How to publish your first scientific paper

[swansont]

Since this topic comes up from time to time, here's a link to a good blog post

How to publish your first scientific paper

 

Lots of good advice, starting with avoiding predatory publishers by checking Beall's list. Also the getting feedback part, which is sort of where we might come in for a neophyte. If we object, then you can be pretty sure a thorough peer-review is going to be problematic. There are links to other helpful tidbits, like how to structure the paper

 

 

[ajb]

My own advice is to make sure you talk to experts in the field or at least something close. If no one you have spoken to thinks the paper is worth publishing then you can be fairly sure editors and referees will feel the same.

[MrIntelligentDesign]

What would happen if the peer-reviewers have no idea of your new discoveries no matter how hard you try help them to understand? What would you do?

[ajb]

What would happen if the peer-reviewers have no idea of your new discoveries no matter how hard you try help them to understand?

It is up to the author to write a paper so that the referees and so the target audience can understand the work. If the referees totally miss the point then the paper cannot be written in the 'correct' way.

 

That said referees are people and they do make mistakes or fail to read the paper properly. If you are given the chance for a rewrite and resubmission you should try to answer all the points made by the referees. Either you make the corrections and changes suggested or you need in a reply letter to explain why you decide not to follow the advice of the referee(s).

 

The final decision about publication is with the editors, but remember most of the advice they get will be from the referees. The editor may not be in a position to properly understand your work. You must try to make the chosen referees happy.

 

 

What would you do?

Take on board what the referees have said and maybe submit to another journal.

 

It is quite possible that the same referees will be chosen so you must answer any of their earlier points when submitting to another journal.

 

After that if the reviews are still poor then maybe the paper is not worth publishing.

 

(Two papers that were really too preliminary I have abandoned following referee reports; I have learnt my lesson here)

[MrIntelligentDesign]

It is up to the author to write a paper so that the referees and so the target audience can understand the work. If the referees totally miss the point then the paper cannot be written in the 'correct' way.

 

That said referees are people and they do make mistakes or fail to read the paper properly. If you are given the chance for a rewrite and resubmission you should try to answer all the points made by the referees. Either you make the corrections and changes suggested or you need in a reply letter to explain why you decide not to follow the advice of the referee(s).

 

The final decision about publication is with the editors, but remember most of the advice they get will be from the referees. The editor may not be in a position to properly understand your work. You must try to make the chosen referees happy.

 

 

 

Take on board what the referees have said and maybe submit to another journal.

 

It is quite possible that the same referees will be chosen so you must answer any of their earlier points when submitting to another journal.

 

After that if the reviews are still poor then maybe the paper is not worth publishing.

 

(Two papers that were really too preliminary I have abandoned following referee reports; I have learnt my lesson here)

Thank you for telling me that those reviewers are only humans and not infallible since most of the detractors/critics of the new Intelligent Design <id> had been accusing me that I don't have real science since those peer-reviewers were dumb to understand new discoveries. They rejected the manuscripts for the new Intelligent Design <id>. I'm wondering what would they replace "intelligence" in reality, "dumb" explanation?

 

But if they are incompetent, why they should still hold that place? I mean, in engineering, if an engineer is incompetent, he/she reigns or being fired...just a thought..

[ajb]

Lets not hijack this thread and discuss specifics of your paper(s). You already have threads on ID and so you should keep specifics there.

 

But if they are incompetent, why they should still hold that place?

Who said they incompetent? I just said that as humans they can make mistakes, miss something or not take enough time in reading the paper. Referees are chosen as experts in a particular field and are there to advice the editors on the worth of publishing a specific paper. They also have a duty to offer comments and suggestion in order to improve the paper, unless the paper really is hopeless.

 

The standard thing is to tidy up a paper and sent it somewhere else, again taking note of whatever the editors and referees have said.

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Lets not hijack this thread and discuss specifics of your paper(s). You already have threads on ID and so you should keep specifics there.

 

 

Who said they incompetent? I just said that as humans they can make mistakes, miss something or not take enough time in reading the paper. Referees are chosen as experts in a particular field and are there to advice the editors on the worth of publishing a specific paper. They also have a duty to offer comments and suggestion in order to improve the paper, unless the paper really is hopeless.

 

The standard thing is to tidy up a paper and sent it somewhere else, again taking note of whatever the editors and referees have said.

Thank you for that.

[Xalatan]

My advice would be to listen to your advisor(s) and let them guide you. Chances are they would have had a lot more experience than you and I in terms of preparing and publishing manuscripts.

 

A friend of mine published his first paper writing an invited review for his advisor. Another's first was a manuscript for conference attendance. Most others' were middle authors doing some parts of the experiments.

[CharonY]

To be honest, I do not look fondly on most reviews that are co-written by beginners. I understand the motivation as a PI, you fork off annoying lit search to someone who has to read the material anyway. And then you just write the thing. However, I noticed quite a few publications where the PI obviously either did not re-work the manuscript, resulting in a jumble of cited papers with little coherence, or did not invested time in looking up lit themselves, resulting in a very biased selection of articles (sometimes as silly as the top hits in a google scholar search). A decent review should take the PI's knowledge and vision and frame the topic accordingly, rather than being just a pile of unfettered info. But obviously reviews are not regarded as highly academically anymore (especially with respect to funding agencies), which is why few take the serious effort necessary (and focus on original articles instead).

Edited March 14, 2016 by CharonY