FEMS Microbiology Ecology
Getting Your Work Published
Telling a Compelling Story
Working with Editors and Reviewers
Jim Prosser
Chief Editor
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
FEMS Journals
FEMS – Federation of European
Microbiological Societies
Five journals
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
FEMS Microbiology Letters
FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology
FEMS Yeast Research
FEMS Microbiology Reviews
The Research
 Research never published is research never done
 What will paper look like?
 Why will anyone want to read it:




Interest
Topicality
Significant novelty
Hypothesis-driven
 Can you identify a significant advance that will arise
from the paper
 Is the study more than just ‘handle-turning’?
 Could the study change the way people think?
 Be very objective and very critical
 Don’t adopt a ‘scatter gun’ approach
FEMS Manuscript Central – review
Manuscript ID:
Manuscript Type:
Keywords:
Date Submitted:
Manuscript Title:
Date Review Returned:
Authors:
Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Lower 50% Lower 25%
Significance of Research
Originality of Research
Experimental Design and Quality of Data
Preparation
 Which journal would be most appropriate?
 What do the editors want?




Author guidelines
Journal scope and aims
Look at papers already published by the journal
Ask
 What do you want to say?
 Draft key points
 Add:




Abstract
Figures
Tables
Text
 Stay focussed and seek criticism
 Language
Blackwell language service
Title
Exciting
Concise
Catchy
Attention-grabbing
Abstract
Possibly most important section
May be only section read
Title and abstract used for key word
searching
Repeat key phrases
Concise
Catchy
Attention-grabbing
Introduction
Mention key facts and relevant published
literature
Note important issues of background and/or
technique
Place your work in the context of previous
work
 Where are the (important) gaps in knowledge
 How will your work fill them
Hypothesise, and explain how you will test the
hypothesis
State aims of the work clearly
Methods
Describe methods and equipment (with
justification, where appropriate)
Mention manufacturers and locations
Cite previously published methods where
possible
Describe experimental design
Describe statistical analysis methods
Results
 Describe the data clearly – readers will be less familiar
with material than you
 Think carefully about use of tables and figures




Which?
Which type?
Use same symbols to represent same features
Include standard errors or significant differences, where
appropriate
 Describe statistical analysis
 Describe data critically, objectively and dispassionately
 Always remember the aims of the study
 Avoid jargon and slang
Discussion
What do the results mean in relation to the
question you set out to address and the aims of
the study?
 Did the work fill a gap?
 Did the results provide evidence supporting, or
rejecting hypothesis?
Mention caveats – critically assess results,
pitfalls, biases
Compare results with those published
What are the implications of your results and the
conclusions you’ve drawn?
Highlight the novelty of your findings
Editorial process
Authors
Submit
paper
FEMS Manuscript Central – submission
FEMS Manuscript Central – title
FEMS Manuscript Central – attributes
FEMS Manuscript Central – authors
FEMS Manuscript Central – reviewers
FEMS Manuscript Central – details
FEMS Manuscript Central – upload
FEMS Manuscript Central – review
Editorial process
Submit
paper
Authors
Revise
Authors
Publication
Editorial
office
Editor
Reject
Reviewers
On-line
publication
Chief
Editor
Proof
check
Accept
Publisher
Dealing with revision
 Be humble, polite and objective
 Do not assume the reviewers and editor are:





Stupid
Wrong
Biased
Competitors
Enemies
 Do not take comments personally
 Do not try to guess who reviewers were
 Do not insult reviewers or editor
 Address all points made by reviewers clearly
 Track changes
 Challenge points if justified
Dealing with rejection
 Be humble, polite and objective
 Do not assume the reviewers and editor are:





Stupid
Wrong
Biased
Competitors
Enemies
 Do not take comments personally
 Do not try to guess who reviewers were
 Do not insult reviewers or editor
 Wait 24 hours
 Challenge points if justified
Trends
Increased demands on speed to first
decision
Increasing volume of submissions
Increased focus on quality
Increasing level of reject without review
Increase level of reject
Impact factor
Digital form of increasing importance
Wiley-Blackwell
Journal author services
Tracking performance
Increased information for authors on their
papers
Marketing and dissemination
Links with indexing and abstracting services e.g.
PubMed
Retrievability by search engines e.g. Google,
Academic Search
Publicity of individual articles