Enhancing Your Addiction Education and Early Career: Tips for Publishing Addiction Science Research
ISSUP and ICUDDR
ENHANCING YOUR
ADDICTION EDUCATION
AND EARLY CAREER
Challenges and Tips to getting
Addiction Science Research
Published in High Impact Journals.
Richard Pates
ISAJE
Editor, Journal of Substance Use
Useful book for your academic
career
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
A
d
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
a
g
u
i
d
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
p
l
e
x
e
d
(
3
r
d
.
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
)
2
0
1
7
,
Edited by Thomas Babor, Kerstin Stenius, Richard Pates, Michal
Miovsky, Jean O’Reilly and Paul Candon
This is available free to download at www.isaje.net
Why is publishing our scientific work
important?
Provides a forum for communication among scientists
Sets intellectual standards in a field
Sets the agenda for what to study
Provides an institutional memory of a field
Brings information to the public
Certifies the author’s work is authentic
Can advance the author’s career
What do editors want?
High quality work
Originality
Good methods
Good fit for the journal
Well written paper
Getting it right before you submit!
This is a stage by stage process of writing and submitting your
paper
The paper will only be as good as the content and the methods
you have chosen
R
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
t
o
r
e
a
d
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
o
n
t
h
e
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
p
a
g
e
o
f
e
v
e
r
y
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
Getting simple things wrong like a referencing style or spacing or
not anonymising etc will delay the process and frustrate the
editor
Do not annoy the editor!!
Common Reasons for rejection at
Triage
Outside the scope of the journal
Manuscript type unacceptable
Ignores Instructions to Authors
Major methodological weaknesses (eg too few
subjects)
Clear ethical problems
Purely descriptive, parochial, no hypotheses, no
conclusions.
Statistical analysis lacking
Nothing new in it.
Responding to Referee Reports
Construct a detailed reply to referees, Reply with numbered
sections responding to referees points.
Make revisions to deal with the major criticisms, then explain
why you have not dealt with the rest.
Describe each change you make, refer the reader to the relevant
page in the revised manuscript.
Highlight changes in the text in a different colour.
If there are important or major changes recommended that you
are absolutely sure are wrong, present a polite, logically argued
rebuttal
Ethical considerations
What to avoid!
Examples
1. Carelessness - Citation bias, understatement, negligence
1. Carelessness - Citation bias, understatement, negligence
2. Redundant publication - Same tables or literature review reported without noting
2. Redundant publication - Same tables or literature review reported without noting
prior source
prior source
3. Unfair authorship - Failure to include eligible authors, Honorary authors
3. Unfair authorship - Failure to include eligible authors, Honorary authors
4. Undeclared Conflict of Interest - Failure to cite funding source
4. Undeclared Conflict of Interest - Failure to cite funding source
5. Human/animal subject violations – No approval from Review Board or Ethics
5. Human/animal subject violations – No approval from Review Board or Ethics
Committee
Committee
6. Plagiarism - Reproducing others’ work or ideas without as one’s own
6. Plagiarism - Reproducing others’ work or ideas without as one’s own
7. Other Fraud - Fabrication of falsification of data, Misappropriation of others ideas or
7. Other Fraud - Fabrication of falsification of data, Misappropriation of others ideas or
plans given in confidence
plans given in confidence
Some helpful tips!!
Make sure you include a limitations section
Make sure you read Instructions for Authors
Get colleagues to read your work before you submit- they
may spot the mistakes you have made but have not
noticed!
If your statistical skills are not strong get a colleague with
good staisticalskills to check your work
Don’t make claims in your paper that the results do not
show as significant
Do highlight the strengths of your paper and why it is
important
Challenges and tips for publishing addiction science research in high-impact journals, the importance of publishing scientific work, what editors look for, key steps before submitting, and common reasons for rejection at triage are discussed in this informative content.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
ISSUP and ICUDDR ENHANCING YOUR ADDICTION EDUCATION AND EARLY CAREER
Challenges and Tips to getting Addiction Science Research Published in High Impact Journals. Richard Pates ISAJE Editor, Journal of Substance Use
Useful book for your academic career Publishing Addiction Science, a guide for the perplexed (3rd. Edition) 2017, Edited by Thomas Babor, Kerstin Stenius, Richard Pates, Michal Miovsky, Jean O Reilly and Paul Candon This is available free to download at www.isaje.net
Why is publishing our scientific work important? Provides a forum for communication among scientists Sets intellectual standards in a field Sets the agenda for what to study Provides an institutional memory of a field Brings information to the public Certifies the author s work is authentic Can advance the author s career
What do editors want? High quality work Originality Good methods Good fit for the journal Well written paper
Getting it right before you submit! This is a stage by stage process of writing and submitting your paper The paper will only be as good as the content and the methods you have chosen Remember to read the authors guidelines which are on the website page of every journal Getting simple things wrong like a referencing style or spacing or not anonymising etc will delay the process and frustrate the editor Do not annoy the editor!!
Common Reasons for rejection at Triage Outside the scope of the journal Manuscript type unacceptable Ignores Instructions to Authors Major methodological weaknesses (eg too few subjects) Clear ethical problems Purely descriptive, parochial, no hypotheses, no conclusions. Statistical analysis lacking Nothing new in it.
Responding to Referee Reports Construct a detailed reply to referees, Reply with numbered sections responding to referees points. Make revisions to deal with the major criticisms, then explain why you have not dealt with the rest. Describe each change you make, refer the reader to the relevant page in the revised manuscript. Highlight changes in the text in a different colour. If there are important or major changes recommended that you are absolutely sure are wrong, present a polite, logically argued rebuttal
Ethical considerations What to avoid! Examples 1. Carelessness - Citation bias, understatement, negligence 2. Redundant publication - Same tables or literature review reported without noting prior source 3. Unfair authorship - Failure to include eligible authors, Honorary authors 4. Undeclared Conflict of Interest - Failure to cite funding source 5. Human/animal subject violations No approval from Review Board or Ethics Committee 6. Plagiarism - Reproducing others work or ideas without as one s own 7. Other Fraud - Fabrication of falsification of data, Misappropriation of others ideas or plans given in confidence
Some helpful tips!! Make sure you include a limitations section Make sure you read Instructions for Authors Get colleagues to read your work before you submit- they may spot the mistakes you have made but have not noticed! If your statistical skills are not strong get a colleague with good staisticalskills to check your work Don t make claims in your paper that the results do not show as significant Do highlight the strengths of your paper and why it is important
