How to Craft a Good Journal Submission That Reviewers Appreciate

Ran Wei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1177344

2016-01-01

Mass Communication & Society

Abstract:We had an outstanding year in 2015, with more than 271 new studies submitted, as well as 81 revised manuscripts. Here are trends I have observed over the past 4 years. As shown in Table 1, the subm...

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Four steps to realize effective peer review of academics journals published in China

Fang PENG,Jianhua JIN,Jianrong HUANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11946/cjstp.201612191002

2017-01-01

Abstract:[Purposes] This paper aims to explore the strategies to achieve the effective peer review.[Methods] Based on advanced experience and measures taken by foreign journals,the problems existing in peer review of academics journals published in China were analyzed and improvement measures from the top level design were put forward.[Findings] Concrete measures include policy support and protection,comprehensive evaluation experts teams,optimized review patterns and sound evaluation and feedback systems.[Conclusions] Four kinds of measures mentioned above contribute to implementing the effective role of peer review in academic supervision and checks.
Exploring the Black Box of Journal Manuscript Review: A Survey of Social Science Journal Editors

Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine,Richard Tewksbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.759244

2013-09-01

Journal of Criminal Justice Education

Abstract:Conducting and publishing research is one of the core responsibilities of academic researchers. Frequently, publications are commonly used measurements for assessing suitability for hiring, tenure, and promotion. Understanding the “black box” of the publication process is essential for budding and new scholars, who are often expected to publish at rapid paces. The current study seeks to provide information about the publication process and the editorial tasks of editors through the eyes of scholarly journal editors. We find it would benefit authors to carefully select the journal to which they will submit (making sure their manuscripts are “good fits” for the journals’ missions), focus their efforts on the initial stages of a research project (making sound decisions about methods), and remember that the scholars who are cited in their literature review sections will likely become the reviewers of their manuscripts.
Factors Affecting Authors' Manuscript Submission Behaviour: A Systematic Review

Xiaoting Xu,Juan Xie,Jianjun Sun,Ying Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1521

2023-01-01

Learned Publishing

Abstract:AbstractAs an important medium of science communication, academic journals promote the flow and growth of scientific knowledge. To examine the influence of factors on authors' choice of a journal, this paper reviews the literature on journal selection. A systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis methods were used in this study. A total of 132 articles were included and the content characteristics were extracted. Then, based on behavioural decision theory, the extracted data on journal selection factors were synthesized based on critical interpretive synthesis principles. Four synthetic constructs emerged: factors related to information acquisition, factors related to journal evaluation, factors related to submission outcome feedback, and factors related to the authors' backgrounds. The articles revealed that factors related to journal information acquisition and journal evaluation directly influenced authors' submission behaviour, while factors related to authors' backgrounds were moderating variables. Future research should focus on the processes of manuscript‐submission behaviour, to examine the relationships between the factors and identify the mechanisms.
An Emerging Trend of Equal Authorship Credit in Major Public Health Journals

Shui-Ying Lei,Yan-Ping Dong,Wei-Fang Zhu,Lan-Juan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2771-7

2016-01-01

SpringerPlus

Abstract:Background This study aimed to identify the longitudinal trends and characteristics of the practice of explicitly giving equal credit to multiple authors of publications in public health journals. Manual searches were conducted to identify original research articles, published in five public health journals with the highest IFs according to the “2012 JCR Science Edition” between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013, which awarded equal credit to multiple authors ( Epidemiologic Reviews , Environmental Health Perspectives , the International Journal of Epidemiology , Epidemiology , and the Annual Review of Public Health ). The Instructions to Authors in the five journals were also examined with regard to information about giving equal credit to multiple authors. Findings Statistically significant differences were noted in the annual prevalence in Environmental Health Perspectives , International Journal of Epidemiology , and Epidemiology ( r = 0.753, P = 0.012; r = 0.894, P = 0.000; r = 0.522, P = 0.122, respectively). The first two authors listed in the by-line received equal credit in the majority of articles, but this practice was also extended to authors in nearly every position on the by-line in some publications. The authors given equal credit in articles appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives , International Journal of Epidemiology , and Epidemiology were primarily from European and North American countries. Finally, none of the journals provided specific guidance regarding this practice in their Instructions to Authors. Conclusions An emerging trend of giving equal credit to multiple authors is observed in the public health journals. This practice should be better addressed in the guidance provided by journals to authors.
Publishing in high quality journals: perspectives from overworked and unpaid reviewers

Linda Bol,Douglas J. Hacker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9073-7

2013-12-28

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

Abstract:AbstractOur purpose for this article is to provide suggestions on how to get your high quality research published from the perspectives of reviewers. First, good writing is good thinking, and you are much more likely to succeed when you combine good writing with sound research. We then offer an eight-step method of reviewing that may help the author better understand how to present and understand the research. Next, we describe ways to identify high quality journals, including acceptance rates, impact factor, Eigenfactors, and Article Influence scores. In the following section, we address common criteria used to rate articles, possible decisions, and how to revise the manuscript in response to reviewers’ comments. We present an example table of responses to reviewers’ critiques. We conclude with further advice for more novice researchers. Become a reviewer to help you better understand the process and peers’ expectations. Highlight the caliber of your research by citing journal metrics when being considered for promotion or hiring. Finally, frame negative reviews as an opportunity to improve your work and keep trying to publish your research despite criticisms.

education & educational research
How to Encourage Best Peer Reviewers: an Empiric Approach

Omid Mahian,Somchai Wongwises

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.506

2015-01-01

Abstract:As editors of international journals, we are always challenged with picking the most relevant, available and highly skilled peer reviewers and receiving their comments on time. When relevant reviewers are selected, no-one can guarantee that the reviews will be submitted on time. One way to encourage the reviewers submit their comments and evaluations on time, or with minimal delays, is to implement 'spiritual' privileges. That option can be particularly helpful for traditional subscription journals, where authors do not pay any submission, processing, or publishing fees. In response to timely submission of reviews by responsible referees, journal editors can do a favor and process the referees' own manuscripts as high priority items. Of course, such a favorable attitude does not mean that mistakes in the study design, statistical analyses and interpretation of the results, ethical misconduct, or poor language can be tolerated and overlooked. Editors can use their reserves, add more rigor and invest more time for speeding up proper reviewing and editing of the most responsible reviewers' submissions. In such a favorable scenario, timeline of manuscript processing can be shortened by limiting periods before and after the acceptance of external reviewers' comments. In other words, the duration of 'with editor' status of the manuscripts can be decreased to a few hours-days (instead of few weeks-month for lower priority items). Furthermore, timeframe for external review itself can be diminished to 7-14 days for priority items (instead of 3-4 weeks for regular submissions). As an official recognition of the best reviewers' quality and timely contributions, editors should publicize their names in the annual acknowledgments on the journal websites and in print issues. Fortunately, more and more journal editors pay attention to these gestures of courtesy and specify the number of times their best referees contribute annually. Of course, frequent contributors (more than four reviews a year) deserve special attention and a range of rewards. To encourage the best reviewers further, publishers of online journals can waive or discount their publication fees. The same waivers and discounts are applicable to registration fees of conferences and seminars which are organized by the publishers. Last but not least importantly, financial rewards of varying degree can be arranged for the best reviewers annually.
The Impact of Submission Experiences on Perceptions of Journal Quality and Editorial Support: The Viewpoint of Chinese Authors

Zili Zhang,Ziqiong Zhang,Rob Law

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.43.2.220

2012-01-01

Journal of Scholarly Publishing

Abstract:This study examines differences in perceptions of journal quality and editorial support among three categories of Chinese authors: those whose manuscripts were accepted without revision, those whose manuscripts were accepted after revision, and those whose manuscripts were rejected. An analysis of online reviews of journal quality and editorial support in six disciplines revealed the existence of biases caused by authors' submission experiences. The results show that a Chinese author will rate the quality of a journal and its editorial support higher if his or her manuscript was accepted by the journal regardless of whether he or she was required to make revisions. The results also indicate that no major variations exist in perceptions of journal quality and editorial support between authors whose manuscripts were accepted without revision and authors whose manuscripts were accepted after revision.
Creating Interesting Review Papers by Emphasizing Novel Themes

Vicki S Conn,Vicki S. Conn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945920920645

2020-05-11

Western Journal of Nursing Research

Abstract:Stellar review articles summarize extant research methods, synthesize previous study results, and stimulate new directions for future research. Most research journals publish outstanding review papers. Unfortunately, many uninteresting review papers fall short of making a significant contribution. This editorial identifies some strategies to write thought-provoking review papers that justify publication because they contribute new knowledge.

nursing
Appreciation of Reviewers 2023

Roger Jiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2024.2305031

2024-01-17

Journal of Engineering Design

Abstract:Submissions to the Journal of Engineering Design are anonymously reviewed by at least two independent referees. The quality of the published papers is due to the dedication and effort of those referees as well as to the submitting authors. We are grateful to all of the following individuals who have acted as reviewers for the Journal in 2023. We extend our heartfelt appreciation to the dedicated and accomplished reviewers who have played a pivotal role in maintaining the high standards and quality of the articles published in Journal of Engineering Design .

engineering, multidisciplinary
WHICH ACADEMIC JOURNALS DO SCIENTISTS PREFER?—As a Sample Sponsored by Special Grant for Key Academic Journals of NSFC—10 Years Viewing of J of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE(A/B/C)

Zhang Yuehong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16262/j.cnki.1000-8217.2010.05.018

2010-01-01

Abstract:Reviewing ten years of the Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE(A/B/C),as a sample supported by a Special Grant for Key Academic Journals of NSFC(2009—2010),we describe how important it is for the journal editors to manage the journal with the spirit of exploration,curiosity,and dedication. We also deal with what current scientists value from academic journals and how this must be addressed in China.
"The best home for this paper": A qualitative study of how authors select where to submit manuscripts

Lauren A Maggio,Natascha Chtena,Juan Pablo Alperin,Laura L Moorhead,John M Willinsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.14.594165

2024-05-17

Abstract:Introduction: For academics selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journal's prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors' decision making. Methods: The authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis. Results: Participants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journal's impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission. Discussion: The findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of OA and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige.

Scientific Communication and Education
How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers

Ella T August,Andrew F Brouwer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyae154

IF: 9.685

2024-12-03

International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract:Journal peer review is a gatekeeper in the scientific process, determining which papers are published in academic journals. It also supports authors in improving their papers before they go to press. Training for early-career researchers on how to conduct a high-quality peer review is scarce, however, and there are concerns about the quality of peer review in the health sciences. Standardized training and guidance may help reviewers to improve the quality of their feedback. In this paper, we approach peer review as a staged writing activity and apply writing process best practices to help early-career researchers and others learn to create a comprehensive and respectful peer-review report. The writing stages of reading, planning and composing are reflected in our three-step peer-review process. The first step involves reading the entire manuscript to get a sense of the paper as a whole. The second step is to comprehensive evaluate the paper. The third step, of writing the review, emphasizes a respectful tone, providing feedback that motivates revision as well as balance in pointing out strengths and making suggestions. Detailed checklists that are provided in the Supplementary material (available as Supplementary data at IJE online) aid in the paper evaluation process and examples demonstrate points about writing an effective review.

public, environmental & occupational health
Past in Review and Future Plans

Yi Qian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-009-0002-y

2009-01-01

Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China

Abstract:3 of Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China.Since its inception just two years ago, the journal has grown and evolved considerably.It has built a substantial readership and is proving a useful vehicle for authors to publish rigorously reviewed research achievements in the discipline of environmental science and engineering in China.Submissions to Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China are growing.In the past two years we published 152 papers from 78 Chinese universities and institutions
Investigation into Readers of Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery

高燕华,侯维娟,刘宇慧,谭小琴,王伟民

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-122x.2006.08.019

2006-01-01

Abstract:To improve the quality of the Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery and learn the readers' opinion and advices, self-designed questionnaires were sent to the readers of the journal. The age distribution, the professional title, reading goal of the readers, approach to obtain the journal, and the opinion and advices for the layout of the journal, peer review, revision of manuscript, setting up of the column and content arrangement etc. were analyzed. Meanwhile the types of reader-favorable articles, and reader-concerned focus, hotspot and difficult point were realized. In conclusion, the questionnaire has provided first-hand information to improve the quality of the publication.
JBJS Reviewers: Please Accept Our Gratitude and a Little More

Marc Swiontkowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.00066

2024-03-22

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Abstract:Anyone who frequents the JBJS Editorial pages knows how much we value, depend on, and esteem our peer reviewers. In 2023 alone, our >1,500-member pool of JBJS Consultant Reviewers, Guest Reviewers, and Board of Associate Editors provided >6,500 painstaking, in-depth content reviews and decision recommendations for papers submitted to our journals. We are truly grateful to these busy professionals who donate their time, hard work, and expertise, and try to do it with a 2-week turnaround despite their already crammed schedules.

surgery,orthopedics
Evaluation on the Academic Influence of "chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine": Based on Data Analysis from 2011 to 2015

Xu Yun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3180374.3180376

2018-01-01

Abstract:Objective: Based on the statistical analysis of the research papers published in Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine from 2011 to 2015 to understand the running characteristics and academic influence and the development trend of the journal, for readers, authors and editors' journal reference; Methods: Use the search function of CNKI,to make a statistic assay of distribution of time, belongs to the column, issuing authorities, authors,the number of quotations, fund-sponsored papers and co publishing by a bibliometric analysis; Results: "Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine" in 2011 -2015 published a total of 2941 research papers, the column is reduced by nearly 20 to less than 10, this paper is mainly from the universities, the top three hospitals and research institutes. there are 19 authors published more than 10 papers,85.4% of the papers have been cited records,55.8% of the papers were funded by the foundation, the paper's cooperation rate is 90.1% and cooperation degree is 4.01; Conslusion: "Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine" in recent years, the column set more reasonable, paper level was significantly improved the quality of continuous improvement, increasing academic influence, The journal is an important publishing base for the high level of scientific research results of traditional Chinese medicine.
Book Reviews in Academic Journals: Patterns and Dynamics.

Weishu Liu,Yishan Ding,Mengdi Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2172-2

IF: 3.801

2016-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:Book reviews play important roles in scholarly communication especially in arts and humanities disciplines. By using Web of Science’s Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index, this study probed the patterns and dynamics of book reviews within these three indexes empirically during the past decade (2006–2015). We found that the absolute numbers of book reviews among all the three indexes were relatively stable but the relative shares were decreasing. Book reviews were very common in arts and humanities, common in social sciences, but rare in natural sciences. Book reviews are mainly contributed by authors from developed economies such as the USA and the UK. Oppositely, scholars from China and Japan are unlikely to contribute to book reviews.
Past, Present, and Future: How to Write an Impactful Review

Peng Xi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.AP.5.4.040101

IF: 13.582

2023-01-01

Advanced Photonics

Abstract:. The article presents key principles of an approach to writing impactful review articles.
Developing the Journal as a Place for Sharing Frontier and High-Quality Research in STEM Education

Yeping Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00064-0

2021-11-24

Journal for STEM Education Research

Abstract:With the completion of its first three years (2018 to 2020), the Journal for STEM Education Research has made steady progress with its commitment to promote high-quality research in STEM education. In this editorial, I specifically share the journal’s performance in terms of its publication growth, access and citation metrics, and possible development in the future. The review reveals the journal’s continued development in publications and impact with on-going strong support from researchers and readers worldwide.
Acknowledgement to Reviewers 2014

Alexandre R. Vieira,Zerrin Abbasoğlu,İlknur Tanboğa,Erika Calvano Küchler,Kathleen Deeley,Megan Weber,Cigdem Kaspar,May Korachi,Shuguo Zheng,Feng Chen,Yan Si,Shuang Ao,Weijian Wang,Wonik Lee,Charles Spiekerman,Masahiro Heima,Hafsteinn Eggertsson,Gerald Ferretti,Peter Milgrom,Suchitra Nelson,Sug-Joon Ahn,Soon-Nang Park,Young Ju Lee,Eun-Jung Cho,Yun Kyong Lim,Xue Min Li,Mi-Hwa Choi,Joong-Ki Kook,Sebastian Paris,Hendrik Meyer-Lueckel,Julian Lausch,Timo Selje,Christof E. Dörfer,Javier Sotres,Liselott Lindh,Enno C.I. Veerman,Marianne Valentijn-Benz,Wim van ''t Hof,Floris J. Bikker,Kamran Nazmi,Henk S. Brand,Thomas Arnebrant,Young-Woo Seo,Wael Sabbah,Anna L. Suominen,Miira M. Vehkalahti,Arpo Aromaa,Eduardo Bernabé,Richard J. Wierichs,Timo Schellwien,Haidar Hassan,Peter Lingström,Anette Carlén,R. Constance Wiener,D. Leann Long,Richard J. Jurevic,Anders Hedenbjörk-Lager,Lars Bjørndal,Anders Gustafsson,Timo Sorsa,Leo Tjäderhane,Sigvard Åkerman,Dan Ericson,Satz Mengensatzproduktion,Werner Druck Medien Ag

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000371487

2015-01-01

Caries Research

Abstract:Adair, P. Adams, G. Aleksejuniene, J. Alves, L. Amaechi, B. Anderson, P. Armfield, J. Arnold, W. Arthur, R. Ashley, P. Bader, J. Baelum, V. Baumann, T. Bertacci, A. Bhawal, U. Bjorndal, L. Bottenberg, P. Boushell, L. Bowen, W. Bradshaw, D. Braga, M. Breschi, L. Brighenti, F. Broadbent, J. Bronkhorst, E. Buchalla, W. Burnside, G. Burrow, M. Campus, G. Carey, C. Carpenter, G. Carvalho, J. Caufield, P. Charone, S. Chow, L.C. Clarkson, B. Creeth, J. Darvell, B. Dashper, S. Davies, J.

How to Craft a Good Journal Submission That Reviewers Appreciate

Four steps to realize effective peer review of academics journals published in China

Exploring the Black Box of Journal Manuscript Review: A Survey of Social Science Journal Editors

Factors Affecting Authors' Manuscript Submission Behaviour: A Systematic Review

An Emerging Trend of Equal Authorship Credit in Major Public Health Journals

Publishing in high quality journals: perspectives from overworked and unpaid reviewers

How to Encourage Best Peer Reviewers: an Empiric Approach

The Impact of Submission Experiences on Perceptions of Journal Quality and Editorial Support: The Viewpoint of Chinese Authors

Creating Interesting Review Papers by Emphasizing Novel Themes

Appreciation of Reviewers 2023

WHICH ACADEMIC JOURNALS DO SCIENTISTS PREFER?—As a Sample Sponsored by Special Grant for Key Academic Journals of NSFC—10 Years Viewing of J of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE(A/B/C)

"The best home for this paper": A qualitative study of how authors select where to submit manuscripts

How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers

Past in Review and Future Plans

Investigation into Readers of Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery

JBJS Reviewers: Please Accept Our Gratitude and a Little More

Evaluation on the Academic Influence of "chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine": Based on Data Analysis from 2011 to 2015

Book Reviews in Academic Journals: Patterns and Dynamics.

Past, Present, and Future: How to Write an Impactful Review

Developing the Journal as a Place for Sharing Frontier and High-Quality Research in STEM Education

Acknowledgement to Reviewers 2014