stands, what problems in this field are you addressing? What are the limits/limitations of current understanding and how are you planning on addressing those limits (sounds like problem/gap/hook parallel?). /5

Tips for results section: be clear &easy to understand, highlights main findings, feature unexpected findings (yay!), approach to analysis (registration of analysis now common in biomedical sciences), include illustrations & figures. A paper should be a 'show rather than tell'./6

Tips for discussion: what do the results mean? Make the discussion align with/correspond with the results. Honest presentation of limitations/what your study did not do. Compare other published results with your own. /7

Tips for cover letters: When journals ask for them, they are important and a key rhetorical opportunity to support your paper. DO NOT start the letter with "Dear Sir"; if possible, direct it specifically to the Editor in Chief, or the editorial team. Do your homework. /8

General Tips: Do your homework when addressing your cover letter, and adhere to the instructions for authors - these two things can be indications of your attention to detail, but also how well you know the journal, and if you know the 'code' of the journal or field. /9

What is asked of a reviewer:
Is this piece a good fit for the journal? Is there evidence of technical competence? Does paper provide a sufficiently significant conceptual advance? Is the paper a faithful description of results and their significance? /10

Side note: I got a sandwich, drink, and swag bag from Elsevier.... on one side 50% of the audience is students, so free food is always good. On the other hand, I guess that is where some of the subscription costs go?

The specifics of review processes do differ across journals, but general foci stay the same. General reliance on experts or near experts (similar field, similar techniques for fields that are very competitive and discovery-based), judgments of editors or editorial teams. /11

Plug: there is always a need for good stats reviewers, and feel free (especially students) to signal this as an area of expertise to journals. /12

When you don't agree with reviewers, that is fine, but do it politely, draw on the literature, and make your logic/rationale clear. The reviewers spent time trying to understand your paper, give them the respect of spending the time considering their concerns. /13

Thing I haven't heard of before: (apparently something that predatory journals do) - impact factor hacking. Asking authors to include citations from their journal during the revision process in order to increase the IF of that journal. /14

Some journals want to know the paper has been reviewed elsewhere, and include the revisions in your submission so that the journal can see where the improvements have been made through a round of previous peer review. /15

Ethical issues:
Fabrication (making up data), falsification (manipulating data incl. figures), plagiarism (including self-plagiarism), authorship disputes (all who should be are listed, none that shouldn't, and all have agreed). /16

Questionable research practices:
redundant publication, selective or questionable use of statistics, ignoring outliers, authorship issues, removing data/hiding data, etc. Failure to get ethics or consent is also include (IMO this is more than questionable) @mededdoc thoughts?/17

Ways to support best practices: 1.know and trust your collaborations - credit and responsibility is shared. 2.educate yourself of discipline-specific standards for good research. 3.declare appropriate conflicts of interest. 4. be honest, and communicate clearly with editors./end

In response to a specific question about research using mixed or multi-methods, specifically mobilizing qualitative data sources: "Well, qualitative data are tricky" and then suggests that specialty-specific journals may be better suited than @TheLancet. thoughts? @MaryEllenMacdo8

Reminder for reviewers and editors: there is a person on the receiving end of your comments. Use comments to authors to be constructively critical. Use confidential comments to editors to flag big concerns about research practices or execution.

Reminder for authors: Be cautious 'shopping' a paper around. Resubmitting to another journal without addressing reviewers concerns=lazy & draws resources from reviewer pool, who may be the same people who reviewed it last time. Revise before resubmission for fit & to improve.

Latest Threads Unrolled: