scholarly journals Strong and Ethical Scholarly Writing for Multidisciplinary Audiences

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 858-858
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Good Writing

Abstract This presentation will emphasize the importance of plain, good writing. Editors of high impact journals read 10 or more manuscripts per week, and are under pressure to reject 80-90% of them. Regardless of scholarly quality, if the point and contribution are not clear in a quick scan of the paper, it likely will not be reviewed favorably. I will provide tips for strong scientific writing that are commonly violated in manuscript submissions, and provide references for additional writing support. I will also discuss some common publication ethics issues that arise during the review process, including author contributions and embedding your scholarship in the context of prior work.

scholarly journals Preparing Your Manuscript: Strong and Ethical Scholarly Writing for Multidisciplinary Audiences

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 199-199
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Good Writing

Abstract This presentation will emphasize the importance of plain, good writing. Editors read 10 or more manuscripts per week with pressure to reject 80-90% of them. If the point and contribution are not clear in a quick scan of the paper, it will not be reviewed favorably. I will provide tips for writing that are commonly violated in submissions, provide references for additional writing support, cover expectations for language consistent with GSA’s Reframing Aging initiative, and discuss some common publication ethics issues that arise during the review process, including author contributions and embedding your scholarship in the context of prior work.

scholarly journals How To Publish: Preparing Manuscripts for Clarity, Transparency, Scholarly Integrity, and Success

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 858-858
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Open Science ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Annual Symposium ◽  
The Right

Abstract The GSA publications team sponsors this annual symposium to assist prospective authors to successfully publish their gerontological scholarship in GSA’s high impact and influential journals. The first part of the session will include five brief presentations from the Editors-in-chief of Journals of Gerontology-Series B, Social and Psychological Sciences, The Gerontologist, and Innovation in Aging, plus one of GSA’s managing editors. We will integrate practical tips with principles of publication ethics and scholarly integrity. The topics will be as follows: (1) preparing your manuscript, including how to choose the right journal; (2) strong and ethical scholarly writing for multidisciplinary audiences; (3) transparency, documentation, and Open Science; (4) successfully responding to reviews; and (5) working with Scholar One. Following these presentations, we will hold round table discussions with editors from the GSA journals portfolio. At these roundtables, editors will answer questions related to the podium presentations and other questions specific to each journal. Intended audiences include emerging and international scholars, and authors interested in learning more about best practices and tips for getting their scholarly work published.

scholarly journals GETTING OVER THE FIRST HURDLE: PREPARING YOUR MANUSCRIPT FOR A POSITIVE REVIEW

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S223-S224
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
High Impact ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Manuscript Preparation ◽  
Good Writing

Abstract In this section of the symposium, I will talk about manuscript preparation for maximizing the likelihood that your work will be sent for review. I will talk about common author errors that usually guarantee an immediate reject decision such as not reading and following the Instructions to Authors. I will emphasize the importance of plain, good writing. Editors of high impact journals receive 10 or more new manuscripts per week, and due to limited page space, have to reject 80-90% of them. Regardless of scholarly quality, if the point and contribution are not clear in a quick scan of the paper, it likely will not be reviewed favorably. I will provide tips for strong scientific writing that are commonly violated in manuscript submissions, and provide references for additional writing support.

scholarly journals How to Publish: Guidance From GSA’s Journal Editors

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 199-199
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Open Science ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Common Problems

Abstract Each year he GSA publications team sponsors a symposium to assist authors who wish to publish in GSA’s high impact and influential journals. The first part of the session will include five brief presentations from the editors of The Gerontologist, Innovation and Aging, and the Journals of Gerontology Series A and B plus GSA’s managing editors. We will integrate practical tips with principles of publication ethics and scholarly integrity. The topics will be as follows: (1) Preparing your manuscript: strong and ethical scholarly writing for multidisciplinary audiences, (2) common problems that affect peer review, (3) addressing translational significance and fit to journal expectations, (4) transparency, documentation, and Open Science; and (5) working with Scholar One. Following these presentations, we will hold round table discussions with editors from the GSA journals portfolio. At these round tables, editors will answer questions related to the podium presentations and other questions specific to each journal. Intended audiences include emerging and international scholars, and authors interested in learning more about best practices and tips for getting their scholarly work published.

scholarly journals From the Desk of Editor

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Arun Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Late Response ◽  
Medical Sciences

Dear All Associated Users of AJMS: It gives us immense pleasure to publish the current issue of AJMS Vol 12 No 1 (2021). We started our journey from 2010 with an online edition of AJMS. Slowly we progressed with the support of our committed and strong team of Editorial board members and launched the printed edition in the year 2015 and we further expanded our publication frequency from quarterly issue to bimonthly issue. With the overwhelming response and support from our users, we now take a leap to publish monthly issue from this year (2021) onwards.  With the current expansion of edition, we make it clear that we have not made any compromise in the quality of articles which we publish in AJMS. We have been striving hard to serve the potential authors who has entrusted on us and chosen our journal to publish their manuscripts, making our journal as their journal of choice! On submission, the manuscripts are assigned to editor and section editor for initial review process, followed by assigning the manuscript to three reviewers of which two are internal reviewers and one outside the editorial board (external reviewer). The blind review process in our journal takes six to eight weeks’, sometimes even earlier depending on the reviewers and the decision is made once the review report is submitted to the editor. Sometimes the delay in turnaround time happens which is unavoidable due to late response from reviewers and from the authors. We insist the authors to communicate with the editor soon the review reports are sent to them for revisions. This would further shrink the time of publication from submission. The reviewers and the editorial board members are solely responsible for taking initial decision of the article but the final decision is based on the Editor. The best part of our journal is we respond to each and every author promptly and do not ignore any queries.  The details of the journal can be viewed by clicking the links of particular sections- Focus and Scope, Peer Review Process, Open Access Policy, Publication Frequency, Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, Duties of Reviewers, Duties of Authors, Indexing of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences can be viewed by this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about Submission Preparation Checklist, Author Guidelines, Plagiarism Policy can be viewed by following this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about/submissions Authors are advised to go through the guidelines and then submit their manuscripts We look forward to further enhance the quality of article in AJMS and we will strive hard to ensure this journal goes global, in the future. Thank you all for your support and entrusting on us. Prof. Dr. Arun Kumar Editor-in-Chief, Asian Journal of Medical Sciences

Scientific Writing and Publishing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denys Wheatley
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
User Friendly

Knowing how to prepare, write and publish high-quality research papers can be challenging for scientists at all stages of their career. This manual guides readers through successfully framing and presenting research findings, as well as the processes involved in publishing in learned journals. It draws on the author's wealth of practical experience, from working in academic research for over 40 years and teaching scientific writing in over 20 countries, to gaining insights as a journal editor. Well-written and logical, it provides clear step-by-step instructions to enable readers to become more effective at writing articles, and navigating difficulties related to journal submission, the review process, editing and publication. It comprehensively covers themes such as publication ethics, along with current topics including Open Access publishing and pre-print servers. This is a useful, user-friendly guide for graduate students, early career scientists, and more experienced researchers, particularly in the life and medical sciences.

scholarly journals Quotation errors in general science journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 476 (2242) ◽  
pp. 20200538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal Smith ◽  
Aaron Cumberledge
Keyword(s):  
Error Rate ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Total Error ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
General Science ◽  
Total Error Rate ◽  
Academic Fields ◽  
The Future

Due to the incremental nature of scientific discovery, scientific writing requires extensive referencing to the writings of others. The accuracy of this referencing is vital, yet errors do occur. These errors are called ‘quotation errors’. This paper presents the first assessment of quotation errors in high-impact general science journals. A total of 250 random citations were examined. The propositions being cited were compared with the referenced materials to verify whether the propositions could be substantiated by those materials. The study found a total error rate of 25%. This result tracks well with error rates found in similar studies in other academic fields. Additionally, several suggestions are offered that may help to decrease these errors and make similar studies more feasible in the future.

A Need to Archive Correct Biomedical Scientific Data and to Prevent Continued Citation of Retracted Scientific Publications

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (supplement) ◽  
pp. 29-37
Author(s):  
Ruy Tchao
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Life Science ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Recent Analysis ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Biomedical Field ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Highly Cited

The number of retracted peer reviewed scientific publications in the biomedical field has exponentially increased 15 times since early 2000 while the total number of publications only increased 1.44 times over the same period. Although retractions are rare (only 1 in 5,000 of all publications), the data and the science propounded by the retracted papers have significant impact because many retracted papers are published in high impact journals and are highly cited by other scientists. The scientific data contained in a retracted paper should be erased from the data bank. Even after retraction, many of these papers continue to be cited or can re-appear in future literature citation after a number of years. Recent analysis shows that in the fields of life science and medicine, 67.4% of the retracted papers are due to misconduct, of which 43.4% are due to fraud or suspected fraud. These flawed papers have high impact on public health and patient care as illustrated here by the cases of Wakefield and Potti. It is suggested here that a more stringent process of publication is necessary, including the review process and author certification of responsible citations of the literature that does not contain retractions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document