Search

Many journals have strict word limits, and authors therefore spend considerable time shortening manuscripts. Here, we provide pointers for efficiently doing so while retaining key content. We include general guidance, tips for condensing the different parts of a scientific paper, and advice on what to avoid when shortening manuscripts. We hope that readers will find our guidance helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A poorly chosen article title may make a paper difficult to discover or discourage readership when discovered, reducing an article's impact. Yet, it is unclear how the structure of a manuscript's title influences readership and impact. We used manuscript tracking data for all manuscripts submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from 2004 to 2013 and citation data for papers published in this journal from 1987 to 2011 to examine how title features changed and whether a manuscript's title structure was predictive of success during the manuscript review process and/or impact (citation) after publication. Titles of manuscripts submitted to Functional Ecology became marginally longer (after controlling for other variables), broader in focus (less frequent inclusion of genus and species names), and included more humor and subtitles over the period of the study. Papers with subtitles were less likely to be rejected by editors both pre- and post-peer review, although both effects were small and the presence of subtitles in published papers was not predictive of citations. Papers with specific names of study organisms in their titles fared poorly during editorial (but not peer) review and, if published, were less well cited than papers whose titles did not include specific names. Papers with intermediate length titles were more successful during editorial review, although the effect was small and title word count was not predictive of citations. No features of titles were predictive of reviewer willingness to review papers or the length of time a paper was in peer review. We conclude that titles have changed in structure over time, but features of title structure have only small or no relationship with success during editorial review and post-publication impact. The title feature that was most predictive of manuscript success: papers whose titles emphasize broader conceptual or comparative issues fare better both pre- and post-publication than do papers with organism-specific titles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the first instalment of the Words of Advice series, we feature the essentials of good manuscript writing with practical tips on how to plan, organise and write a standout scientific paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author discusses the efforts made by the editorial team of "Papers in Regional Science" to improve the journal. He says that the use of Internet based online submission and administration system for manuscript handling and management of the review process is more efficient than the paper trail based system. The author claims that the publication's page size was increased so that papers will be published within one year of acceptance. He cites submissions as one of the factors that enhance the reputation of the journal.

Most top impact factor ecology journals indicate a preference or requirement for short manuscripts; some state clearly defined word limits, whereas others indicate a preference for more concise papers. Yet evidence from a variety of academic fields indicates that within journals longer papers are both more positively reviewed by referees and more highly cited. We examine the relationship between citations received and manuscript length, number of authors, and number of references cited for papers published in 32 ecology journals between 2009 and 2012. We find that longer papers, those with more authors, and those that cite more references are cited more. Although paper length, author count, and references cited all positively covary, an increase in each independently predicts an increase in citations received, with estimated relationships positive for all the journals we examined. That all three variables covary positively with citations suggests that papers presenting more and a greater diversity of data and ideas are more impactful. We suggest that the imposition of arbitrary manuscript length limits discourages the publication of more impactful studies. We propose that journals abolish arbitrary word or page limits, avoid declining papers (or requiring shortening) on the basis of length alone (irrespective of content), and adopt the philosophy that papers should be as long as they need to be. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues against simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to several scholarly journals. Journal Publications also serve as a primary measure of the relative ranking of economics department and as such help to determine the reputation of economics department and programs at different schools. Another line of criticism has been directed at the decision making processes that journals employ. Specifically, journals have been faulted for discriminating against women and individuals from less prestigious institutions. Such discrimination may take the form of higher rejection rates, fewer requests to revise and resubmit papers, or slower response rates from editors. Journal referees have been biased against empirical results that do not conform to their theoretical perspective. Multiple submissions would also lead to quicker acceptances through elimination of "rejection waiting time" having to wait for one rejection before being able to send a paper to another journal. Under any multiple submission policy a journal would presumably accept a paper and then allow the author a certain period within which to agree to have the paper published in that journal.

The author discusses the steps involved in the submission of research papers and other works for publication in the "British Journal of Industrial Relations." Topics mentioned include the initial submission process, the chief editor's roles in the preliminary assessment of the papers, and the things that authors need to remember if there is an invitation to revise and resubmit.

This article presents a list of working papers available from the Lincoln Institute about the Institute's land policy agenda. The Lincoln Institute regularly makes available working papers that present the results of new and continuing research on issues related to the Institute's land policy agenda. Most papers are of article length, and many are later published in professional or scholarly journals. The Institute announces a list of papers, as well as a special working paper consisting of abstracts from all in print papers. Some of the papers mentioned include "Ethics of Land Use and the Ideas of Henry George," by Robert V. Andelson, et al; "Wealth, Poverty and Sustainable Development," by David Barkin; etc.

Peer review is the primary method by which journals evaluate the quality and importance of scientific papers. To help editors find suitable reviewers, many journals allow or require authors to suggest names of preferred and nonpreferred reviewers. Though authors should know best who is qualified to review their papers, they also have a strong incentive to suggest reviewers that they expect to review their paper positively., In this study, we examine the reviewers that are suggested as preferred and nonpreferred by authors, the use of these author suggestions by editors, and the influence of author suggestions on the peer review process and outcomes at the journal Functional Ecology. In particular, we examined how gender of the participants (author, editor and reviewer) influences the role of preferred reviewers in the peer review process., Even when not required by the journal, most authors suggest preferred reviewers, but few suggest nonpreferred reviewers. Most author-preferred reviewers are male, but the proportion of women among author suggestions increased over the 11 years, from a low of 15% in 2004 to a high of 25% in 2014., Male and female authors did not differ in how likely they were to suggest preferred reviewers, but the proportion of women among author suggestions was higher for female authors (~28%, averaged across years) than for male authors (~21%). Women that were suggested as author-preferred reviewers were more likely to be selected by editors than were men suggested by authors., There was no evidence that editor gender, seniority or length of service as an editor for Functional Ecology affected the probability that they used author suggestions. Of reviewers invited to review, those that were author-suggested were more likely to respond to the editors' review invitations but were not more likely to agree to review., Most strikingly, author-preferred reviewers rated papers more positively than did editor-selected reviewers, and papers reviewed by author-preferred reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers reviewed by editor-selected reviewers. This difference was not influenced by the gender of the participants in the process., Suggesting preferred reviewers benefits authors because preferred reviewers rate papers significantly more positively than do editor-selected reviewers, improving the chances that a paper will be published. Journals and journal editors should recognize that preferred reviewers rate manuscripts differently than do editor-selected reviewers, and be aware that this difference can have large effects on editor decisions., A is available for this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The purpose of this study was to characterize the publication fate of a recent 2-year sample of manuscripts declined by Academic Emergency Medicine ( AEM), the journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of manuscripts submitted to AEM in 2010 and 2011 that were declined by the AEM editorial review process. An online search was conducted for each declined paper, to determine whether or not it was published in another clinical/scientific journal after being declined by AEM. The investigators used Scopus and Google Scholar, using the submitting author's name, the verbatim title, and key words and phrases from the title, to search for subsequent publication of each paper. Results Of 1,542 manuscript submissions to the journal in 2010 and 2011, 1,052 papers were declined. Of these, 693 (65.9%) were subsequently published elsewhere, in a total of 229 journals: 362 papers in 22 different EM journals, 81 in 14 EM subspecialty journals, 237 in 185 non- EM journals, and 13 in eight nursing journals. Papers were published a median of 16.7 months (interquartile range [ IQR] = 11.8 to 22.0 months) after being declined at AEM. Of the 229 journals, 19 do not have h-indices. The median h-index of the remaining 210 journals is 36 ( IQR = 17 to 64; maximum = 229; AEM's h-index is 78). Thirty of these 210 journals, publishing 43 papers, have higher h-indices than AEM; the other 650 papers were published in journals either with lower h-indices than AEM's ( n = 180 journals) or in journals without h-indices ( n = 19 journals). U.S. and non-U.S. authors had similar rates of subsequent publication (65.3% vs 66.6%, p = 0.69) for papers initially declined by AEM. Papers in the educational advances category were less likely to be subsequently published than those in the original contributions (p < 0.0001) and brief reports (p = 0.0137) categories. Conclusions Nearly two-thirds of manuscripts declined by SAEM's journal are eventually published elsewhere, in a large number and wide variety of both EM and non- EM journals, in a median of 16.7 months. Authors of manuscripts declined by AEM should consider submission elsewhere, as subsequent publication of these manuscripts in another journal is probable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We explored what authors allegedly do and why, when invited to revise and resubmit manuscripts to refereed journals. Based on responses from 249 business and management scholars from the UK and USA, we found that authors preferred to resubmit to the original journal, whether the required revision was minor or major, and that under certain circumstances other options would be considered: submitting to alternative journals, sometimes without revising at all; discarding the paper; or challenging the editor. Experience in publishing was found to be an important moderator. As to ‘why’ they purport to do so, a classification of qualitative responses yielded a matrix of four optional strategies, grouped along two axes: rationale (instrumental reasoning versus ethical reasoning) and agency (individually centred reasoning versus community-centred reasoning). Most responses were located in the instrumental/self-centred quadrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship is intended to convey information regarding credit and responsibility for manuscripts. However, while there is general agreement within ecology that the first author is the person who contributed the most to a particular project, there is less agreement regarding whether being last author is a position of significance and regarding what is indicated by someone being the corresponding author on a manuscript. Using an analysis of papers published in American Naturalist, Ecology, Evolution, and Oikos, I found that: (1) the number of authors on papers is increasing over time; (2) the proportion of first authors as corresponding author has increased over time, as has the proportion of last authors as corresponding author; (3) 84% of papers published in 2016 had the first author as corresponding author; and (4) geographic regions differed in the likelihood of having the first (or last) author as corresponding author. I also carried out an online survey to better understand views on last and corresponding authorship. This survey revealed that most ecologists view the last author as the 'senior' author on a paper (i.e., the person who runs the research group in which most of the work was carried out), and most ecologists view the corresponding author as the person taking full responsibility for a paper. However, there was substantial variation in views on authorship, especially corresponding authorship. Given these results, I suggest that discussions of authorship have as their starting point that the first author will be corresponding author and the senior author will be last author. I also suggest ways of deciding author order in cases where two senior authors contributed equally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A miscellany of information is presented including a list of papers accepted for publication in the periodical's June, 2009 issue, information for those seeking to use the publication in a classroom setting, and style instructions for those submitting manuscripts.

The article presents pointers on obviating manuscripts from multiple cycles of reviews from reviewers. These tips also aim to increase the possibility of a paper to be accepted by the reviewer. The author suggests that a researcher should clearly determine the research problem that is being solved. Also, a review of the work done in one area should be presented compactly. Another tip given is to remark on the original computational contribution of the paper and downplay the materials.

This paper uses content analysis to examine 66 reviews on 33 manuscripts submitted to Accounting and Finance. Selected extracts from reviews are provided to illustrate the issues considered important to reviewers. The main message is that papers need to be work-shopped and more care taken over editorial matters. A checklist for prospective authors is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A list of the forthcoming papers to be published in "The Canadian Journal of Statistics" is presented, including "Penalized Contrast Estimation for Adaptive Density Deconvolution," "On Describing Multivariate Skewed Distributions: A Directional Approach" and "Conservative Prior Distributions for Variance Parameters."

In this editorial the author comments on factors that disqualify papers from publication in the journal. The author offers ten points, both qualitative and quantitative, that contribute to the rejection of manuscripts submitted for publication. A number of elements are addressed including the importance of the title of the article and the concision of the accompanying abstract, the theory, framework and perspectives contained in an article, and the importance of drawing conclusions only suggested by the data in an article.

Technology is being developed to support the peer review processes of journals, conferences, funders, universities, and national research evaluations. This literature and software summary discusses the partial or complete automation of several publishing‐related tasks: suggesting appropriate journals for an article, providing quality control for submitted papers, finding suitable reviewers for submitted papers or grant proposals, reviewing, and review evaluation. It also discusses attempts to estimate article quality from peer review text and scores as well as from post‐publication scores but not from bibliometric data. The literature and existing examples of working technology show that automation is useful for helping to find reviewers and there is good evidence that it can sometimes help with initial quality control of submitted manuscripts. Much other software supporting publishing and editorial work exists and is being used, but without published academic evaluations of its efficacy. The value of artificial intelligence (AI) to support reviewing has not been clearly demonstrated yet, however. Finally, whilst peer review text and scores can theoretically have value for post‐publication research assessment, it is not yet widely enough available to be a practical evidence source for systematic automation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Economics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Charts are presented including the number of submissions received, status of manuscripts, and distribution of papers among co-editors.

This paper provides an introduction to a special issue on the offshoring of service and knowledge work. Brief descriptions are provided for 13 papers that fall into three categories including strategic and organizational issues, global and knowledge supply-chain issues, and tactical issues. The intent of this special issue was to provide a venue for presenting numerous perspectives on the operational and cross-disciplinary challenges and opportunities in the area of service and knowledge offshoring. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses the real purpose of writing a research paper analyzing the impact of writing styles and the limitations on style and format of a scientific manuscript. Citing the lengthy, confusing, and unclear prose in scientific and medical literature, the authors offer a few simple rules to enhance writing styles. The authors also outline the relationship between scientific readership and organized way of presenting various sections of a manuscript.

The article presents a miscellany of material including style instructions for those submitting manuscripts, a note addressed to those seeking to use the publication for classroom use, and an application for membership in the American Finance Association.

The article presents miscellaneous information, including an announcement for the publication's 2009 annual meeting, to be held in January of 2009 in San Francisco, advertisements for open college faculty positions, and style instructions for those looking to submit manuscripts.

Provides instructions for contributors of articles in the journals of the British Ecological Society (BES). Copyright of all papers and manuscripts submitted the BES; Arrangement of typescript of articles; Specifications.

The authors reflect on the high quality review process of the "Journal of Supply Chain Management (JSCM)." They emphasize that the reviewer has an impact on the career of authors, the editorial team, and the quality of research in their field. They point out several characteristics of a high quality review which include providing a brief summary of the paper, conveying a constructive attitude, and giving a list of specific comments on weaknesses and concerns regarding the manuscript.

The author of the article describes his first full year as leader of the "British Journal of Management," and introduces some of the personnel and administrative policies at the journal. Marc Wouters and Matthew Robson are joining as associate editors. The author outlines policies for manuscript submissions and describes their selection process.

The article presents the annual report of the Econometric Society's editors for 2011 to 2012 including the status of manuscripts, the distribution of newspapers among the co-editors, and time to decision. It says that most of papers in the journal are accepted or rejected after two revisions. It states that the year 2011 and 2012 has brought several changes including the completion of Stephen Morris in his term as editor and Daron Acemoglu became editor in July 2011.

This paper explores some aspects of the editorial decision process and its outcomes as they are involved in the production of scientific knowledge. Based on 337 manuscripts reviewed for Rural Sociology from the Spring of 1978 to the Spring of 1981, ten characteristics associated with successful and unsuccessful manuscripts were examined. Five of these constituted a discriminant function model: number of rounds of review, author membership in the Rural Sociological Society, referee agreement regarding recommendations to the editor, referees who are authors, and difference in referee degree dates. The other five variables did not contribute significantly to the model: referee membership in the RSS, gender of the authors, number of authors, referee agreement regarding the contribution of the manuscript, and referee agreement regarding the presentation of the manuscript. The model achieved 85 percent accuracy in classifying the total set of manuscripts, but it was much more successful in classifying the rejected papers (95 percent) than the published papers (63 percent). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the manuscripts that have been accepted for publication in the forthcoming issues of Econometrica including the "Monte Carlo Confidence Sets for Identified Sets"; "Optimal Development Policies With Financial Frictions" and "Long Memory via Networking".

The article offers information on the Econometric Society Annual Report of the Editors. It mentions the launch of a new Econometrics Society journal, "Quantitative Economics," and incorporation of "Theoretical Economics". It presents several charts, including the status of manuscripts, and the time of decision of new submissions, revisions and all papers. It states that the Associate Editors of the journal have played a special role with their high quality refereeing and advice.

Editorial. Focuses on the rise in the number of manuscripts received in 1966 for consideration for publication in the periodical 'Child Development.' Number of papers accepted for publication in the periodical in 1966; Rejection rate of manuscripts; Subjects of research papers.

Presents the author's message as the departing managing editor of the 'Journal of Finance.' Appreciation for the authors who have published works in the journal; Data on total number of manuscripts received by the journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article lists manuscripts to be published in forthcoming issues of the journal including one on progressive learning, one on labor supply, and one on recursive optimization.

The article offers instructions to authors concerning the submission of their manuscript to the journal "Milbank Quarterly." It requires authors to email Word files of their manuscript to quarterly@milbank.org, and submit forms signed by each author indicating that he or she has read and complied with the journal's publication policies. It also offers instructions on how to submit manuscripts concerning the format, title pages, structured abstract, keywords, and artwork. Moreover, it suggests the need for all sources used in preparing the manuscript to be properly acknowledged, citing the author's surname and year of publication within parentheses.

The article features the 'Milbank Quarterly" for scholarly analysis of important issues in health and health care policy. The contributions of the issue is published from many disciplines which includes history, law, medicine, epidemiology, bioethics, and full array of social science and health services research disciplines. The manuscript submissions are sent electronically to quarterly@milbank.org and editor Bradford H. Gray will make an initial determination about the suitability of the manuscript.

The instructions in submitting manuscripts for "The Milbank Quarterly" and publication policies are presented. Manuscript submissions should be sent electronically to "The Milbank Quarterly." Manuscripts that are potentially suitable will be subject to blind peer review regarding scholarly soundness and substantive significance.

The article presents instructions and publication policies which should be followed by contributors of the periodical "The Milbank Quarterly." All text in manuscript must be typed double space. Its title page should include the names, academic degrees and affiliation of all authors. Contributors should also include an abstract of not more than 125 words and four key words which introduces the topics discussed in their article.

The article offers instructions and specifications required in the passing of manuscripts to "The Milbank Quarterly." It includes writing specifications such as the contents of the title pages, references, abstracts and key words. A policy on authorship , prior dissemination, assignment of copyright and conflict of interest are also presented.

The article presents the guidelines in the submission and publication of manuscripts for the journal "Milbank Quarterly." Manuscripts should be sent electronically. The journal's editor will make an initial determination about the suitability of the manuscript. The length of submitted material should not exceed 30 pages, including references and abstract.

Presents instructions to authors and publication policies of the periodical "Milbank Quarterly," which deals with issues in health and health care policy. Submission of manuscripts; Specifications for manuscripts; Policies on authorship, conflict of interest, prior dissemination and assignment of copyright.

Online submission and review of manuscripts is now required. Please follow the instructions for authors given below. When your manuscript has been prepared in accordance with these instructions, please access the following web site:. You must selectFunctional Ecologywhen you log on to the online submission site. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article lists manuscripts accepted for publication in forthcoming issues of "Econometrica," including one on money, one on altruism, and one on asset pricing models.

The article lists the manuscripts that have been accepted for publication in the issues of the periodical.

The article lists the manuscripts for publication in the coming issues of the journal "Econometrica" including "The Economics of Counterfeiting" by L. Smith, "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect" by D. Dillenberger, and "Tenable Strategy Blocks and Settled Equilibria" by R. Myerson.

The article lists the manuscripts that have been accepted for publication in the forthcoming issues of "Econometrica" including "How Is Power Shared in Africa?" by Patrick Francois et. al., "Consumption Dynamics During Recessions" by David Berger, and "The Farsighted Table Set" by Debraj Ray.

The article provides information on manuscript submissions received at the editorial office of the "Southern Economic Journal" throughout January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007. The office has received a number of 295 manuscript submissions and nearly 97% of the submitting authors received a response during the six months period while only three papers got a first response after more than six months. The manuscripts are submitted to the journal through the Internet-based electronic system Editorial Express, which was provided by Professor John Rust and his associates. The submitted papers are assigned by the Editor to one of the Co-Editors for refereeing process. The manuscripts are reviewed through the use of a double-blind process.