Website to Publish Scientific Papers Non Peer Reviewed

Every bit scholars, we strive to do loftier-quality research that will accelerate science. We come upwardly with what we believe are unique hypotheses, base our piece of work on robust data and use an appropriate enquiry methodology. As we write up our findings, nosotros aim to provide theoretical insight, and share theoretical and practical implications about our work. And then we submit our manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

For many, this is the hardest office of enquiry.

In my seven years of research and teaching, I take observed several shortcomings in the manuscript preparation and submission process that ofttimes atomic number 82 to research being rejected for publication. Being aware of these shortcomings will increase your chances of having your manuscript published and as well boost your research profile and career progression.

In this article, intended for doctoral students and other young scholars, I identify common pitfalls and offering helpful solutions to prepare more impactful papers. While at that place are several types of research articles, such as brusk communications, review papers and and so forth, these guidelines focus on preparing a total article (including a literature review), whether based on qualitative or quantitative methodology, from the perspective of the management, didactics, information sciences and social sciences disciplines.

Writing for academic journals is a highly competitive activity, and it's important to empathize that there could be several reasons behind a rejection. Furthermore, the journal peer-review process is an essential element of publication because no writer could identify and address all potential issues with a manuscript.

1. Do not rush submitting your commodity for publication.

In my first commodity for Elsevier Connect – "Five secrets to surviving (and thriving in) a PhD program" – I emphasized that scholars should showtime writing during the early stages of your inquiry or doctoral study career. This cloak-and-dagger does not entail submitting your manuscript for publication the moment you take crafted its determination. Authors sometimes rely on the fact that they volition ever have an opportunity to address their work'due south shortcomings later on the feedback received from the periodical editor and reviewers has identified them.

A proactive approach and mental attitude will reduce the chance of rejection and disappointment. In my opinion, a logical flow of activities dominates every research activity and should exist followed for preparing a manuscript also. Such activities include carefully re-reading your manuscript at different times and maybe at dissimilar places. Re-reading is essential in the research field and helps identify the near common problems and shortcomings in the manuscript, which might otherwise exist overlooked. Second, I find it very helpful to share my manuscripts with my colleagues and other researchers in my network and to request their feedback. In doing so, I highlight any sections of the manuscript that I would like reviewers to be absolutely clear on.

ii. Select an appropriate publication outlet.

I besides ask colleagues nigh the nearly appropriate journal to submit my manuscript to; finding the right periodical for your article tin can dramatically improve the chances of acceptance and ensure it reaches your target audience.

Elsevier provides an innovative Journal Finder search facility on its website. Authors enter the article title, a brief abstract and the field of research to get a list of the most appropriate journals for their commodity. For a total word of how to select an advisable journal see Knight and Steinbach (2008).

Less experienced scholars sometimes choose to submit their inquiry work to two or more than journals at the aforementioned time. Research ethics and policies of all scholarly journals suggest that authors should submit a manuscript to only ane journal at a time. Doing otherwise can crusade embarrassment and lead to copyright bug for the author, the university employer and the journals involved.

Learn almost publishing at Elsevier

3. Read the aims and scope and author guidelines of your target journal carefully.

In one case y'all have read and re-read your manuscript advisedly several times, received feedback from your colleagues, and identified a target journal, the adjacent important step is to read the aims and telescopic of the journals in your target enquiry expanse. Doing so volition improve the chances of having your manuscript accepted for publishing. Another of import step is to download and absorb the writer guidelines and ensure your manuscript conforms to them. Some publishers study that one paper in five does not follow the style and format requirements of the target journal, which might specify requirements for figures, tables and references.

Rejection can come at different times and in different formats. For instance, if your research objective is not in line with the aims and scope of the target journal, or if your manuscript is not structured and formatted according to the target journal layout, or if your manuscript does not have a reasonable chance of existence able to satisfy the target journal's publishing expectations, the manuscript tin receive a desk-bound rejection from the editor without being sent out for peer review. Desk-bound rejections can be disheartening for authors, making them feel they have wasted valuable fourth dimension and might even cause them to lose enthusiasm for their inquiry topic. Sun and Linton (2014), Hierons (2016) and Craig (2010) offer useful discussions on the subject of "desk rejections."

4. Make a good offset impression with your title and abstruse.

The title and abstruse are incredibly important components of a manuscript every bit they are the start elements a periodical editor sees. I have been fortunate to receive advice from editors and reviewers on my submissions, and feedback from many colleagues at academic conferences, and this is what I've learned:

• The title should summarize the main theme of the article and reflect your contribution to the theory.
• The abstruse should be crafted carefully and encompass the aim and telescopic of the study; the key problem to be addressed and theory; the method used; the information set; key findings; limitations; and implications for theory and practice.

Dr. Angel Borja goes into detail nearly these components in "eleven steps to structuring a scientific discipline newspaper editors will take seriously."

Learn more than in Elsevier's gratuitous Researcher Academy

5. Have a professional editing firm re-create-edit (not just proofread) your manuscript, including the main text, list of references, tables and figures.

The key characteristic of scientific writing is clarity. Before submitting a manuscript for publication, it is highly appropriate to take a professional editing business firm copy-edit your manuscript. An commodity submitted to a peer-reviewed journal will exist scrutinized critically by the editorial board before information technology is selected for peer review. According to a statistic shared by Elsevier, betwixt xxx percent and 50 per centum of articles submitted to Elsevier journals are rejected before they even reach the peer-review phase, and i of the superlative reasons for rejection is poor language. A properly written, edited and presented text will be mistake gratuitous and understandable and volition project a professional person epitome that will help ensure your work is taken seriously in the earth of publishing. On occasion, the major revisions conducted at the request of a reviewer will necessitate another round of editing.

Authors tin can facilitate the editing of their manuscripts past taking precautions at their end. These include proofreading their own manuscript for accurateness and wordiness (avoid unnecessary or normative descriptions like "it should be noted here" and "the authors believe) and sending information technology for editing only when it is complete in all respects and ready for publishing. Professional editing companies charge hefty fees, and it is simply not financially viable to have them bear multiple rounds of editing on your article. Applications like the spelling and grammar checker in Microsoft Discussion or Grammarly are certainly worth applying to your article, just the benefits of proper editing are undeniable. For more on the difference between proofreading and editing, see the description in Elsevier's WebShop.

6. Submit a cover letter with the manuscript.

Never underestimate the importance of a cover letter of the alphabet addressed to the editor or editor-in-chief of the target journal. Last yr, I attended a conference in Boston. A "see the editors" session revealed that many submissions do not include a roofing letter of the alphabet, simply the editors-in-chief present, who represented renewed and ISI-indexed Elsevier journals, argued that the comprehend letter of the alphabet gives authors an important opportunity to convince them that their inquiry work is worth reviewing.

Accordingly, the content of the cover letter is besides worth spending time on. Some inexperienced scholars paste the article's abstract into their letter of the alphabet thinking it volition be sufficient to make the case for publication; it is a practise best avoided. A adept encompass letter beginning outlines the main theme of the newspaper; second, argues the novelty of the paper; and 3rd, justifies the relevance of the manuscript to the target journal. I would suggest limiting the embrace letter to one-half a page. More importantly, peers and colleagues who read the article and provided feedback before the manuscript's submission should be best-selling in the cover letter.

vii. Address reviewer comments very advisedly.

Editors and editors-in-chief ordinarily couch the acceptance of a manuscript every bit subject to a "revise and resubmit" based on the recommendations provided by the reviewer or reviewers. These revisions may necessitate either major or minor changes in the manuscript. Inexperienced scholars should understand a few fundamental aspects of the revision process. Commencement, it important to address the revisions diligently; 2d, is imperative to address all the comments received from the reviewers and avert oversights; third, the resubmission of the revised manuscript must happen past the borderline provided by the periodical; fourth, the revision procedure might comprise multiple rounds.

The revision procedure requires two major documents. The first is the revised manuscript highlighting all the modifications made following the recommendations received from the reviewers. The 2d is a letter listing the authors' responses illustrating they take addressed all the concerns of the reviewers and editors. These two documents should be drafted advisedly. The authors of the manuscript tin hold or disagree with the comments of the reviewers (typically agreement is encouraged) and are not always obliged to implement their recommendations, but they should in all cases provide a well-argued justification for their course of action.

Conclusion

Given the e'er increasing number of manuscripts submitted for publication, the process of preparing a manuscript well enough to have information technology accepted by a journal can be daunting. High-bear on journals take less than 10 percent of the manufactures submitted to them, although the credence ratio for special problems or special topics sections is unremarkably over forty percent. Scholars might have to resign themselves to having their articles rejected then reworking them to submit them to a different journal before the manuscript is accustomed.

The communication offered here is non exhaustive only information technology's too non difficult to implement. These recommendations require proper attention, planning and careful implementation; still, post-obit this advice could aid doctoral students and other scholars amend the likelihood of getting their piece of work published, and that is key to having a productive, heady and rewarding bookish career.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Heikki Karjaluoto, Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics for providing valuable feedback on this article.

smithsobsed.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/7-steps-to-publishing-in-a-scientific-journal

Bagikan Artikel ini