scholarly journals How to publish your manuscript successfully (with Wiley)

Author(s):  
Matteo Cavalleri

Part of the training module on publishing with the Council of Australian University Librarians, this 1h webinar provides tips to Early Career Researchers on how to write and accompany an article through the peer-review process. Not specific to Wiley journals, but why go elsewhere, really?

FACETS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
Robert G. Young ◽  
T. Fatima Mitterboeck

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra Lane Ettinger ◽  
Madhumala K. Sadanandappa ◽  
Kivanc Görgülü ◽  
Karen Coghlan ◽  
Kenneth K. Hallenbeck ◽  
...  

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before the traditional peer review process, is becoming more common in the life sciences. Early career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, the decision to preprint a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in posting a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting - to enable them to take ownership over the process, and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors or consider whether to preprint their future research.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert McNair ◽  
Hai Anh Le Phuong ◽  
Levente Cseri ◽  
Gyorgy Szekely

With the number of publications being all-time high, academic peer review is imperative to ensure high-quality research content. The wider involvement of postgraduate, early-career researchers (ECRs) has been proposed on several platforms to address the unsustainability of the peer review process caused by a lack of peer reviewers. A survey involving 1203 academics and ECRs in ten countries revealed their attitudes towards the involvement of ECRs in the peer review process. The trends and motives were identified, with emphasis on the peer review being an oft-neglected tool in the skill development of ECRs. In light of the survey results, the transferrable skills that ECRs acquire from performing peer reviews at a crucial stage in their career development are systematically explored. The findings call for further engagement of ECRs in the peer review process under supervisory mentoring.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.


BMC Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Chauvin ◽  
Philippe Ravaud ◽  
David Moher ◽  
David Schriger ◽  
Sally Hopewell ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. Methods We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). Results The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82–89] versus 20% [16–24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44–77] versus 11% [3–26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57–65] versus 77% [74–81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67–86] versus 98% [92–100]. Conclusions Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. Trial registration Clinical.Trials.govNCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).


Author(s):  
Sarvenaz Sarabipour ◽  
Humberto J Debat ◽  
Edward Emmott ◽  
Steven Burgess ◽  
Benjamin Schwessinger ◽  
...  

Peer-reviewed journal publication is the main means for academic researchers in the life sciences to create a permanent, public record of their work. These publications are also the de facto currency for career progress, with a strong link between journal brand recognition and perceived value. The current peer-review process can lead to long delays between submission and publication, with cycles of rejection, revision and resubmission causing redundant peer review. This situation creates unique challenges for early career researchers (ECRs), who rely heavily on timely publication of their work to gain recognition for their efforts. ECRs face changes in the academic landscape including the increased interdisciplinarity of life sciences research, expansion of the researcher population and consequent shifts in employer and funding demands. The publication of preprints, publicly available scientific manuscripts posted on dedicated preprint servers prior to journal managed peer-review, can play a key role in addressing these ECR challenges. Preprinting benefits include rapid dissemination of academic work, open access, establishing priority or concurrence, receiving feedback and facilitating collaborations. While there is a growing appreciation for and adoption of preprints, a minority of all articles in life sciences and medicine are preprinted. The current low rate of preprint submissions in life sciences and ECR concerns regarding preprinting needs to be addressed. We provide a perspective from an interdisciplinary group of early career researchers on the value of preprints and advocate the wide adoption of preprints to advance knowledge and facilitate career development.


2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-18
Author(s):  
Patanamon Thongtanunam ◽  
Ayushi Rastogi ◽  
Foutse Khomh ◽  
Serge Demeyer ◽  
Meiyappan Nagappan ◽  
...  

The Shadow Program Committee (PC) is an initiative/program that provides an opportunity to Early-Career Researchers (ECRs), i.e., PhD students, postdocs, new faculty members, and industry practitioners, who have not been in a PC, to learn rst-hand about the peer-review process of the technical track at Software Engi- neering (SE) conferences. This program aims to train the next generation of PC members as well as to allow ECRs to be recog- nized and embedded in the research community. By participating in this program, ECRs will have a great chance i) to gain expe- rience about the reviewing process including the restrictions and ethical standards of the academic peer-review process; ii) to be mentored by senior researchers on how to write a good review; and iii) to create a network with other ECRs and senior researchers (i.e., Shadow PC advisors). The Shadow PC program was rst introduced to the SE research community at the Mining Software Repositories (MSR) confer- ence in 2021. The program was led by Patanamon Thongta- nunam and Ayushi Rastogi (Shadow PC Co-chairs) with support from Shadow PC Advisor Co-Chairs (Foutse Khomh and Serge Demeyer), PC Co-Chairs of the technical track (Meiyappan Na- gappan and Kelly Blincoe), and the General Chair of the con- ference, Gregorio Robles. To promote and facilitate the Shadow PC program at SE conferences in the future, this report provides details about the process and a re ection on the Shadow PC pro- gram during MSR2021. The presentation slides and video are also available online at https://youtu.be/ReUXwmtIEk8.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Casado ◽  
Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽  
Paul Rosenbaum ◽  
Jilda Alicia Caccavo ◽  
Kelsey Aho ◽  
...  

Abstract. Early Career Scientists (ECS) are a large part of the work force in science. While they produce new scientific knowledge that they share in publications, they are rarely invited to participate in the peer-review process. Barriers to the participation of ECS as peer-reviewers include, among others, their lack of visibility to editors, inexperience in the review process and lack of confidence in their scientific knowledge. Participation of ECS in group reviews, e.g. for assessment reports, provides an opportunity for ECS to advance their skill set and to contribute to policy relevant products. Here, we present the outcomes of a group peer-review of the first order draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (IPCC SROCC). Overall, PhD students spent more time on the review than those further advanced in their careers, and provided a similar proportion of substantive comments. After the review, participants reported feeling more confident about their skills, and 86 % were interested in reviewing individually. By soliciting and including ECS in the peer-review process, the scientific community would not only reduce the burden carried by more established scientists, but permit their successors to develop important professional skills relevant to advancing climate science and influencing policy.


2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sagar Dugani ◽  
Stephan Ong Tone

The Clinician Investigator Trainee Association of Canada – Association des cliniciens-chercheurs en formation du Canada (CITAC-ACCFC) is a national organization composed of MD+ trainees enrolled in MD/MSc, MD/PhD, and Clinician Investigator Programs (CIP) across Canada. In less than three years since its conception, CITAC-ACCFC has become an established organization with over 200 members from fifteen academic institutions. The mission of the CITAC-ACCFC is to organize and promote activities that support clinician investigator trainees in Canada, with the intention to improve academic and post-graduate career opportunities, expand institutional and public awareness of clinician investigator programs, and develop a nationally accessible information database of student and program development. The CITAC-ACCFC aims to improve the early-career conditions of clinician investigators in order to expand and advance innovative research initiatives within Canada. Throughout its development, CITAC-ACCFC has relied on the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation (CSCI) for mentorship and guidance. In an exciting development, the relationship between CITAC-ACCFC and CSCI has enabled an innovative opportunity for early career development through a new collaboration- the creation of a Trainee Section in the Clinical and Investigative Medicine (CIM) journal. As a forum through which work on diverse topics can be shared with the global community, the CIM Trainee Section will create unique opportunities for professional development. Trainees in MD+ programs represent the next generation of clinical-investigators, who will integrate cutting edge research and compassionate patient care throughout their careers. Both professions require excellent communication skills, and through the Trainee Section, MD+ trainees, their supervisors, and MD+ Program Directors, will be able to focus on mentorship, academic training, financial planning, and career development, among other topics devoted to MD+ trainees. In addition to articles highlighting the research activities of trainees, the Trainee Section will feature clinical work, review articles, first chapter of theses, book reviews, and opinion pieces. This focus of the Trainee Section will complement CIM’s current focus on original research and issues of interest to the CSCI. It is therefore fitting to establish a Trainee Section that is dedicated to addressing issues arising at an earlier stage of training. As MD+ organizations are being established globally, the Trainee Section will strive to become an international forum that focuses on MD+ training. By increasing the international readership of CIM through the CITAC website, we will aim to engage MD+ trainees, program directors, university administration, and other leaders in education, to advocate for issues of national and global relevance. As trainees will be responsible for overseeing the editorial and peer-review process of the Trainee Section, we anticipate that this will provide an avenue by which to foster stronger interactions and collaborations among trainees on our Editorial Board, junior investigators, and senior faculty, while providing critical editorial experience for board members. Our team of Editors will ensure that articles are reviewed in a fair and timely manner, respecting the need to promptly publish articles of immediate relevance. We encourage all MD+ trainees to participate in the Trainee Section editorial and/or peer-review process. Additional details can be found on our website at: http://www.citac-accfc.org/portal/ As MD+ trainees, we are optimistic about the future of both basic science and clinical research. This is an exciting time to be an MD+ trainee, and we are confident that the creation of a Trainee Section will only augment this positive experience. We strongly encourage you to publish your work in the Trainee Section and become part of an emerging global community of MD+ trainees, who are keen on tackling health issues that affect us irrespective of our geographic, cultural, or racial borders. We look forward to receiving your articles.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document