Write to be read. Dr B. Pochet. BSA Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech - ULiège. Write to be read B. Pochet

Transcription

1 Write to be read Dr B. Pochet BSA Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech - ULiège 1

2 2

3 The supports 3

4 The processes 4

5 The processes 5

6 Write to be read barriers? The title: short, attractive, representative of the text/research Keywords: thesaurus? Abstract: abstract structure? Authors, their affiliation Language: do you speak/write/read english? The text: The quality of the scientific approach The structure of the text: IMRaD,... The quality of the writing: readability / clarity / precision / style 6

7 A paper : A problem and a solution A new and original answer (compared to what we already know) Only one message (although not what was planned at the beginning of the research...) 7

8 Metrics «Publish or perish» : Publication = evaluation of researchers Importance of being able to measure the "value of publications". Impact factor Count the number of citations of papers of a journal Does not measure quality but number of citations Inequality between domains (biotechnology ++) Essentially Anglo-Saxon journals Never give a level of quality of a paper/scientist 8

9 9

10 10

11 28 papers with 0 citation! = IF 2015 the impact factor is a mean (of number of citation). It cannot be attributed to a paper! 11

12 Other bibliometric tools scopus The tools who uses Google Scholar datas The alt-metrics based on: blogs downloads Tweets Facebook posts... 12

13 Citation count to create metrics (// IF) 13

14 14

15 = a free access tool to know the ranking and the visibility (citations!) of a scientific journal 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 H index?

20 = most cited papers 20

21 21

22 22

23 Open Access? Context: Since the creation of the Impact Factor (1965), lead (by buyouts) of a few publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Springer...) "inevitable" journals Annual increase of subscription prices > 10 % Triple funding for scientific publication Authors paid by public founds to «create» information Peer reviewers (scientist) paid by public funds Subscriptions paid by university libraries (public funds) 23

24 abuse of dominance? certainly! 24

25 25

26 Why continue to buy items we write ourselves? 26

27 The gold way! 27

28 28

29 29

30 30

31 Problem #1: Journals with APC (author processing charges) Really to expensive! 31

32 Problem #2: Fake journals and predatory publishers Where is the problem? 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 Not yet convinced? 36

37 Accepted! 37

38 The green way! 38

39 Can I deposit my paper in open access? 39

40 40

41 41

42 42

43 Problem #3: «open choice» (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley ) : From 2500 to 5000 $ to be published in Open Access, But : your paper is already in OA (green ways you have the right!) the amount of the invoice for the subscription will not decrease! you must refuse! 43

44 it's not just a free access (without payment): 44

45 A few considerations about OA: = not discounted publication! most journals in OA have a peer-reviewed committee (more than traditional journals) many journal in OA have an impact factor (12% vs. 14%) 40% of articles are already accessible in OA (green or gold way) papers in OA are between 2.5 and 5 more time cited But... open choice (hybrid model), high APC and predatory publishers 45

46 An exercise to identify fake journals and predatory publishers On the support page ( Open exercise #1 46

47 Anatomy of a research paper a) Introductory part b) Body text c) Bibliography 47

48 Introductory part Each element are listed as it in most bibliographic databases (metadata): Title (+ current title & translated title) author (s) + affiliation (use institutional standardization) Summary: structured abstract Keywords: use a thesaurus 48

49 Choice of the title is essential to interest/attract the reader (+ the publisher, + the reading committee...) 49

50 The title Short (between 5 and 25 words) Clear (so unambiguous) Summary (= summary of the abstract): Must attract the reader: Informative or synthetic In the form of a question or statement 50

51 A structured abstract A structured abstract improves its readability 51

52 choose keywords using a thesaurus (AGROVOC) 52

53 Body of the text: IMRaD model/structure 53

54 Introduction Must: Indicate the problem (what exactly are we talking about) Refer to published literature (what we already know); Present the hypothesis (s) (what is asked). Objectives: Highlight the value of the work presented in the article Justify the choice of hypotheses and scientific approach 54

55 Material (and et methods) Description (specify, unless already well described in the literature) of the experimental protocol Objectives: allow the evaluation of the the result s quality allow another researcher to: Reproduce the results obtained; Use the same method in further experimentation 55

56 Results Results and nothing more with figures and tables descriptions but no interpretations! 56

57 Discussion/conclusions Must: Relate the results to the starting hypothesis; Recall the originality and interest of the article (and research); Highlight the practical consequences of this research; No bibliographic references. It is the discussion of the author's work, not that of other works; Be critical, present the limits of the research conducted (without denigrating the work); Possibly explain unexpected results or observations. It is an essential part. Sentences can be cited in many articles and books 57

58 From: kurskie-roditeli.ru 58

59 The bibliography All documents used must be cited in the text, with reference to the bibliography. All documents in the bibliography must be cited at least once in the text References must be: Recent Exhaustive (but not redundant - selection of the most representative) Accessible (not in «submitted» or «local document not published») Scientific (should this be specified?) 59

60 And don t forget the use the right tool to manage documents and bibliography 60

61 There are other reference manager like Mendeley: Zotero, EndNote, Jabref For Mendeley, go to: 61

62 Before all: the information retrieval 62

63 First steps The article type (research, review, research note...) The list of authors (!) The choice of the journal (tools...) Define the subject of the article (one question - one answer) Authorizations (for illustrations) 63

64 The authors Decision must be taken before starting the work (research and writing) Authors: Play a central role in determining hypothesis; Contributes to obtaining, analyzing and interpreting results; Participate in writing a significant part of the article; Not to be confused with thanks the place of authors in the list is also important (first, last...) 64

65 The journal choice Open access! International recognition Databases and citations Peer reviewing (Impact Factor) Audience (generalist vs. specialist, language...) Broadcasting (ejournal, frequency, process duration) Edition (author's guide) 65

66 OA? between 2 et 5 more citations! Effect of Open Access on level of citation? (Paul Thirion, Open Access Week 2017, Université de Liège) 66

67 RECALL Why continue to buy items we write ourselves? 67

68 68

69 69

70 70

71 71

72 72

73 Subject of the paper An article should only present ONE message, it answers ONE question. What is the problem to solve? What's the question? If there are several messages, You must focus on the most important message or write several articles 73

74 Authorizations For : Tables Graphics (including maps) A drawing or photograph you must have permission to reproduce (unless in open access or public domain, e. g. CC) Contact with rights holders (editor, authors...) can take a long time... 74

75 Author guidelines See : 75

76 The basic Write to communicate, not to impress. Follow the instructions. Use good models. Gather plenty of suitable information. Organize the information carefully. Set aside blocks of time for writing. Keep your audience in mind. Write readably. Credit sources adequately. Revise, revise, revise. 76

77 Writing = Use concrete words: be precise add details be understandable and direct remove jargon 77

78 Writing = Write quickly: Don't ponder over words; keep going; leave gaps if necessary; aim for a natural flow Write in your own voice: Express yourself in your own way will help you to say what you mean more exactly; if your reader can 'hear' your voice, reading will be easier Write without interruption: Try to find a time and place where you can think and write without distractions Write without editing Don't try to get it right first time: Resist the temptation to edit as you go; you will tend to get stuck and waste time Keep to the plan of your outline: Use the sentences from your outline to focus what you want to say If you find yourself wandering from the point, stop and move on to the next sentence in the outline 78

79 (copy on infolit.be) 79

80 80

81 (copy on infolit.be) 81

82 82

83 83

84 84

85 another useful resource from research4life Copy on infolit.be 85

86 86

87 87

88 An exercise to review a submitted paper (but not accepted) On the support page ( Exercise #2 Read carefully the submitted paper and Be critic! (content, form, writing ) Read de review #1 Read the review #2 Read de comment from a reviewer 88

89 Ethics Predatory publishers and fake journals Experimental ethics animal ethics commission protocol number Peer reviewing process reviewing in (double) blind contacts (between author and reader forbidden) Plagiarism and self-plagiarism 89

90 Ethics Fraud: data production data manipulation and falsification Conflict of interest: Financial and Commercial Contractual Patent Authorship: who did what? ghost authors (rewriting company) 90

91 91

92 Copy on infolit.be 92

93 About plagiarism Plagiarism is: Verbatim copy a sentence (book, journal or web) without quoting it in quotation marks («...») and/or mentioning the source; Insert illustrations into a work without indicating the source; Summarize an author's original idea by expressing it in his or her own words, but failing to identify the source; Translate a text without mentioning the source; Use another person's work and present it as their own (even if they have agreed to it). 93

94 About plagiarism Plagiarism, therefore, is to make your reader believes that you are the author of the text he reads. There are software programs that detect plagiarism Duplichecker: Plagiarism Checker: 94

95 The fighting course Submit your paper via or on a dedicated site Cover letter with: A brief description of the work, its purpose and interest in the journal Originality of the manuscript Fit with the scope of the journal Declaration on honor of lack of conflict of interest (funding, for example) Declaration on honor that all co-authors authorize the submitting of the paper 95

96 The process 96

97 The fighting course After preliminary reading (and opinion of the editorial board): Rejection Request for additions (before proceeding) After peer review (double blind) Acceptance (rarely with the first version) Minor revisions (form) Major revisions (content) Rejection Several versions Delay = reviewers + corrections by authors + management of a large number of articles = several months (up to one year) 97

98 Reject? The main reasons for rejection (or major revision) are as follows: There's plagiarism; The content is not original; There are too many mistakes (spelling, grammar, language...); Objectives (hypothesis[s]) are not defined; The interest is too local; The experimental design is too poor; 98

99 Reject? There are inconsistencies in the data; The conclusions are hasty or erroneous; The results are too partial ("further study should..."); The bibliography is poor or too old and does not give a current vision of the problem. 99

100 Reject? In general, the content and form are linked... poor presentation and poor experimental work often go hand in hand 100