Patrick F. McKay’s Post

On picking a journal. Sometimes, I'm asked how do you know a publisher is to be trusted? I find this website helpful: https://lnkd.in/eumcyvT8 While no resource is perfect, it takes a balanced approach to evaluating journals and providing authors with the information needed to do so. BUT. Always keep in mind. 1. Is the journal credible in your field? Look for rankings articles, who publishes in the journal, and the length of its history. 2. Is the editor a trusted figure in your field? Ask around, some editors are not known as open-minded, others are known for dubious publication practices, others are just no good. If you ask colleagues, they will usually share what they know. 3. Does the journal publish papers on your topics? Look at the past three years of submissions. Most journals change with time, so that a paper was published ten years ago, is no assurance the journal is still open to the topic. 4. Does the journal publish papers that use methods? And adjacent methods to your method? Methods come in and out of style. But. General categories of method do not. So, focus on the overall position of the journal on methods. 5. Do people read papers that appear in the journal? There is nothing worse than writing a great paper that no one reads. Ask around (again social information is important) and find out if anyone has heard of the outlet. If you use a tool like think.check.submit PLUS take a little time to vet a journal, you will have a better experience in the peer review process. #acadmiclife #academicwriting #academicpublication

We all know how stressful it is when you're waiting for an editorial decision on your paper. And unfortunately, scientists now seem to be waiting even longer. Why? And what can you do? Well, it's generally not the complete fault of the journal editor. Most editors know how important it is to make their decisions well and quickly. However, they are now more overwhelmed with submissions than ever. While the launch of new journals is exploding, the editorial capacity to cope isn't keeping pace. That's not the fault of the editors. We've seen several instances recently where journal editors have been taking three months or more to make decisions on appeals. It can be longer if they're waiting for reviews. So - if you're fed up of waiting, can you do anything about it? Short answer is yes. If your emails to the editor are hitting a brick wall, email them again, and Cc the Editor-in-Chief of the journal (you can find their details on the journal website). Be polite, but firm, and explain how long you've been waiting, and, if you really can't wait much longer, give them a reasonable (~1 week) deadline for a decision. It also won't hurt to point out that there are plenty more journals in the sea. It's up to you to say when enough is enough. And it's up to the journals to value their customers, authors, reviewers and editors enough to ensure they are providing a valuable service and not acting as a barrier to progress in science. If you want tailored advice and support on your papers (and grants), reach out to one of our former journal editors, who will give you open, and timely(!), feedback. www.lifescienceeditors.com

Authors generally submit to a journal, not to a portfolio. That's good for a journal but is it the best possible author experience? I'd argue "no", which is why I developed the concept of "Guided Open Access" when I was responsible for the Nature Portfolio. That experiment won a "fantastic failure" award within Springer Nature (see: https://lnkd.in/eK6puWwJ). The Editorial Assessment Report, which Nature Portfolio editors working across multiple journals developed, was a thing of beauty. Just take a look at this: https://lnkd.in/ee9A39yZ Cell Press announced "Community Review" at roughly the same time, an initiative that's still ongoing. In their words: "Cell Press Community Review aims to help you find the right fit for your paper quickly and easily by considering it simultaneously at multiple Cell Press journals of your choice." Academics have every reason to be frustrated with publishers because the peer review system is so inefficient. This workflow is in no one's best interest: Submit > reject > resubmit > reject > resubmit > accept eLife's new editorial model is important because it has the potential to provide authors with a simpler route to publication. (I just wish readers were able to filter out the dross.) Other publishers should learn from these experiences and experiment. Editors understandably want to protect their journals' independence, but should that be at the expense of slowing down research communication? This topic was briefly covered in last week's ChronosHub webinar on transfers, which I took part in alongside Melissa J. Patterson, Catherine Goodman, and Romy Beard. (h/t to Henry Spilberg for asking the question that prompted this post). You can watch the webinar recording here: https://lnkd.in/ezKCj-fq I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Please leave a comment below. Has anyone else tried a similar approach? --- For more insights into scholarly publishing follow me, James Butcher, on LinkedIn. I also write a free newsletter, Journalology, which is sent to ~3400 people each week. You can sign up using the link in my profile. #scholarlypublishing #academicpublishing #peerreview

Have you ever wondered how journals decide whether to publish a manuscript? 📘 Gain insight into the editorial decision-making process with this behind-the-scenes look! 🔍 The process begins with an editor reviewing the manuscript alongside feedback from peer reviewers. This initial stage assesses whether the content fits the journal's scope and addresses any pressing questions or gaps. 📝 Possible outcomes include immediate acceptance (if the manuscript is exceptionally well-aligned with the journal's standards), revision required, the editorial team seeking more information, or rejection. 👥 Smaller journals often have a more centralized decision-making process, while larger publications involve multiple handling editors who contribute to it. 🖋️ At the manuscript meeting, handling editors present the manuscript, summarizing the research context, design, results, and feedback received. It’s a collaborative environment where editors debate the manuscript's merits and decide its fate—be it revision, additional review, or outright rejection. 📄 A crucial aspect is drafting detailed revision letters, which guide authors on necessary changes and respond to reviewer comments. If a manuscript is rejected, the letter constructively outlines the reasons, sometimes encouraging a resubmission after further work. ✍️ The rigorous editorial process ensures that only the most fitting and refined research is published. Understanding this process helps authors and contributors in the academic world craft manuscripts that stand the best chance of success.

Just a quick reminder that the proposal deadline for JPSSM's next special issue is coming up. Proposals should be submitted by September 6, 2024. This special issue is intended to build on the tradition of the 2005 special issue and the introductory article by Steven Brown and Eli Jones, "Introduction to the Special Issue: Advancing the Field of Selling and Sales Management." As such, all proposals should advance scholarship through the identification of both ongoing and recent changes, and how to best navigate an evolved sales function and role. Hence, it will be incumbent upon authors to make a compelling case for the novelty of the insights their research affords throughout the entire process of the special issue. Proposals: To be considered for the JPSSM special issue, authors MUST first submit a proposal. Proposals should be 1,750-2,000 words, and provide sample references. Authors may include salient figures and tables, as needed. References, figures, and tables do not count against the word count. All proposals will be subject to editorial review. IMPORTANT – Full papers will NOT be considered at the proposal stage. Proposal submissions will be evaluated by the JPSSM special issue Editorial Team given the following criteria: 1. Relevance. Does the proposed manuscript address a significant and important research area given the sales domain (broadly defined)? 2. Novelty. Have the authors demonstrated that the proposed manuscript will introduce enough novel insight to advance (or ‘update’) the sales field in a meaningful way? 3. Viability. Does the proposal show promise that a full manuscript: (i) can be developed in a clear and compelling manner, given (ii) the timeline and schedule below? 4. Organization and Coherence. Does the proposal follow a logical structure? Does it read clearly? 5. Agenda for Future Research. Does the proposal signal that the resultant paper will convey relevant implications and new directions for future research? 6. Scope of Interest. Will the resultant manuscript be of acute interest to the JPSSM readership (academics and practitioners, alike)? Authors must adhere to a stringent timeline. Accepted proposals will also convey suggestions and feedback from the JPSSM special issue Editorial Team. Timing, deadlines, and milestones are as follows: • September 6, 2024: Research Proposal Deadline. • October 15, 2024: Final decision on proposals; feedback on accepted proposals • March 15, 2025: First draft of paper due • by May 15, 2025: Feedback to authors on first draft • September 1, 2025: Revised papers due •       Additional Revision Rounds (as needed) • March 31, 2026: COMPLETED MANUSCRIPTS DUE TO JPSSM PUBLISHER (Issue 2, 2026) Special Issue Editor Team: Nathaniel Hartmann,Bryan Hochstein, Eli Jones, and Christopher R. Plouffe

Publishing has undergone major changes in the last few years - especially regarding open access. Costs for publishing have moved from paying to access and view research to paying to publish research. As a result, making publishing affordable without compromising quality and the peer review system is key to ensuring only reliable and repeatable work is reported. JAAN has always had quality as the priority for the papers it publishes. This costs money and time, as well as relying on expertise of those reviewing and editing the papers. However, at JAAN we are all very aware of the costs of publishing - and have held those down as much as possible. The other key issues is turnaround time, and we work closely with trusted reviewers to try to keep this to a minimum. This is increasingly challenging, as reviewers become more stretched regarding the time available to commit to this valuable role. However, JAAN has an excellent Editorial Board on hand to assist with this. So, if you have commercial research that you want out in the public domain, please consider JAAN. We are a young journal, and still in the establishment phase, but are happy to assist authors wherever we can to get their papers published, and at a competitive price!

#academics #scientist #community: How do you feel about this: a🧵 in how a publishing experience went to 💩🧻 📧 1. You get an invitation from a reputable journal in your field of #science to write a review - because you are the expert - you agree. So far so good. ✒️ 2. While writing you have a few questions to the editors, particularly about images as there are some branding and copyright issues. The editors agree with your style and type of images after some modifications. You deliver on time. 👀 3. You get feedback from 2 reviewers (you didn't even know they review their invited reviews) who both don't like your style and complain about not citing enough primary literature #reviewer3 (NB: you cited a few of your own recent reviews plus primary literature about the exact topic) ✒️4. You make the suggested changes but try to retain what you thought was novel and well written about it. It's your article after all. 🛑 5. You get a rejection from the editorial office because you didn't comply with all their requested changes, your article isn't scientific enough and you didn't cite enough primary literature (you had pointed out they were recently summarised by yourself elsewhere), and because there are concerns about using product/ brand names ⁉️🤔 💰 6. They offer to still pay you. A small amount for all that time and effort. And want to use your work in one of their sister magazines. 🤷🏼♀️ They DECLINE 🚫 a second revised version. I am confused, a bit cross ❌ and feel seriously pushed around. Their impact factor 👊🏼 is 1.7, so how was that even ever #worthit? Do you agree this is not acceptable behaviour? Will I ever publish with them again? #publishingnightmare #thecheekofthem

Certainly! Publishing a quality research article involves several crucial steps. Let's break it down: 1. Check Whether Your Research Is Publication-Ready : Before diving into writing, assess whether your research is ready for publication. Ensure that your findings are significant, well-supported, and contribute to the existing body of knowledge. 2. Choose an Article Type: Determine the type of paper you want to write. Options include original research articles, review papers, case studies, or opinion pieces. Select the format that aligns with your research goals. 3. Choose a Journal: Identify a suitable journal for your work. Consider factors such as the journal's scope, audience, impact factor, and relevance to your field. Each journal has specific guidelines, so review them carefully. 4. Construct Your Paper: Organize your research article effectively: Introduction: Clearly state the problem, research question, and significance. Literature Review: Summarize existing research related to your topic. Methodology: Describe your research design, data collection, and analysis methods. Results: Present your findings objectively. Discussion: Interpret results, discuss implications, and address limitations. Conclusion: Recap key points and suggest future directions. 5. Decide the Order of Authors: Collaborative research often involves multiple authors. Establish the order of authorship based on each contributor's role and contribution. Follow ethical guidelines and communicate openly with co-authors. 6. Check and Double-Check: Proofread your manuscript meticulously. Verify citations, references, figures, and tables. Ensure consistency in formatting and language. Address any grammatical errors. 7. Submit Your Paper: Follow the submission guidelines of your chosen journal. Prepare a compelling cover letter and submit your manuscript. Be patient during the peer review process, and be prepared to revise based on feedback. Remember, publishing a well-crafted research article not only contributes to your field but also enhances your academic profile. Best of luck with your research journey! 📚🔍🔬 #researchpublication #stepstosuccess #wily #springer #emerald #journals #managementeducation #researchpaper

What a way to start the week! Our paper has made it across the line! After four tough months of juggling regular #medicalaffairs work and writing, it all finally falls into place. I have to say that I still love (love, love, love) publication writing. Being able to tell a good scientific story to advance science gives me absolute joy and satisfaction. Our paper went through two rounds of review by six reviewers and pages of lengthy rebuttals. But the hard work paid off - our study have improved leaps and bounds, and most of all, our research is endorsed to be publication worthy. Who says academic writing stops once you go across to the industry? I believe it’s just a matter of looking out for opportunities, pitching a good idea, consolidating collaborators, gathering resources and most importantly, your willingness to put up your hand to take charge. This is where we create value so let's continue to tell good scientific stories to advance science! #PublicationWriting #ScienceCommunication #MedicalAffairs #PhD

NAR 50th Anniversary. Post #2. Why publish in NAR? Recap: Mega-journals like Nature Communications are rising in impact factor* and are attracting more papers that would also be welcome at NAR. The Nature/Cell/Science brands confer advantages to authors. * IF's are tricky. for any journal it is important to understand where the IF comes from and not assume that it correlates directly with quality. It may or may not. Why publish in NAR? It's a question that requires a good answer. Here is my answer, based on my 12 years service as an NAR Executive Editor. 1) NAR is edited by practicing scientists. We understand what it is like to have disappointing reviews or have a manuscript rejected. We will do everything we can to get your submissions published if we believe that a favorable outcome can (eventually) be achieved at NAR. Likewise, if an author's time and resources are better spent seeking publication at another journal, we will suggest that. 2) We do not care about how many citations a paper might receive. Submissions just need to be good science, within our scope, and move a field forward. 3) We make internal decisions quickly. Every scientist has stories about waiting for weeks to receive an answer to a simple query from some journals. My colleagues at NAR are unbelievably responsive. If I need advice on a submission, I can be assured of receiving the replies I need from my fellow Executive Editors within 24 hours. Even the Senior Editors, Barry Stoddard and Julian Sale, who handle 3000 papers per year, will respond within hours if an Executive Editor needs advice. The quality of advice is always high. 4) We'll also respond to authors quickly. Have a presubmission enquiry? Want to appeal an Editorial Rejection? A Rejection after review? We will also respond quickly. We know that editors and reviewers are not always perfect. We welcome well reasoned appeals. They help us do our jobs. 5) We will try to help authors build a bridge to publication that, if possible, avoids lengthy additional experiments. We understand that changes to the text can substitute for experiments. 6) We know how to identify reliable reviewers. In my 12 years at NAR I cannot remember a single negative review that was unkind, biased, or unfair. 7) Because we are practicing scientists, we are comfortable overriding negative reviewers. 8) Our reviewers and Editorial Board members are magnificent. They are always an inspiration to me. Because NAR has a special place in the hearts of so many scientists, it is usually not difficult to find reviewers. 9) 50 years of tradition is important. If you publish in NAR or review for NAR, you join that tradition. In summary, NAR benefits from having practicing scientists as editors and offers fast, fair peer review to help authors achieve the strongest possible final paper. Next up: Tips on Publishing in NAR.