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.

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.

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.

Decoding authorship: author, co-author, corresponding author

More often than not, a journal publication has attributions to multiple authors. However, when it comes to formal submissions, citation, and accreditation, the differences in the role played by the multiple collaborators need to be clarified; both amongst the authors themselves and between the authors and the journal to which they submit their article for publication.

Here are some factors to keep in mind when deciding on the authorship of an article publication.

Technically, the author is the one who is the principal architect of the article. Co-authors are those who work in tandem with the author to help them write the content. Co-authors are a kind of author who works with the main author and helps them give shape to the content as per the vision or ideation of the author.

There is often confusion about hierarchy and many suppose that the most senior colleague has to be the author while juniors join as co-authors. This is not necessarily always true. In some cases, when a senior scientist undertakes a major research project, they may ask their junior colleagues to help write an article even while the senior colleague is still the main architect of the entire project. In such cases, the senior colleague is the author while all juniors are co-authors.

However, there may also be situations where research scholars publish articles as part of their Ph.D. programs while their supervisors collaborate as co-authors. In such cases, the main author is still the research scholar who writes on his thesis work and the supervisor helps ensure the quality of work.

In the case of multi-disciplinary studies, two divergent subject experts may simultaneously develop an article with each working on the section specific to their field. They may mutually agree upon author co-authorship for such works.

Being a co-author does not mean one is absolved of all major responsibilities of the content or liabilities in case it is challenged. Most journals understand as a co-author one:

  • Has made significant contributions to the research and drafting of the article.
  • Has been actively engaged in drafting of the submitted manuscript, including revising or critically reviewing the submission.
  • Have agreed to submit to the journal for publication and thereby agrees to abide by all instructions for authors given by the journal.
  • Agrees to be accountable for the contents of the article and thereby shares the responsibility to respond to queries on the content along with the author.

Every journal submission requires the group of authors to identify the Corresponding author for the publication. The corresponding author is responsible for getting all approvals from fellow authors and is the principal point of contact for communicating with the journal. In the case of peer reviews, the journal will only communicate to the corresponding-author and in turn, it is the latter’s responsibility to respond back to the journal the collective opinion of the authors.

Either the author or co-author may nominate themselves as the corresponding author by mutual agreement unless the journal instructions specify otherwise.

How to write a Literature Review article for a Journal

 Literature review articles are a critical form of publication. While all research articles require a literature review section, some articles are purely dedicated stand-alone literature reviews only, published as review articles or survey articles by journals. There exists a certain journal dedicated to such articles.

Review articles are extremely popular with professionals, young students, and novice researchers benefiting immensely from such evaluations of the existing literature in their fields of expertise. Review articles also tend to be highly cited, making them appealing for both journals and authors.

Here are some key tips on how to write a good literature review article for journal publication.

Depth of knowledge: depth and breadth of knowledge is necessary to produce a truly insightful and useful literature review for publication in a journal. A review article is not just about reporting recent literature on the subject that you have come across, but really about giving a unique perspective that threads all these together. One has to read the articles, grasp their essence, and then write about it with authority and interpretive wisdom which is intellectually challenging. While most journals prefer to invite experienced experts to write literature reviews, some do accept unsolicited author submitted manuscripts for publication provided they are of high caliber.

Choice of topic: The topic must not too broad and not too narrow and choose one correctly for the type of review you would like to write. Pick a narrow topic if you intend to write a short crisp review, either about a certain procedure/methodology being explored in your field or certain types of experiments being conducted. For a wider and theoretical exploration of new ideas or burning issues in your field, choose a topic that is wide enough so that you will be able to find enough articles to discuss.

Define the scope of the article: It is very important to limit the scope of the article in order to ensure that you do not lose focus. The point of a good literature review is sharing your perspective while amalgamating various perspectives or viewpoints. It is critical not to be deviate in your discussion by shifting focus to what the others were trying to say. Remember, people will read your article for what you want to say.

Thorough background research: a literature review requires thorough background research. You have to extensively read on the subject, even if you are not covering or referencing every article that you read. While the seminal works deserve a focus, remember there are many others who might have contributed to the field as well. It is critical to develop a wider perspective and then focus and cite some key articles only in your manuscript.

Constructive criticism: A review, while being critical, should not be about nitpicking. You may differ with some authors, or highlight some lacuna that needs to be explored in the field. However, your manuscript must reflect areas of development and encouragement for your readers, and offer new grounds for academic activism on the topic. Only then will a journal consider it for publication.

Open access journals are vanishing from the web, Internet Archive stands ready to fill in the gaps

The advent of Open access journals was expected to revolutionize the academic journal publication sector. Various factors were driving the rise of open access journals, especially in the field of scientific studies. Some of the most common factors, such as time required to get published in conventional peer-reviewed journals or the high rate of rejections, were long-standing challenges for academicians, which Open access journals promised to resolve. Harnessing the benefits of digital communication technologies for faster discovery and dissemination of one’s content was another compelling attraction that these Journals offered. It must be noted that unlike subscription-based journals, Open access journals literally provided free access to anybody, thereby making the platforms more egalitarian.

However, despite these positives, there has been a considerable reduction in open access journals that has warranted special attention from the academic circle. Some of the top findings of disappearing Open access Journals are:

One of the key factors for the longevity of any such services is the funding that goes behind it. Subscription-based journals have a revenue model for sustenance. The digital formats for such journals utilize services like JSTOR or other such aggregators for global subscription bases that help these services survive. Open access journals rely heavily on grants or other forms of external funding to survive. Those backed by well-established Trusts or funding agencies have a higher chance of surviving in the long run, while those who fail to develop a steady stream of funding eventually have to shut down.

A major shortcoming in the case of Open access journals is the lack of archiving. According to Internet Archive, a not for profit organization dedicated to providing free content to users, 18 percent of all open access articles since 1945 (that amount to over three million articles), are not independently archived by any third-party preservation organization, other than the publishers themselves. Archiving is an integral part of academic articles and is critical for its discoverability in the long run.

This problem is further accentuated by the fact that many of these platforms have stringent anti-crawling measures and many small publishers do not use simple/common mechanisms like OAI-PMH and the ‘citation_pdf_url’ HTML meta tag to identify full-text content. This makes it difficult for third part discovery platforms to integrate these contents in their archives.

Another major concern is the challenges with Gold open access journal contents, in which the authors have to bear the costs of publication. In contrast, authors often prefer Green Open access or Hybrid Open access models where the publication cost is often partially mitigated for the authors. This affects the quality of content on different Open access platforms and thereby their attractiveness and longevity.

However, this is not to say that Open access journals are altogether dying off. There are still numerous journals experimenting with newer models. Often, the advent of a new and more popular one triggers the demise of an extant platform over time loses credence.