In science, research and literature are linked

And don't forget the processes

Especially the editorial process

Write to be read … barriers?

• The title: short, attractive, representative of the text/research
• Authors, their affiliation
• Abstract: abstract structure?
• Keywords: thesaurus?
• Language: do you speak/write/read English?
• The text:
  • The quality of the scientific approach
  • The structure of the text: IMRaD,...
• The quality of the writing:
  • readability
  • clarity
  • precision
  • style

A paper Is:

• A problem and a solution;
• A new and original answer (compared to what we already know);
• Only one message.

Although not what was planned at the beginning of the research...

Anatomy of a research paper

Introductory part

Elements:

• Title (+ current title & translated title);
• author(s) + affiliation (use institutional standardization);
• structured abstract;
• Keywords: use a thesaurus.

Special attention must be paid to the quality of these informations

• it is also the metadata of the paper
• each element is listed “as it” in most bibliographic databases

The title

• Short (between 5 and 25 words);

• Clear (so unambiguous);

• Summary (= summary of the abstract);

• Must attract the reader;

• Informative or synthetic;

• In the form of a question or statement.

A structured abstract

Or a graphical abstract

The body of the text: IMRaD model/structure

The body of the text: IMRaD model/structure

The body of the text: IMRaD model/structure

The body of the text: IMRaD model/structure

The body of the text: IMRaD model/structure

The body of the text: Introduction

Must:

• indicate the problem (what exactly are we talking about?);
• refer to published literature (what we already know?);
• present the hypothesis(s) (what is asked?).

Objectives:

• highlight the value of the work presented in the article;
• justify the choice of hypotheses and scientific approach.

The body of the text: Material (and methods)

Description (specify, unless already well described in the literature) of the experimental protocol.

Objectives:

• allow the evaluation of the the result’s quality;
• allow another researcher to:
  • reproduce the results obtained,
  • use the same method in further experimentation.

The body of the text: Results

No interpretation, only results!

Illustrations

• not to be redundant (graphs, tables and text);
• readable independently of the text:
  • quality of the title (above for tables & below for graphics) and legends (always below),
  • multilingual;
• numbered and always called (Table x or Figure y) before in the text.

The body of the text: Results (sample)

_{Total polyphenols contents of spices using different roasting temperatures (roasting time: 15 min) and different roasting times (roasting temperature: 140 °C), respectively — Teneurs en polyphénols totaux des épices respectivement à différentes températures de torréfaction (temps de torréfaction : 15 min) et à différents temps de torréfaction (température de torréfaction : 140 °C).}

The body of the text: Discussion/conclusions

Must:

• relate the results to the starting hypothesis;
• recall the originality and interest of the article (and research);
• highlight the practical consequences of this research;
• no bibliographic references. It is the discussion of the author's work, not that of other works;
• be critical, present the limits of the research conducted (without denigrating the work);
• possibly explain unexpected results or observations.

It is an essential part. Sentences can be cited in articles and books.

A review (or systematic review)

→  For a review paper;

→  For an application for research funding;

→  For a research paper (part of the introduction);

→  For a thesis.

A Review

1. Demonstrates the value of your work.

2. Show that you're proficient in the topic.

3. Express your agreement and disagreement.

A review - may use another structure

Introduction:

• subject, limitations, and scope of the research;
• presentation of the structure of the "Literature" section;
• presentation of the methodology of the extended literature search.

Literature:

• discussion on the different sources selected;
• organization: evolution over time, points of view and schools, different aspects.

Conclusions (or "implications" and "future"):

• contributions of the literature (what is already known);
• areas of agreement and controversy (incl. Your voice);
• questions still awaiting answers (by You).

A revue - can also be structured as a research article

Introduction

• subject, limitations, and scope of the research.

Material & methods

• presentation of the methodology of the extended literature search.

Results

• findings (structured presentation of the literature) by sources, area of knowledge, timeline, ...

Discussion

• contributions of the literature (what is already known);
• areas of agreement and controversy (incl. Your voice);
• questions still awaiting answers (by You).

The bibliography

All documents used must be cited in the text, with reference to the bibliography.

All documents in the bibliography must be cited at least once in the text.

The bibliography

References must be:

• recent
• exhaustive (but not redundant – a selection of the most representative)
• accessible (not « submitted » or « local document not published »)
• scientific (should this be specified?)

And don’t forget the use of the right tool to manage documents and bibliography!

Appendices / annexes

• some publishers accept appendices;
• it's getting easier with electronic publishing;
• with open science, it's called open data:
  • whith data management plan
  • in dataverse.uliege.be (for instance)

Writing a paper : first steps

1. before all: literature search;

2. the article type (research, review, research note, method...);

3. the list of authors (!);

4. the choice of the journal (tools...);

5. define the subject of the article (one question - one answer);

6. authorizations (for illustrations).

The authors

A decision must be taken before starting the work (research and writing).

The author:

• plays a central role in determining hypothesis;
• contributes to obtaining, analyzing and interpreting results;
• participates in writing a significant part of the article;
• not to be confused with thanks.

The place of an author in the list is also important (first, last...)

The CRediT taxonomy

14 roles:

• Conceptualization
• Data curation
• Formal Analysis
• Funding acquisition
• Investigation
• Methodology
• Project administration
• Resources
• Software
• Supervision
• Validation
• Visualization
• Writing – original draft
• Writing – review & editing

The journal choice (recall)

before 1950

• researcher read/used two or three titles
• peer reviewing process was not yet used

after WW2

• increase of the number of publications (mainly in English)
• IF created to help librarians to choose titles
• the IF has been guide to authors to choose (prestigious) titles to read and where to publish ... with all the biases that are now well identified
• evaluation systems of researchers and research have integrated IF in evaluation process
• DORA's declaration on research evaluation is gradually changing the situation

The journal choice (recall)

Currently

With the multiplication of bibliographic databases and specialized search engines, the developement of Open Access, We choose our readings:

• less on the basis of titles where they are published
• but on the basis of a bibliographic search

Continue to choose titles with IF to publish is for:

• the ego of researchers (based on the notion of prestige, not quality)
• competition between research teams (and universities)
• respond to the "diktats" of some evaluation committees

The journal choice (recall)

It is necessary to:

• reappropriate the publishing process
• reduce the costs (in public money)

Open Access is a solution (green or gold way)

knowing that with the evolution of the models, increase of the quality of:

• the evaluation
• the publishing processes

The journal choice (recall)

Points of attention:

• predatory journals (which have appeared since the invention of APCs) and "borderline" journals such as Frontiers in or MDPI
• the amount of APCs and the transforming models that will continue to link universities to big publishers who will make even more money (we refuse to sign these agreements)
• the intrinsic quality of journals: process, visibility, editing...

The journal choice

• Open access! (or at least fair publisher):

  • avoid hybrid journals ("Open Choise"),
  • avoid predatory journals/publishers.

• International recognition;

• Databases and citations;

• Peer reviewing and validation process;

• Audience (generalist vs. specialist, language...);

• diffusion (eJournal, frequency, process duration);

• Edition (author's guide).

OA = between 2 et 5 times more citations!

Authorizations

For:

• tables;
• graphics (including maps!);
• drawing or photograph.

You must have permission to reproduce (unless in open access, e.g. CC, or public domain)

contact with rights holders (editor, authors...) can take a long time...

And the law in Belgium?

Open Access decree of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation (May 2018)

Authors always have to deposit articles in Open Access, immediately after acceptance of the article by the publisher.

If the publisher requires it, the decree allows the article to be deposited in Open Access with an embargo that cannot exceed:

• 6 months for the fields of science, technology and human or veterinary medicine;
• 12 months for the humanities and social sciences.

And the law in Belgium?

Belgian copyright law (July 2018).

If:

• the research behind the article have been financed at least half by public funds;
• a point of contact is located in Belgium (author, publisher, research or funding institution…).

Authors have the right to deposit their journal articles in Open Access, regardless of the contract signed with the publisher!

Only the author's version (final revised version without layout) accepted for publication is concerned.

Writing

The basic

• write to communicate, not to impress;
• keep your audience in mind;
• write in your own voice: express yourself;
• organize the information carefully;
• follow the instructions;
• set aside blocks of time for writing;
• write quickly and leave gaps if necessary;
• revise, revise, revise.

Writing

Your text

• write readable (words, sentences & paragraphs);
• be understandable and direct;
• remove jargon;
• use concrete words;
• add enough details (but not to much);
• credit sources adequately.

Writing

The right tools

• use a mental map to structure your ideas;
• write without editing!
• use an editor (instead of a word processor) to write without distraction;
• why not to learn Markdown…

Don't try to get it right the first time and resist the temptation to edit as you go.

→ You will tend to get stuck and waste time.

Take care of the readability of your text

Readability depends on:

• the complexity of the words used
• the length of the sentences

There should be only one idea per paragraph!

If a reader has to reread a sentence to understand it, it is probably poorly written…

Be precise

It is essential to avoid using the terms:

• few,
• many,
• a lot,
• some
• …

Their meaning are subjective

→ You must give a quantity, a proportion, a percentage. Say how many!

Some simple tips to improve your writing (to write stronger sentence)

1. Avoid contractions

don’t → do not

can’t → cannot

shouldn’t → should not…

2. Avoid “there is” or “there are”

There are many issues that students face at university → Students face issues at university

Some simple tips to improve your writing (to write stronger sentence)

3. Avoid “really”, “very”, “a lot”, “so”

A lot of students think university is very hard → 50% of students find it hard to study at university

4. Prefer the active voice

Healthcare reforms were implemented by Obama → Obama implemented healthcare reforms

5. Use strong verbs

He made objection to nationalization → He objected to nationalization

Ethics

Predatory publishers and fake journals

Experimental ethics

• ethics commission;
• protocol number.

Peer reviewing process

• open / single blind / double blind;
• contacts (between the authors and reader) are forbidden.

Ethics

Fraud

• plagiarism and self-plagiarism;
• data production;
• data manipulation and falsification.

Conflict of interest

• financial and Commercial;
• contractual;
• patent.

Ethics

Authorship

• who did what?
• ghost authors (rewriting company).
• think CRediT nomenclature

The fighting course

Submit your paper

• via email or on a dedicated site;
• With a cover letter:
  • a brief description of the work, its purpose, and interest in the journal,
  • the originality of the manuscript,
  • the subject of the manuscript fit with the scope of the journal;
• declaration on the honor of lack of conflict of interest (funding, for example);
• declaration on honor that all co-authors authorize the submitting of the paper;
• description of each co-author's role.

It is strictly forbidden to submit the same paper to two different journals at the same time!

Think the process…

The fighting course

After preliminary reading (and opinion of the editorial board)

• rejection;
• request for additions before the beginning of peer review process.

After peer review

• acceptance (rarely with the first version);
• minor revisions (form);
• major revisions (content);
• rejection.

Delay = several months (up to one year!)

reviewers + corrections by authors + management of a large number of articles

The main reasons for rejection (or major revision) are as follows:

• there's plagiarism;
• the content is not original;
• there are too many language mistakes (spelling, grammar, ...);
• poor quality of illustrations;
• objectives (hypothesis[s]) are not defined;
• the interest is too local;
• the experimental design is too poor;
• there are inconsistencies in the data;
• the conclusions are hasty or erroneous;
• the results are too partial ("further study should...");
• the bibliography is poor or too old and does not give a current vision of the problem.

These slides have been written in Markdown in an .html file using remark.js technology (press ctrl-u to view source code)

Thanks for your participation!