PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: How to select the right journal for your work

This post is part of the series PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: posts written for the Dutch academic career network AcademicTransfer, your go-to resource for all research positions in the Netherlands.

These posts are sponsored by AcademicTransfer, and tailored to those of you interested in pursuing a research position in the Netherlands.

If these posts raise your interest in working as a researcher in the Netherlands, even better - and feel free to fire away any questions you might have on this topic!

If you are at the point during your PhD trajectory or beyond when you feel ready to start preparing your first journal article, you need to select the right venue to submit your work to.

Editors comment that a lot of desk rejections can be avoided by properly selecting a journal. Today, therefore, we will focus on the topic of selecting the right journal for your work.

When should you select where to submit your work? Ideally, before you start writing your article. As such, you can tailor your article to the audience of the journal, write directly into the right template, and keep the word count limitations of the journal in mind when outlining and preparing your work.

So, what should you consider when you select your target journal? Here are a few elements to consider:

1. Scope
First of all, you should always check the scope and aims of the journal. If your work doesn't fit the scope of the journal, you're headed for a straight desk rejection. If you're not sure if your work would fit the journal, then check a few back issues to see which topics are typically covered by the journal. If you don't know which journals to check first, start with the journals you read and in which work similar to yours has been published. As such, you'll get a pointer on where to start.

2. Audience
Another important topic to keep in mind when you select a journal, is the audience. When the journal is printed and managed by a learned society, the audience will be members of this society. For journals in the hands of commercial publishers, the audience may be a bit more difficult to determine. Try to learn who reads the journal: only academics, or practitioners as well? Is it read internationally, or is it oriented towards a specific region? A number of journals in my field are US-oriented, whereas others may be more European or international. When you know the audience, you need to write for your audience. For example, when the audience of the journal includes practitioners, include recommendations for practice.

3. Review timing
Do you need a journal paper in review or accepted as a requirement for graduation? In that case, it may not be a good idea to submit to a journal that has a very slow review process. Some journals take up to a year to return review reports. Check the time to review on the journal website - most journals nowadays display this information on their website. If the information is not available, ask your senior colleagues about their experiences with this journal.

4. Reputation
I don't subscribe to the idea that publishing in a high impact journal says anything about the quality of your work. Moreover, the impact factors depends on your field of study, so it does not create a level playing field. For example, the impact factor of journals in concrete material engineering tend to be higher than those of structural concrete. Saying that one field is more important or better than the other, of course, is utter nonsense.
However, when I mention reputation here, it is closely related to the audience: who reads the journal? Do people get the journal ever (other) month by mail? Or do people tend to read the articles online, and only the articles of interest?

5. Open access
Are there requirements from your funding body to publish all your work open access? Are there initiatives at your university that support open access publishing? If you have identified an open access journal, what is the APC (article processing charge)? Who pays for it - you, your funder, or your university? If not your funder or your university, can you apply for a waiver with the publisher? Can you do something else to reduce the APC? Some journals give vouchers to reviewers to get a discount on the APC.

6. Beware of predatory or hijacked journals
In the dark underside of academia sit predatory and hijacked journals. Have you ever received an email of a journal that says they want to publish your work? Sometimes even an email from a field completely different to yours, and maybe an email with spelling errors (or comic sans ms as their font)? Red flags to identify a predatory journal. Hijacked journals are even more sneaky - they tend to use a name that is almost the same as the name of reputable journal, and their only goal is to cash in on the APC.

When reviewers want you to cite their work

It has happened to me a number of times: (anonymous) reviewers who not-so-gently ask me to cite their work as part of a revision of my manuscript. I'm not talking about reviewers who suggest publications I may have missed, from various source (I too will add references to my review report where I think these are necessary to improve the manuscript). 'm talking here the reviewer who said I have missed Something Really Important and gives me 5 references by the same first author that necessarily should be included to represent the state of the art.

To see how common this malpractice is, I ran a poll on Twitter. Results and the followig discussion are below

PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: How to find papers when you do your literature review

This post is part of the series PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: posts written for the Dutch academic career network AcademicTransfer, your go-to resource for all research positions in the Netherlands.

These posts are sponsored by AcademicTransfer, and tailored to those of you interested in pursuing a research position in the Netherlands.

If these posts raise your interest in working as a researcher in the Netherlands, even better - and feel free to fire away any questions you might have on this topic!

When you start your literature review, you may feel intimidated by the quantity of work that you should go through. You may as well be worrying where to start in the first place.

In today's post, we look at different places where you can find (references to) papers that could be of your interest. Not all papers will eventually be equally important for your thesis. Depending on the article and its contents, you may simply browse the article for the main findings in less than 20 minutes, or you may sit down with the article for a week, pulling apart all its calculations and equations. But of course, you can't know how important a reference is until you find it and have a first look at it.

Here are nine different places where you can find (references to) papers that you may want to check:

1. Ask your supervisor where to start
If your supervisor gave you your thesis topic, he/she may already have a folder with information on the topic. Especially when you are hired on a funded project, your supervisor must have already been doing some preliminary work to write the proposal. Your first destination for your literature review is thus to ask your supervisor for references that can get you started.

2. Read up on the basics in a textbook
If you are new to a topic, there is no harm in reading a textbook. While a textbook may not have the depth and information of a journal article, it can provide you with the basic concepts that you need to understand to start reading in more detail. In addition to this information to get you started, textbooks also typically have extensive lists of references. You can check out these references and download the relevant articles.

3. References from the research proposal
If you're hired on a funded project, then the references to the research proposal are a good place to start familiarizing yourself with the work that supported the proposal in the first place. Download the references cited in the proposal so that you have all relevant background.

4. Find a good review paper on your topic
An excellent starting place for finding good references as well as getting a broad overview of your research topic, is by reading and analyzing a review paper on the topic. The references cited in the review paper can then be next up on your reading list.

5. Look for technical reports, theses, code documents etc
Don't limit yourself to research papers to find references to other papers. In technical reports and code documents on your topic, you can find important citations (as well information of practical value). When it comes to depth and extent of analytical work, nothing is as complete as a PhD thesis. Look for theses from students who worked on your topic, and see which references they cited.

6. Google Scholar
Google Scholar can help you find relevant articles by using the search function. In addition, you can subscribe to updates of colleagues in your field, so that you have the latest references accessible. Depending on the publisher of a journal paper, Google Scholar may also be faster in reporting a certain article in their database than other database, which can take up to 2 years to include an article.

7. Scopus
While Scopus has strong searching functions, and help with identifying the relative importance of a paper in its field with the published metrics, it may be slow in including articles (for my own publications, I have noticed it may take up to 2 years before an article is included).

8. ResearchGate
ResearchGate allows for "traditional" searching for publications, but it also allows you to do the following: 1) follow researchers in your field so you can see their updates, 2) follow research projects of other researchers to receive updates, and 3) interact by commenting on publications, asking questions, and sending direct messages.

9. References of papers
Just as for the list of references of a good review paper, the list of references of any paper you read can be a good starting point to find more papers to read. Make it a habit to carefully check the list of references and see which publications you have "missed" so far.

What do you do when you receive a review invitation for a very poorly written abstract

As I recently received the invitation to review a paper of which the abstract was poorly written, I was pondering what I should do:

- I don't like slogging through a poorly written paper - it makes review so much harder.
- The topic is of my interest, maybe their work is good even though the writing is bad.
- They should get help on the writing first before submitting it, it's not my job to help them with this.
- The editor should have caught this.
- Maybe another reviewer will reject it, and maybe this is good work, and that would be a pity for the authors.


I usually end up taking the review and trying to provide constructive comments, but I don't like it (poorly written work is simply really hard to read and understand).

So, as I was wondering what others do in that case, I ran a poll on the topic.

You can find the poll and the discussion below:

How do scientists react to take-down notices?

Lately, I've been receiving emails from Elsevier, telling me that they are sending take-down notices to ResearchGate for papers that I have privately stored on the RG servers. These are not papers that are ready for download at one click - if somebody wants the paper, they need to send me a direct message, and then I can reply with the paper. For convenience, RG gives me the option to store papers privately on their server, to make sharing easier.

I must say, I wasn't too happy with these notices, and really think Elsevier is taking this too far. As a reaction, I am not taking on any new review assignment from Elsevier journal, but send a message to the editor that I am displeased with these actions from Elsevier, and I am moving towards submitting my work mostly to open access journals.

I wonder if I reacted too strongly to these messages about take-down notices. Did Elsevier just rub my the wrong way? Do other scientist feel the same? I ran a quick poll on Twitter.

The results of this poll and its wake are here:

Improving weaknesses with your dissertation

Today, I have the pleasure of hosting Dr. Yvette Williams. Dr. Williams is the CEO of The Esteemed Scribe, LLC. Her company offers copy-editing, proofreading, ghostwriting, and blogging services. Among her specialties include editing services for Ph.D. Candidates who are preparing their dissertations for defense and publication. Dr. Williams earned a doctorate degree in Urban Social and Environmental Geography from the University of Maryland Baltimore County. Before becoming an entrepreneur, Dr. Williams taught undergraduate coursework in urban and community studies, environmental science, and environmental ethics. She maintains professional memberships with the Editorial Freelance Association, International Society of Professional Writers, and The Association of Ghostwriters.

You put what you thought were the finishing touches on the last chapter of your dissertation. It feels like you have been writing for ages. Just when you were about to wipe the sweat from your brow, you receive pages of comments from committee requiring you to address weaknesses in your dissertation. After reading the comments, you discover that you don’t know how to answer their questions or fix the problems they pointed out. You’re tired, stressed out, and overwhelmed. You may be even worrying about how to finish writing your dissertation.

Before you give up in despair, it is important to adopt an enlightened perspective about the dissertation writing process. Writing a dissertation is like running a marathon. It is a long and laborious process of learning how to organize, integrate, summarize, and synthesize the writing of your research. And just like a marathon runner, the longer you are in the race, the more your endurance will be tested. Two problems that may show up as weaknesses in your dissertation are poor writing and poor alignment of your research components. In the following sections, I discuss ways to address these problems so that you can finish writing your dissertation.

One of the most common weaknesses of dissertations is poor writing. Your committee may have mentioned they are having difficulty understanding discussions within your chapters because your overall writing is unclear or inconsistent. Some of these problems may be due to grammatical, spelling, punctuation, tense, and other writing mechanical errors. Other problems may include redundancy, wordiness, and weak word choices (problems I struggled with). Both of these problems may stem from the fatigue that comes with writing a dissertation. However, if left unaddressed, these problems will not only prevent your dissertation from being defensible but also undermine your credibility as a scholar.

To address problems of poor writing and improve the overall quality of your dissertation, I recommend editing services. I recommend editing services only if all following are true: 1) all of the writing for your chapters is completed and approved by your research advisor or chair; 2) you have received revision requests and substantial feedback from your committee; and 3) you foresee defending your dissertation within six months or less. Before you hire an editor, it is important to understand that there are different types of editing services available. Furthermore, editing your dissertation is an iterative process that requires time, feedback, and in most cases, a significant financial investment. In my article, From Frustration to Finish: How the Manage the Editing Process for your Dissertation, I discuss different types of editing services as well as approaches to help you select the best editor for your dissertation.

Returning back to the marathon metaphor, you’ve been writing for so long that, like the marathon runner, you may be losing sight of the finish line. In this situation, you may be struggling to bring your dissertation to a close. This usually indicates a second example of weaknesses -poor alignment of your research components to your dissertation framework.

The following are brief, generalized examples of comments you may have received from your committee that indicate this problem:

“I’m not sure what you mean by “x” argument. This doesn’t seem to follow what you discussed about “y” theory. Can you clarify?

“I am confused by what you mean by “x” result. How is this connected to “x” hypothesis?

“Your conceptual model states “x” theory but you haven’t clearly discussed how this model explains your findings.”

One of the most important aspects of writing up your dissertation is its framework. Think of the framework as similar to a skeletal system. Along similar lines, the framework of your dissertation consists of research components (i.e., bones) which forms the scientific basis of your research. These components include the following: concepts, theories, questions, problem statements, hypotheses, results, findings, and conclusions. Although the selection and arrangement of the components may vary by the discipline or paradigm of your research, they should all align and function together. To use the skeletal metaphor, although the skeletal framework of a human differs from that of a bird, all of the bones for each organism are designed in a way in which they fit and function together. To summarize, the generalized examples of comments I presented earlier indicate that there are problems with the alignment of your theory, concepts, questions, or other research components which will ultimately affect how you bring your dissertation to a close.

To reach the finish line, your dissertation will need to function properly. This will happen when you meet one or more of the following objectives: 1) answer a question(s) within a narrow scope of your discipline; 2) add to the theoretical or applied body of knowledge; and; 3) make a unique scholarly contribution to your discipline. To illustrate how to align your research components, I will I share a little about my dissertation research and writing challenges. My doctoral research involved an interdisciplinary framework in which I examined vacant land management in socioeconomically depressed neighborhoods of West Baltimore City, Maryland. I employed theoretical and conceptual perspectives from the disciplines of urban ecology, political ecology, urban geography, and environmental justice. As part of my dissertation framework, I created a conceptual model which proposed that management of vacant land was related to the preferences of selected stakeholders for maintenance activities that created safe, clean, and attractive spaces.

While attempting to align the results of my thematic analysis with my conceptual model, I discovered that the conceptual model was insufficient to explain underlying social relations among stakeholders. In other words, my thematic analysis revealed issues of power and agency that could not be explained by simply examining preferences for maintenance activities. Thus, there was a poor alignment between my research components (i.e., my conceptual model) and my results. Rather than be hindered by this weakness, my research advisor encouraged me to discuss the misalignment in a way that would not only shed light on the challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research but also lay the foundation for grounded theory (i.e., the development of theory from data). In summary, using this approach helped me to meet the aforementioned objectives #2 and #3 and finish writing my dissertation.

In closing, weaknesses such as poor writing and weak alignment of your research components do not have to spell disaster for your dissertation. Rather, look at these problems as opportunities for you to get a “second wind,’’ become a better writer, and, ultimately finish your dissertation. Looking forward to seeing you on the finished side of Ph.D.!

Preprints or not?

Since I've been publishing with authors who always upload preprints, I wonder if it is a common practice. I like the idea of a preprint, but on the other hand, I seem to be too lazy/overwhelmed/... to actually upload preprints of my work - so I rely on other to do so.

To map the practice of preprints better, I ran a poll on Twitter. Here are the results and its wake:

On setting writing targets

At the beginning of the year, I ran a poll to learn if academics set writing targets for the New Year. I often see other blogging academics mention that they want to submit X papers during the year, and was wondering how common this is. Personally, I don't set targets, but I do make a list at the beginning of every semester which papers I intend to submit - for conference papers, this is related to deadlines, and for other papers I use my list of papers in progress and papers to write to see which paper(s) I should be working on.

While I sometimes set writing targets for myself (I want to write 1000 words on this paper today and then move to the next task), I have started to move away from setting such targets, since these only work when I need to draft text. It doesn't help when I need to type up lots of formulas, or when I'm making drawings for my papers. And some papers are just harder to put together than others. So, I now prefer to dedicate myself to focused attention for a certain amount of time per day to make sure a writing project moves forward.

t looks like my approach is not so strange - most respondents of the poll don't set goals or don't set writing targets.

You can find the results of this poll and its wake here:

Author contributions on papers

I recently ran a poll on Twitter on author contribution sections on papers. For me, adding such a section is rather "new", but I do feel like this is important to avoid people getting "free rides". Certainly, authorship is a blurry topic, and for me, it sometimes feels even more complex because of the barrier some of my colleagues may experience for writing in English. By all means, I learned from this poll that most respondents find such a section "very important" - so I'll be paying more attention to this topic and propose to always include this information for the journal I manage.

You can find the results of the poll and its wake here:

PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: Publishing advice from the perspective of an editor

This post is part of the series PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: posts written for the Dutch academic career network AcademicTransfer, your go-to resource for all research positions in the Netherlands.

These posts are sponsored by AcademicTransfer, and tailored to those of you interested in pursuing a research position in the Netherlands.

If these posts raise your interest in working as a researcher in the Netherlands, even better - and feel free to fire away any questions you might have on this topic!

Since a few months, I've been taking on the task of being editor in chief of the science and engineering journal ACI Avances en Ciencias e Ingenierias, the technical journal of Universidad San Francisco de Quito. Being the editor in chief of a small journal means that I handle a large number of different tasks (from inviting reviewers, contacting authors, to arranging the copyediting and galley publication stages), and given the broad scope of the journal (exact sciences, biology and associated fields, and engineering), I get to look into a variety of publications and make the first call of judgement.

I truly enjoy the variety of topics that I get to read and learn about, but I've also had to do a number of desk rejections. A while back, Dr. Nancy R. Gough shared her perspective as an editor for authors. I've also written about what I look for as a reviewer in a manuscript, and I follow these guidelines as an editor as well. Besides these pieces of advice, there are nine items that I've found to be important as an editor.

1. Does your manuscript contain all required sections?

You'd be surprised, but sometimes authors submit manuscripts without a literature review, without a discussion of results, or without a summary and/or conclusions at the end. Most journal will tell you which sections you should add to a manuscript. Carefully revise this requirement to avoid a direct rejection. Some journals require the addition of funding information (separate from the acknowledgements), a section with research significance, a section with author contributions, a list of notations, or a conflict of interest statement. Provide the sections that are required.

2. Is your work free of (self-)plagiarism?

It's easier nowadays to identify cases of (self-)plagiarism with tools such as iThenticate, turnitin etc. Editors can now see with one click if authors have already published similar work elsewhere. Avoid copying the work of others without clearly showing that you are citing someone else's work. Avoid reproducing work you've submitted before and that only contains marginal improvements.

3. Have you suggested reviewers?

While typically not mandatory, but often optional, suggesting reviewers is good practice, especially for multidisciplinary journals. Make sure you don't have a conflict of interest with any possible reviewer you suggest. If you find it difficult to think of a good reviewer with whom you have no collaboration ties, then check the list of references from your paper. You can suggest the authors of the most recent papers that you've cited as a starting point.

4. Have you followed the guidelines for manuscript preparation?

Depending on the journal, you may need to follow strict guidelines regarding formatting. For uniformity, all journals have a preferred citation style - make sure you use the right style. Is it sufficient to upload a PDF of the entire manuscript, or should you prepare a title page, anonymous manuscript, and cover letter? Make sure you adhere to what is required for submission.

5. Is your literature review up to date?

Are your references up to date, or is your most recent reference 20 years old? Make sure your literature review is based on the current state of the art, not on the state of the art from 20 years ago. If you've been working for several years on a manuscript, give it an overall refresh before submitting it to make sure the work is still actual. Also - write a literature review, not an annotated bibliography (yes, this is one of my pet peeves).

6. Have you provided high-quality figures?

When you generate the PDF of your submission at the end of the uploading procedures, check the document that will be sent to the reviewers? Are your figures clear, or did you provide low-quality figures that look all blurred in the PDF? Make sure your visual information is clear; this is one of the first elements the editor will check.

7. Does your article fit the scope of the journal and/or section you are submitting to?

A large number of papers get a desk rejection because they don't fit the scope of the journal, and one can often hear editors sigh in despair over this fact. If you are submitting to a multidisciplinary journal, make sure you select the right section. If your work fits in a special collection, clearly identify this during submission.

8. Does your abstract convey the core of your work?

I see a large number of abstracts that are stylistically not abstracts. If you need information on how to write an abstract, check my post on this topic - it's an all-time favorite on my blog. Make sure you add conclusions to your abstract. Describe your methods. Don't just say what you did - say what you did and what you learned from that.

9. Are your metadata filled out completely?

Some journal submission systems won't let you proceed when your information is not properly filled out. If that's not the case, make sure you've completed all the requested information: author information and contact details of all authors, properly uploaded abstract, and all the other metadata the editor needs to process your submission. Often, it's not difficult to follow the steps in a submission system - just make sure you set aside the time and required concentration to do so without missing information.

Publication targets are absurd

I recently wrote a tweetstorm about why publication targets are absurd. Quota are for 19th century factories, not universities.

Here's the wake of this tweetstorm:

Peer review and the journal impact factor

I recently ran a poll on Twitter to learn if academics change the way they review depending on the journal impact factor. As for myself, I won't be "milder" if I'm reviewing for a lower impact factor - the methods still have to be justifiable, and the paper still needs to be well-organized and well-written - in my opinion.

What I learned from this poll is that most of the respondents have the same attitude. For some high impact journals, the perceived future impact of the work is more important, so that may change the way in which the reviewer prepares his/her report and recommendation - but at the end of the day, the science still has to be good to merit publication, regardless of the venue.

Here's the wake of the poll:

Getting your PhD proofread: how to do it properly (and ethically)

Today, I have the pleasure of inviting Dr. Maximilian Lemprière to share his insights on proofreading the dissertation. Dr. Lemprière started The PhD Proofreaders after completing a PhD in political science at the University of Birmingham. The company offers a tailored service that reflects the peculiarities of a PhD but which also respects the integrity of authorship and the ethical responsibilities that come with academic proofreading.


Record numbers of PhD students are having their dissertations proofread. Should it be counted as cheating?

Sometimes, yes.

This might seem like a strange thing for someone who runs a PhD proofreading company to say, but it’s true. It’s a wild-west out there and it’s difficult for students to know where to draw the line between legitimate proofing and cheating.

This post is for those thinking of hiring a proofreader for their PhD thesis. I’ll tell you what is and isn’t allowed when you hire one and how you can make sure what you are buying is legitimate and, most importantly, ethical.

Why? Because too many students are getting caught out without realising it.

Isn’t it cheating?

Whether hiring a proofreader counts as cheating depends on the service that’s being offered. Proofreading for conventions of language, grammar, punctuation and syntax is legitimate and has a long history in academia. How many people do you know who have had their friends of family proofread their thesis? Lots, most likely. Similarly, all journal articles and books are professionally proofread. It is difficult to spot language and grammar mistakes in our own work, so it's sensible editorial practice for any text to be proofread, not least one as important as a thesis.

But, proofreading is often equated with copyediting.

Copyediting is most certainly not allowed. Pay a copyeditor and the text they return isn’t yours.

Trouble is, it’s a wild-west situation out there. There are plenty of legitimate, honest and ethical proofreaders, but there are many cowboys offering to edit or, in the worst cases, rewrite your work. In other words, you often have copyeditors masquerading as proofreaders.

What’s more, it’s up to you as the student to know what is and isn’t allowed. Sure, by the time a PhD student submits their thesis they know about the rules surrounding plagiarism, but the rules surrounding proofreading are less well understood.

To make matters worse, the information that’s available is often conflicting. Some universities have been proactive and have published codes of practice governing the use of proofreaders and copyeditors. Trouble is, many of the students we speak to don’t know they exist and far from all universities have been so proactive. Plus, stories such as
this and this are just plain misleading and reflect the common tendency to think proofreading and copyediting are the same. They aren’t.

So here I want to talk directly to students interested in paying someone to proofread their PhD. I want to tell what you need to know and ask in order to make sure you choose an ethical proofreader and don’t fall foul of the rules.

What do you need to do?

1. Make sure you understand your university's proofreading policy. If there isn’t one, speak to your adviser. Work within these rules at all times.
2. Ask the proofreader whether they will be willing to work around the university's requirements or any requirement you specify.
3. Check that the proofreader doesn’t offer to copyedit.
4. Even if they’re not copyeditors, some proofreaders may wish to make suggestions about how to improve the flow of your text. Make sure that they leave comments, rather than restructure or rewrite the text directly.
5. Ask them if they are willing to have their name included as a third-party editor (your university will most likely require this). If they say no, be sceptical.
6. Ensure they have experience proofreading academic texts. Generalist proofreaders might not be aware of issues to do with plagiarism.
7. Be open with your supervisors and express your intention to have your work proofread. They may offer you advice.
8. When you get your work back, read through your thesis thoroughly. 


Conclusion:

Love it or hate it, proofreading is here to stay. The issue is controversial, but largely because there is so much copyediting masquerading as proofreading and because there is a common misconception about the difference between the two.

Three things need to happen for the situation to improve.

Most importantly, those offering proofreading and copyediting need to be much more heavily regulated. Most, including us, choose to operate ethically, but if we were to choose not to there would be no punishment. The risk is shifted to the student.

Australia is a role model in this regard. The government there has introduced a standard for professional editing services, which has been adopted by universities. It clears up any misconceptions of what is or isn’t allowed, whether on the part of the examiner, the student or the proofreader.

Second, Universities need to be more proactive and publish proofreading codes of practice. Many have begun to do so, which is a welcome sight. The LSE comes to mind here; they have gone a step further and set up their own proofreading company.

Third, students need to be be better educated about what is and isn’t allowed. It is my hope that this post helps in that endeavour.

How long is a reasonable amount of time for peer review?

After a discussion about how fast or slow the review process is these days, and agreeing with a colleague that 3 weeks is a reasonable amount of time, I wanted to know if other academic think alike. The majority of the voters do agree with my first idea, and voted for the option "between 2 and 4 weeks".

Here's the wake of the poll:

PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: Open Access Publishing

This post is part of the series PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: posts written for the Dutch academic career network AcademicTransfer, your go-to resource for all research positions in the Netherlands.

These posts are sponsored by AcademicTransfer, and tailored to those of you interested in pursuing a research position in the Netherlands.

If these posts raise your interest in working as a researcher in the Netherlands, even better - and feel free to fire away any questions you might have on this topic!

You may have heard that a number of countries in Europe recently signed Plan S - so I'm here to help you navigate what this means, and how this may impact your research.

Over the past few years, more and more researchers have criticized the traditional model of publishing, where the author transfers copyright of his/her work to a publisher, who will then charge subscription fees to libraries or individual users so that they can access the contents. One of the largest for-profit publishers, Elsevier (annual revenue for 2017 was 2.48 billion pounds), is often the target of academic protests. Negotiations between Elsevier and the University of California system aren't going to well. The largest boycot to Elsevier is "The Cost of Knowledge". I personally stopped submitted my work to and reviewing for Elsevier journals after receiving take-down notices for PDFs privately stored on my ResearchGate for sending them in private messages to colleagues - which, in my opinion, is the same as sending an email to a colleague and not a copyright infringement.

Certainly, Plan S is not without criticism, and the most notable is this open letter from researchers. My main point of criticism is that it's not very clear what is expected from researchers now - this may be because most of the time I'm outside of Ecuador and have simply missed out on the requirements, but I am missing some sort of handbook for researchers on how to follow Plan S now. For "slow" journals in my field, it takes up to 3 years to go from submission to publication - so that could be a hurdle in starting to publish open access on January 1st 2020.

What is Plan S?
Plan S means that from January 1st 2020, all scholarly publications resulting from public research funding must be published in Open Access journals or on Open Access platforms. So far, 12 countries are supporting Plan S: Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, the UK and the Gates foundation from the USA. China is planning to join soon, it seems. See here for official communication of Science Europe.
Note that "for books and monographs, the timeline may be extended beyond 2020".

What does Plan S mean for academia in the Netherlands?
Research funded by NWO, ERC, and EU Horizon 2020 falls under Plan S. Any work from other funding bodies does not.
However, in addition to the efforts of NWO, many universities have set targets for reaching a certain % of all publications as Open Access publications. For TU Delft, that target for 2018 was 60%, and will be higher for 2019.

How to select the right Open Access journal for your work

Scope
As always, you should make sure that your work fits within the scope of a journal - so read the aims and scope of the journal, and check if they have article collections or special issues that may be particularly of your interest. If you don't know where to start, check recent papers in a journal of your interest, or check where the papers you most recently read and cited are published. You can also check the editorial board of the journal. In case of doubt, write the editor with your abstract to see if the journal would be interested in your work. Check if the journal is not a predatory journal.

APC
A main feature of Open Access publishing is that the authors have to pay for the cost of publishing through an APC (article processing charge) - a cost that otherwise would be covered by the subscription fees. According to Plan S, "publication fees should be covered by the funders or universities, not individual researchers", and "such publication fees should be standardized and capped". Also note that Hybrid open-access solutions (such as an Elsevier journal asking you to pay an APC to make your article open access) are not supported by Plan S. You will find that some countries, such as the Netherlands, have agreements with publishers to cover the Open Access costs, and that some universities (for example, TU Delft)have agreements with Open Access publishers so that the university is charged directly and not the authors. If the journal of your interest is not covered by such an agreement, you can either ask the publisher for a waiver, or see if there are any additional funds at your university (such as an Open Access fund) to cover such costs.

Only some OA journals, that typically have a university sponsoring them, such as ACI Avances en Ciencias en Ingenierias of which I am the editor in chief (shameless self promotion) and which is funded by Universidad San Francisco de Quito do not charge an APC.

Indexing
Since most OA journals are rather new, many of them are working on getting indexed in search engines such as Web of Science / ISI and Scopus. You may need to check where the journal of your interest is indexed to see if there may be a limitation there (for exmaple, if your institution only counts your papers that are published in Scopus-index journals).

Copyright
An important aspect of Plan S is that authors should remain the copyright of their work, so when research should be published under plan S, you should check if the journal you plan to publish in requires a copyright transfer to them, or if you keep your copyright (open licensing model, creative commons). Check for the CC license on recent papers from the journal of your interest.

First person in academic writing

I recently ran a poll on Twitter on the use of first person in academic writing. This poll was by large the most-voted poll I've ever organized, and the discussion was lively as well.

The majority of the people that voted in the poll use "I" in their academic writing. For me, this fact is rather surprising. In my field, it's quite uncommon to use first person in our writing. I tend to use it in some of my reports, to emphasize that I did the calculations, but in most cases (as you may have noticed from the abstract that I've published on this blog) I leave myself out of my writing. Perhaps it's related to my type of work as well - it's quite clear to write something like "The bridge has a length of XX m".

Here's the poll and its wake:

Average word count of a dissertation

For some reason, I always thought a doctoral thesis is about 100,000 words in length (and I've taken that number as a reference for my book as well). However, I wanted to test this assumption, so I ran a poll about the topic. From the comments, I learned that word count limits are common in the UK (mostly), and that they differ across disciplines.

You can find the poll and its wake here:

Challenges with academic writing

I recently ran a poll on Twitter to learn what are the most common challenges with academic writing. While a quick poll with only four options to answer is a very limited approach, I did learn that my idea that "finding time for writing" is a challenge for many. For me, too, it is what I struggle with most. I try to block two hours each morning for my writing, but with everything I still need to write, it often feels like those two hours are not enough.

Here's the poll and its wake:

Passive voice in academic writing

As a follow-up to my recent poll about the use of first person in academic writing, I recently ran a poll on the use of passive voice in academic writing. As I had some issues with my Twitter account, the poll accidentally got posted twice. For both polls, luckily, the answer is the same: most authors avoid the use of passive voice.

For me, avoiding passive voice is something I am working on, but I know I could (and should!) do better in that regard. This poll has reminded me of my problem with the passive voice (and I also sometimes write sentences that are too long when I use the passive voice).

Here's the result of the poll and its associated wake:

Publishing Advice from a Journal Editor

Today, I am welcoming Dr. Nancy R Gough who shares her views on academic publishing as an editor. Nancy R. Gough is the owner and founder of BioSerendipity . After 17 years with AAAS, she stepped down as the Editor of Science Signaling (a weekly journal on the topic of cellular and organismal regulatory biology), she left to start her company. She is dedicated to helping scientists communicate effectively. Dr. Gough has a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics from the University of Maryland Medical School and was a post-doctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University. You can email her at ngough@bioserendipity.com and follow her on Twitter @NancyRGough and Facebook.

Science Signaling is a weekly journal about regulatory biology at all scales. Submitted papers included those about mechanisms of molecular regulation, cellular regulation, regulatory biology in model organisms, and in plants and man. I also had the opportunity to evaluate basic and applied or translational research relevant to biological signaling. I personally evaluated each submission, assigning the appropriate ones to the staff editors, rejecting those that were inappropriate or out of scope, and providing initial comments about level of interest, Board members, and potential reviewers. From this perspective, I can offer a few words of advice for authors preparing to submit a manuscript for in-depth review and publication. The first hurdle you must pass after submission is the editor who assigning manuscripts for evaluation to other staff editors or members of the academic board. Then, you must pass the hurdle of engaging the interest of the handling editor to have your manuscript go for in-depth peer review.

First, think carefully about the title of your paper and the abstract. These two parts, and the cover letter to the editor, give the first impression of your paper. Ask yourself, is the title accurate? Does it overstate or overinterpret the data? If so, the editor and the reviewers can use this as justification to reject the manuscript once they have skimmed the methods and results. A simple example that I saw often was authors who made claims about human disease in the title and abstract from studies performed only in cultured cells or using animal models and who failed to clearly state that the studies were performed in cultured cells or only in an animal model of the disease. The study may have had implications for disease, but the title or abstract used language that was too strong for the main conclusion and the description of the study in the abstract lacked precision and accuracy.

Second, remember that titles and abstracts are what makes readers want to read your paper in more detail. Think about the intended audience for your paper. Are they likely to understand the title and abstract? Are they likely to read the journal where you have submitted the manuscript? Although you are writing for a scientific and expert audience, the abstract should be clear, free of lab jargon, have terms defined the first time that they are used, and provide a clear (not overinterpreted) take-home message. Remember that these parts of the paper are also often read by computers that text mine the scientific literature and by various search engines and indexing services. Think about key search terms that are important for your work. Ensure that these are present, and if they are abbreviations, define them for readers outside of your field. Use precise language, avoiding words that have multiple meanings.

Finally, the cover letter serves as the place where you can convey the excitement and potential implications of your study in stronger terms. Here is a place to capture the interest of the editor, convey discrepancies or controversies in the field, note the main gaps that your paper fills, and highlight a few key findings and their implications for the field of study or across fields, if appropriate. The cover letter is your chance to “sell” your work. Try to keep it to one page or at most 2 pages. Remember that the editor is unlikely to be an expert in your field and may not know the methodology in detail. Give the big picture view and then provide enough explanation for the highlighted findings to make sense to someone who is not familiar with your work or your field. Too often, I found that authors failed to realize that the editor is not an expert in your specific discipline, system of study, or field. The reviewers certainly should have the appropriate detailed expertise, but the editor often will not.

In summary, remember the intended audiences for the different parts of a paper. Avoid giving an editor or a reviewer a reason not to proceed right from the title and abstract. Don’t treat the cover letter as an afterthought. That is your chance to “speak” to the editor.