How To Write A Highly Citable Journal Article?

Publishing Research Work is essential for a Researcher. How many times the paper is cited after it is published is also very critical. The worthiness of the Research Paper is determined by the Citations.

What is a Citation?

A Citation can be stated as a Reference to the Source of Information used in your Research Paper. Write the Papers and publish them with proper Citation. During the Publication, you cite different references which you have followed.

Why Citation matter?

  • Quality of your Research
  • H-Index – If the Article Citation is increased, H-Index also increases. It is a number that gives the Researcher Efficiency and Impact. The number depends on the papers a researcher publishes, and the citation it gets. It measures the Efficiency and Reference of the Publication of a Researcher.

 

Importance of Citation

When you are a Researcher who has published a Paper recently and thinking about how to increase your citation, these are the steps to increase the visibility of the Published Paper among the Research Community.

  • The best way is to upload your Scientific Journal Article on Social Platforms such as Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook, Youtube where you can attract an audience from different backgrounds. Let people know what your Research is about.
  • Publishing Lots of Papers, if you have good data and planning to publish your data then make a Schedule, Plan your writing and Publish your Research Articles regularly. Cite your previous works and also your Colleague’s Work. Share part of your data with the Public.
  • Update your Profile on different Platforms like Google Scholar, Academia, Scopus. Use a Consistent form of your paper on all of your forms.
  • Publish more Review Articles. Review Papers get more citations than Research Articles.
  • Use Short Attractive Titles to get more Citation.
  • Use unique, Trending Keywords in the Abstract.
  • Collaborate with different Scientific Communities. Make Collabs to become Co-Authors of the Research Paper.
  • Work as a Volunteer in Journals where you can Review Papers and also upgrade your Scientific Knowledge in a particular field.
  • Target your Journals. Focus on New Journals, Open Access Journals, and Journals that offer Free Publication have greater impact.
  • Publish in Special Issues – You get wide publicity which attracts more Audiences.
  • Socialize and try to attend more Conferences where you can meet the scientific community who are working on different aspects of Science and participate by publishing your Research Paper.
  • Expert Advice is highly valuable to get Citation. Cross Check your data before you publish.
  • Target High Impact Factor for Paper Publication. Impact Factor decides the Quality of the Research Journal.
  • Use the Image Search Option. Make attractive Graphical Abstracts which is engaging and informative.
  • Try to cite Recent and Relevant Papers alone.
  • Cite a Renowned Person in your field of research that will make your paper a reputed one.

 

Conclusion

A High Citation Score is one of the Parameters to get a Postdoc Position. By following the above ways, your work will be visible and your citation score will increase. The most important way of getting citations lies in the contribution of the Research Excellence.

How to Overcome Journal Rejection?

Publishing Papers after rejection could be a long time-taking process that holds the ability to share our work with the Public. If you don’t succeed at first, revise and resubmit.

A Paper rejected doesn’t mean the research is always bad.

 Reasons for Rejection of Academic Papers from Journals

These mistakes are consistently made by different people. These mistakes are non-fatal which creates a bad impression about the paper Many non-fatal mistakes can lead to rejection of the Paper.

The submission of Paper takes almost 1 to 1.5 years, so avoid making these deadly mistakes.

  • Formatting Issues
  • Choosing the wrong Journal
  • Grammatical Errors
  • References (Many or Few)
  • Revealing the Author’s Identity
  • Missing Tables & Figures
  • Missing Abstract
  • Writing Style

In some cases, the Paper may be rejected even after major revisions. Most researchers believe that the data and assumptions will be accepted with minor revisions, but when they get a negative response, they become low.

What are the things that you should not do after Paper Rejection?

  • Complaining to the Editor
  • Posting the Reviews Online
  • Writing a letter with Anger
  • Discarding the Reviews
  • Giving up

 

Researchers Perspective after Rejection

  • Upset about the outcome – Give yourself time and go back to the feedback. Read the letter when the anger stage is off.
  • Look for Valuable Feedback – Review the Feedback in detail. The feedback can be helpful with a lot of clues as to how to improve the paper. Some feedback seems to be unhelpful but when looking it deeper, there will be a different perspective which turns out to be good.
  • Resubmit the same Journal – Some Journals reject the Paper but invite you to resubmit it later. If you do decide to submit on that Journal, you can choose this option.
  • Make Changes & Submit to a New Journal – The most common Chosen option is considering the comments, improving the manuscript, and submitting it to a New Journal. Must ensure the details of the Cover Letter, Reference Format. Deciding what to Change – Address all the comments. Minor comments are also needed to be addressed.
  • Make No Changes & Submit to Another Journal – This is an easy option but is not at all effective. Reviewers may identify the same feedback that you received earlier.
  • File the Manuscript & Never resubmit – Choosing a new paper for Advanced research so deciding not to submit the paper in any journal. Instead of posting it in a scientific community where your Research data might be useful to others. Making it as a Blog or Workshop for Practitioners. The outcomes might be surprisingly good. Have multiple projects, when something is messing up, you have another in hand which can lift you.

 

Conclusion

Rejection is a natural part of Academic life. Persistence and Willingness are the keys to Success in Paper Publication. Rejection as Redirection by looking at it as an opportunity redirected to something more suitable. Rejection makes us improve and strengthen our work before submitting it to another set of Audiences.

What are the barriers to post-publication peer review?

Post-publication peer review – doing peer review after the publication of the manuscript. When a paper is published. Everyone in the community starts to read it and comment on it either in conferences or Journal Clubs. It is an informal way of doing Peer Review.

F1000, OpenReview, PubMed Commons, TrueReview, Pubpeer are some of the Post-publication Peer Review Platforms.

 Challenges of Post-publication peer review

Lack of Motivation towards Scientific Researches

Editorial control will always be a vital feature of every open peer review method, including PPPR, as we’ve previously reported. Editors are expected to seek peer feedback promptly (and often submit several reminder emails), as well as provide a sense of “prestige” for being asked to review an article, as a clear acknowledgment of your expertise in that area.

Too many choices – Many platforms and alternative methods of use in communicating reviews. It’s likely that various comments appear on different pages but not on others when multiple copies of a paper exist across multiple platforms. It’s also likely that researchers would experience plagiarism. This mode of communication is possibly more suitable when significant theoretical or methodological shortcomings in published studies have been discovered.

Plagiarism

Allows unqualified referees to smear the Researcher’s original work with unfounded accusations, claims, and lies in the name of free speech.

Risk of non-constructive criticism

Some people may use PPPR to be intentionally confrontational in public, talking down to or intimidating their junior peers. As a result, any alternative or complementary system must mitigate or minimize this negative dynamic, ensure that an accountability process is built into and maintained, and ensure that marginalized groups are encouraged to participate.

 Solutions to Post-publication peer review

  • Offers Opportunities for Corrections Authors receive more Feedback from peers by posting papers online. This should lessen the agony of revise and re-submit.
  • Increases engagement of the Scientific Community for more recognition & career development.
  • Ensures openness by making the analysis publicly accessible to those involved in the study.
  • The technology has made it possible for Scientific Research Papers to be accessible always.
  • After reading the Research Paper, review comments can be posted immediately and shared on social media platforms.
  • Strength & Weakness of Scientific Papers is done real-time globally.

 

Conclusion

Peer review was established to ensure that research papers are well-documented and meet the scientific community’s general standards. However, another aim of peer review has always been to stimulate scientific debate. Post-Publication Peer review allows the broader community to discuss the article in greater depth, providing the open forum that peer review is designed to provide. Using this method would undoubtedly result in a conflict of interest. Peer review often prohibits discussion of a mainstream theory against a competing mainstream theory, and theoretical scientists are often denied the opportunity to do so. PPPR aims to make aspects of the daily research process more accessible to the public. It’s about bringing meaning to published research papers by using the evaluations and criticisms that researchers and others conduct.

The Benefits Of Peer-Reviewing A Manuscript

What Is The Peer-Review Of A Manuscript?

  • Peer-Review is a process in which the Manuscript proposed for the Publication of the Journal is assessed by a group of experts in the appropriate field.
  • It can be said as a sign of recognition in one’s field.

 

Who is involved in the Process of Peer-Review?

  • Experts in the appropriate field.
  • Editorial Board Members.

 

Evaluation Stages

Initial Evaluation

  • Read the Abstract & Conclusion.
  • Skip the Figures, Data, Tables.

 

In-Depth Evaluation

  • Read the entire script
  • Note the details
  • Getting Answer to these Questions
  • Is the quality of the manuscript good for a conclusion?
  • Is the experimental design appropriate?
  • Is there any non-relevant data?

 

How does Peer-Review Work?

  • The Research Scholars writes a Paper & Submits the Manuscript to the Academic Journal that publishes similar or related types of works.
  • The Journal Editor reads the Manuscript and decides whether it meets the criteria for Publication or not. If it is rejected, the manuscript goes back to the Researcher with a polite rejection letter. If it meets the criteria, then the Manuscript is accepted and is sent to the scientific community who will read it as well.
  • The reviewers read the manuscript to evaluate in terms of its purpose, scope, thesis, outcome and ask questions such as
  • Is the topic worth investigating?
  • Are relevant sources being used?
  • Does the evidence support the thesis?
  • Is the thesis clearly and convincingly argued?
  • Is the work original?
  • Once the reviewers have finished reading the manuscript, they send their comments to the editor, who in turn, sends it to the writer another letter that will either accept the paper without revisions or will provide comments and ask for revisions based on the peer reviewers’ evaluation of the work.
  • Once the paper is revised to the satisfaction of the editor and the reviewers take several revisions, the article is published.
  • When using Peer-reviewed articles for research papers and assignments, can use the best data or information available upon which to base your work.

 

Peer Review Methodology

 What are the Questions to be focused on while Peer-Reviewing?

Title

  • Is the title match with the Manuscript?
  • Are the major findings mentioned in the Manuscript?
  • Is the conclusion overstated?

 

Abstract

  • Can the abstract stand alone?

 

Intro

  • Is the Intro brief?
  • Does the intro have the aim or objective of the Research?

 

Methods

  • Are the methods appropriate?
  • Is the statistical analysis provided?

 

Results

  • Is the paper within the scope of the Research?
  • Does the paper address the important & interesting question?
  • Is the Manuscript readable?

 

Over-view of Peer-Review

  • The manuscript should be kept confidential.
  • Feedback should be constructive and must include reasons to support the comments.

 

How is Peer-Review beneficial in Academic Writing?

  • Improves Writing & Critical Thinking Skills
  • Develops Collaborative Learning
  • Encourages the writer to perform better
  • Saves time for Researchers
  • Ensure Quality Research is Published

 

The Peer-Reviewer needs to pay attention to evaluate the Manuscript Readability such as

  • Is the manuscript readable?
  • Are the sentences easy to read?
  • Are the sentences grammatically correct?

 

Conclusion

Peer-Review is a crucial learning process. A Good Peer-Review should be

  • Focused – Main areas should be addressed
  • Constructive – Identification of the Problems clearly
  • Structured – Systematic Approach to the Manuscript
  • Polite & Professional Feedback
  • Listing major strength & weakness
  • Recommend changes to improve

Common Reasons Why a Research Paper Gets Rejected by Journals

The publishing industry is enormous and authors are open to choose the appropriate journal for submission. Though there are thousands of journals to choose from, rejection is common in scholarly publishing. The rejection causes demotivation among researchers, who dedicate months to designing and writing a perfectly molded paper.

Here, we have focused on the common mistakes for which academic papers are rejected by journals.

Technical screening

Manuscripts submitted to a reputed high-impact academic journal undergo severe scrutiny even before they are screened by the editorial board members and reviewers.

The primary causes of their rejection at this stage are:

  • The paper is not relevant to the journal’s readers or are not under the aims and scope of the journal
  • Paper lacks novelty in the relevant field
  • Plagiarized content
  • Ethical concerns
  • Unavailability of Informed consent forms of subjects
  • If similar research papers are already under consideration
  • The paper has not been prepared based on the journal’s guidelines
  • Incomplete materials (If the author hasn’t provided the mandatory documents)

Peer review process

After the initial screening, the editors assign the reviewers to initiate the peer-review process. In the peer-review a comprehensive critical analysis of the high-quality papers takes place.

The primary causes of their rejection at this stage are:

  • The aim is unclear and the introduction part lacks clarity
  • Use of insignificant or outdated procedures or methodology
  • Statistical analysis of the data is inadequate and weak
  • Illogical or unstructured arguments
  • The data does not support the conclusions
  • Insufficient data failing to produce a significant result
  • Poor writing or contains too many jargons
  • Inconsistencies in the writing with grammatical and spelling errors

Quality of figures and other issues

  • If an author has failed to obtain written consent of the participants before/during the research.
  • Conflict of interest declaration, copyright issues, plagiarized data, and other ethical concerns associated with the research paper.
  • The journal may not have the space for the paper
  • The paper is incompetent with the high standards of other papers submitted to the journal
  • Non-archival data and of insignificant value to the journal
  • Poorly designed and irrelevant repetition tables or figures

Whatever the reasons, make sure that you read the feedback in depth and reflect on it. Even if you don’t agree with the feedback, it’s still important to understand why someone else might have thought that. Hence, knowing and accepting the reasons for rejection by the journal can significantly enhance the chance of publication in the next attempt.

HOW TO WRITE A ‘GOOD’ RESEARCH PAPER

Writing a good research paper and getting it published depends on many factors. It requires proper planning, preparation, and disciplined hard work to get published. However, by the end of the day, the quality and content of the article are what matters. Unless the article is of good quality, no journal will be willing to publish it.

Here are some basic tips on how to write a good article that is accepted by a journal.

Topic: Your topic is the first calling card for your article. You must choose your topic carefully based on the recent developments in your field. If you want to publish your article in a journal with a high impact factor, you must also understand that the editors will require an article that will be popular enough for its readers to maintain the high impact factor of the journal. The relevance of the topic and expressing it smartly via a suitable title is very crucial.

Core work: Your article may be based on your recent research activities, or maybe a pure review of the literature. In either case, it must be of top quality. For original research, the results you report are obviously the high-point of attraction. However, given there are many academicians working on the same topic, there has to be some differentiating factor in your research that will make it stand out from the rest. This depends not only on the research question or hypothesis you set for your experiments but also on what you’re finally present in your article. The same research can generate multiple publications depending on how you choose to present it before your audience.

Review of literature: Every publication requires a review of the literature section. While hard-core review papers are based solely on this factor, even research papers require a review of the literature section to set the context. Your review of the literature has to be up to date with the latest developments and ideas in your field. While writing a review of literature, the message is not about how extensively you have read up on your subject but really about the insights you derive from them. A review of literature is all about perspectives developed from existing literature and it should be conveyed in your article.

Understand your audience: For a successful publication, especially in a journal with a high impact factor, you have to write the article from a reader’s perspective. Figure out what would interest a reader to read your article. A good way to go about it is to understand what interested you as a reader when you were doing your research. Reading good articles not only helps develop knowledge on the subject matter but also teaches us how to write. Revisit your references to see how they were written, the language, the questions they addressed, and what attracted your attention in the first place.

Discipline: Proper formatting, referencing, indexing of content, labeling of charts and figures are the basic hygiene for any good article. It is best you inculcate these habits from the very start to avoid excessive revisions later.

Transparency, Openness and Peer Review

Peer review of a journal article is a critical aspect of publication. The academic circle only acknowledges peer-reviewed journal publication as quality publication, mainly because it gives an assurance of quality and pedigree of the article and thereby the author.

However, there are numerous stemming issues with the peer review mechanism, that in turn has led to various forms of peer review practices. The issues of transparency and openness in peer review procedures in the underlying factor for each of these different forms.

Single-blind Review: This is a process where the author does not get to know the identity of the reviewer, while the reviewer knows who the author is. This is often followed to prevent authors from influencing peers who are reviewing their articles.

Double-Blind Review: This is e process where neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other’s identity. This is followed to prevent any form of nexus or collusion between author and reviewer. This mechanism promises maximum quality control with minimal transparency in the process.

Open Peer Review: This is the exact opposite where both author and reviewer know each other’s identity. This model is one of the most transparent processes and it seeks to address the issue of influence or collusion via an open and transparent process.

Transparent Peer Review: This new form emerged with the emergence of open access journals. In this model, both the article and the peer reviews are posted on the site. Often, an open-access journal uploads the entire article as received from the author on the site and invites reviewers to post their reviews as comments. The entire process is often based on a subscription-based model, where both authors and reviewers have subscribed to the open-access journal, as are the readers who want to access both articles and reviews. This is one of the most innovative and transparent review mechanisms gaining popularity.

Collaborative Review: in this case, either one or more reviewers work together to share a common review, or authors work in collaboration with reviewers on the final draft. This process is also popular for the transparency and openness of publication.

Post-publication Review: This is an extension of the earlier discussed transparent peer review mechanism, where the author’s article is posted as received, and solicited and unsolicited reviews are posted along with it. This is often like a blog where everyone is free to comment on the original post. This model is often restricted to subscription-based access to prevent trolling.

Transferable peer Review: This is a new offering from several publishers in which they allow authors, whose article they may have rejected, to transfer their manuscript along with the peer reviews received to another publication. This allows greater transparency where the new journal and reviewers have an open idea about why it was rejected earlier or the developments done on the previous comments.

Different forms of peer review have differing forms of transparency and openness. There is a set formula as each has its own merits and demerits. What matters is the choice of the journal and what process the journal follows.

HOW TO REUSE OLD ACADEMIC PAPERS

While pursuing a career or academic research and publication, it is only natural to expect academicians to develop on their previous works or pursue a set line of investigation. More often than not, research or experimental investigation spans over years and researchers may indulge in multiple publications on the matter which builds on their previous works.

However, reusing one’s own previous publication is a taboo that comes under the ambit of self-plagiarism. This is a great dilemma that is strongly challenged by many academicians who argue using one’s own work is not ethically plagiarism. However, there are certain limitations on how one can use one’s previous works, and therefore one has to be careful about how to use them.

What is the Concern?

To best understand why there are limitations to text recycling, one has to understand the reason why it is restricted. Many unscrupulous authors have been scoring multiple publications by simply rehashing the same content over and over again. This was red-flagged in the academic community, as these publications go against the ethics of academic publication. They do not offer new value or insights on the subject; they are not pushing the boundary of knowledge; they are just done for the base intention of having more publication credits or citation.

How to reuse your own content?

However, there is a genuine case of reusing one’s own content for legitimate reasons and that too is well understood. To avoid the vice of multiple publications, there are some checks and balances suggested.

The context: The context of text recycling is the most defining factor. You may have done a certain publication says while reporting your own findings. Tomorrow, you are looking to develop a review article in which you want to posit your own findings with other publications. In this case, you may definitely refer to your previous content, but it needs to be edited to fit the present context. You cannot simply copy-paste from the previous publication as it does very little value added to the news article. Edit, paraphrase, and contextualize the previous content and you can avoid the pitfall of self-plagiarism.

Citation: Even if you are using your own content, you have to ensure proper referencing and citation as you would for any other literature review. Offer the content as something you have already published before and not as something you are offering now. You also need to develop a logical flow that justifies these citations, or else you may be found guilty of just recycling text to cover up for lack of original content for the new article.

Journal selection: Journal selection is critical for articles recycling text. If you are looking to publish a series of articles in a specific journal, then referring to previous publications via recycling text has a certain context. If you are submitting articles to various journals with recycling text, it may be red-flagged under self-plagiarism.

Remembers, reusing own content is not a crime; the crime lies in the dishonesty involved in the process.

The dark side of academics

The world of academics is rife with the stiff competition; for funds and research grants, prestigious appointments, peerage, reputation, and acknowledgment. It is no surprise therefore that even this honorable profession is marred by several forms of unscrupulous practices.

While the unscrupulous or unethical practices of academicians (like plagiarism, duplicate publications) are one side of the problem, the other side of the challenge is several opportunists seeking to dupe unsuspecting academicians for their ulterior motives of profiteering.

Here are two major forms of duping one needs to be aware of in this murky world of academics.

Predatory Publishing: This term was coined by Jeffrey Beal, an academic librarian and researcher at the University of Colorado, Denver, who first brought the matter to attention. It refers to various spurious emails and spams academicians receive daily that suggest easy options of publication. The phenomenon has been greatly spurred by Open Access Journals, itself a development of the proliferation of digital technology. “Open access” is a novel concept that seeks to use digital platforms to bring to facilitate more ‘ópen’interactions between scientific readers and academicians looking to publish scientific knowledge without the hassle of the prolonged publication process. Unfortunately, many used these open-access platforms to develop fake publishing services, that allow anyone to publish for a fee. Many young authors are duped by such offers and fall prey; doling out considerable money to get their articles published only to find these platforms are fake.

This is not to say that the articles are not published online. What differentiates genuine journals from such fakes is that the fakes have no peer review or quality control. Neither do they have any credibility in the academic circles? Such publications are not even known to most scientific readers, are not recognized by reputable Universities or academic institutions. In short, these publications serve no purpose and do not help in one’s research boost or academic career.

Fake conferences: it is amazing to think that these unscrupulous practices are not just limited to publication but even extend up to fake conferences and events. Many unsuspecting academicians sign up for fake conferences, paying travel fares and accommodation charges on their own in the hope of interacting with peers, only to find themselves in the company of other unsuspecting victims. These fake conferences are hosted only for profiteering. More often than not, there are no conference reports or proper publication of the papers presented. Consequently, the time and effort of an academician are lost.

In conclusion: The real objective of a good publication or conference is an acknowledgment of one’s efforts from one’s peers or a research boost in terms of sharing new ideas or collaborations. A publication or paper presentation just for the heck of it serves no purpose and is a wastage of effort. Academicians, both new and experienced, need to be very careful from falling prey to such practices. The most effective means to avoid it being vigilant, checking with peers, and doing a thorough background check of any such suspecting agencies.

Plagiarism in Academic writing: How to Identify and Avoid It

Plagiarism is well-known as a breach of publishing ethics which is despised in the academic circle. However, while in some cases the authors engage in deliberate plagiarism, more often than not authors end up being guilty of plagiarism unknowingly. This is because plagiarism, although a very commonly used term, is a vaguely defined concept.

Plagiarism technically means using someone else’s ideas/ intellectual property as one’s own without giving proper credit to the original creator. While the first part (as one’s own) is well understood as improper appropriation, it is often the second part (giving proper credit) where author’s unintentionally falter. 

Some of the most common forms of plagiarism are:

Patchwork: patchwork refers to direct lifting or verbatim representation of another’s work without using quotations or referencing. This is the most blatant form of plagiarism.

Plagiarised ideas: This is when you pass-off someone else’s ideas as your own, even if in your own words or articulation.

Loose paraphrasing: This is the most common form of unintentional plagiarism. Authors, while discussing literature reviews, often write the content of other authors without proper attribution, which technically makes it plagiarism.

Self-plagiarism: This is the most difficult to understand the form of plagiarism. This refers to recycling of one’s own work in multiple publications. While it is difficult to comprehend how one can ‘steal’ from oneself, reproduction of the same work in multiple journal publications or presenting the same content multiple times to bolster the number of one’s publications is a problem in academics that has led to this publishing ethics.

How to avoid unintentional plagiarism:

Proper referencing: while doing your background research, keep meticulous notes of which ideas/sections are from which article. While writing, maintain side notes for proper referencing later while finalizing the article.

Quotes and paraphrasing: authors often tangle themselves up in this issue! For citing what some other author has said, it is advisable to use quotations to drive home a critical or technical detail. While discussing a concept and how others have addressed it, it is better to paraphrase it in one’s own words.

While paraphrasing, one must be careful not to reproduce the same content by just replacing certain words here and there. A proper paraphrasing would be a complete re-articulation of the source material. Proper paraphrasing is rewriting other’s content from one’s own perspective.

In both cases, proper citation or reference is mandatory.

Follow citation rules: every journal has well-defined citation and referencing norms and one must follow them judiciously. Journals nowadays prefer in-text referencing, especially for paraphrasing and quotations and it is a good habit to develop one’s writing style with in-text referencing.

Rewrite your own words: while referring to your own previous works, we often tend to copy-paste paragraphs as one likes one’s own articulation best. However, in order to avoid self-plagiarism, rewrite the content every time for a new article in the context of the new article, and you will see your language will change.