<!DOCTYPE html>

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="Scholarly Publication">

	<head>
		<title>Submission and review</title>
		<meta charset="UTF-8">
		<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
		<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

		<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/project.min.css">
		<link id="basic-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print.min.css" disabled>
		<link id="summary-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print_interactive.min.css">
	<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/SCORM_12_APIWrapper.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/courseFunctions.js"></script>
</head>

	<body onLoad="javascript:Initialize();" onUnload="javascript:Terminate();">
	  
		<div id="app" v-cloak>
			<base-container
				screen-id="spu_1_70"
				current-module = "Scholarly Publication"
				page-title = "Submission and review"
				screen-time = "4"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
						
							<p>Once a manuscript has been drafted, checked for errors, and signed off by all authors, it is ready for submission, review, and, if needed, revision. The review process provides an opportunity to improve your manuscript. However, this important stage can also be adversely affected by a number of irresponsible practices, which you should take care to avoid.</p>
							
							<h3>Submission checklist</h3>
							
							<p>When you submit a manuscript for publication, it should be complete and carefully checked for errors. Along with the manuscript, authors are sometimes asked to provide additional information. The following two lists summarise the information that you should provide, as well as some practices to avoid.</p>
							
							<interactive-text>
								<img id="spu_1_70_img1" class="img-responsive" src="../images/page_images/course_specific/spu_1_70_img1.png" alt="" />
							</interactive-text>
							<accessible-text>
								<text-block>
									<p>You <strong>should</strong> confirm that:</p>
									<ul>
										<li>The research reported is original and has not been published before</li>
										<li>All of the co-authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript</li>
										<li>Each of the co-authors played a role in the research</li>
										<li>There is a list of actual and perceived conflicts of interest for all co-authors</li>
										<li>There is a list of suggested peer reviewers</li>
										<li>There is a list of peer reviewers who, for whatever reason, should not be asked to review the manuscript</li>
										<li>You can provide any additional supporting data or information needed to review the manuscript.</li>
									</ul>
									<p>You <strong>should not</strong>:</p>
									<ul>
										<li>Submit the same material as original research to two different journals or books at the same time (duplicated publication)</li>
										<li>Create sham peer reviewers under your email address so you can review your own manuscript</li>
										<li>Fail to report conflicts of interest that could influence your research.</li>
									</ul>
								</text-block>
							</accessible-text>
							
							<p>The peer review stage is your last chance prior to publication to discover weaknesses in your research. Make the most of this opportunity by providing all of the information someone needs to review what you have done and make suggestions for improving it.</p>
							
							<h3>Responding to peer review comments</h3>
							
							<p>Once a manuscript has been submitted and deemed suitable for publication, the editor circulates it for peer review. Then, based on the peer review comments, the editor can do any of the following:</p>
							
							<ol>
								<li>Accept the manuscript for publication without any further changes</li>
								<li>Reject the manuscript without any option to make corrections or revisions</li>
								<li>Delay a decision pending revisions to be made in line with the comments and suggested changes.</li>
							</ol>
							
							<p>Your next steps after outcomes '1' and '2' are fairly obvious. Either:</p>
							
							<ol>
								<li>Acknowledge the acceptance and celebrate (remembering to deposit a copy of the paper with your university's library/repository, if required)</li>
								<li>Make revisions based on any comments received and submit to the next journal on your list. </li>
							</ol>
							
							<p>With response '3', however, you might find yourself in the position of having to make some difficult decisions that could test your sense of responsible conduct. Why might this be the case? The simple answer is that authors are sometimes asked to make changes that are not appropriate.</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Consider each of the suggestions from an editor for how a manuscript should be revised, and classify them according to whether you would or would not make the change. If your choice does not agree with general practice, you will be prompted to drag it into the other column.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>In the next activity, consider each of the suggestions from an editor for how a manuscript should be revised, and decide whether you would or would not make the change. Then continue on for feedback.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<classification>
								<categories>
									<!-- column 1 -->
									<category>
										<category-heading><p>Would make the change</p></category-heading>
										<category-answers>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Provide a more complete description of methods used</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Add more complete description of methods</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Provide an open-access source for information mentioned in your manuscript</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Provide source information</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Correct an error in one of your calculations</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Correct calculation error</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Rephrase a conclusion so that it is more understandable</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Rephrase conclusion to be clearer</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Take into consideration prior research you missed in your literature review</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Take prior research into account</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
										</category-answers> 
									</category>
									<!-- column 2 -->
									<category>
										<category-heading><p>Would not make the change</p></category-heading>
										<category-answers>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Add references to other articles published in the journal reviewing your manuscript even though they are not directly relevant to your research</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Add references to irrelevant articles</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Shorten your methods section by dropping some of the information needed to replicate your work</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Drop information from methods</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Overstate the importance of your conclusions when you summarise them in your abstract to encourage more people to read your publication</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Overstate the importance of your conclusions</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Agree to a request from a high Impact Factor journal to publish a summary of your work rather than the complete description presented in your manuscript</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Agree to summarise work for a high Impact Factor journal</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
											<classify-item>
												<p>Drop a conclusion that challenges the views of a leading figure in your field of research</p>
												<classify-item-short><p>Drop a conclusion to match views</p></classify-item-short>
											</classify-item>
										</category-answers> 
									</category>
								</categories>
							</classification>
							<!-- feedback -->
							<feedback-reveal>
								<p>The changes listed in the "Would make the change" column are reasonable requests intended to improve your manuscript. The changes listed in the "Would not make the change" column could be unreasonable and irresponsible for a variety of reasons:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Journals have been known to ask authors to add irrelevant references to increase the journal's Impact Factor. This is not an honest practice and it should not be followed</li>
									<li>Omitting crucial information about your method is not responsible and may prevent others from reproducing your research. If the editor insists, you should make sure the details of your method are easily accessible in some other way (e.g. in online supplementary information)</li>
									<li>Overstating (also called 'hyping') the importance of your conclusions is dishonest and irresponsible</li>
									<li>While there is nothing wrong with publishing a summary of your research in a high Impact Factor journal, doing so could make it difficult to publish the full version of your research since it will no longer be original. Having a full account of your research published may be more important than publishing a summary in a high Impact Factor journal</li>
									<li>Your conclusions should be based on your results. In research, facts are generally more important than opinions, no matter who those opinions belong to.</li>
								</ul>
							</feedback-reveal>
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							
							<h3>Summary</h3>
							
							<p>If you took the time to write a first-rate research paper, submission and peer review should be a straightforward process. You are responsible for:</p>
							
							<ul>
								<li>Providing any additional material your editor or peer reviewers require</li>
								<li>Responding in a timely way to requests for changes.</li>
							</ul>
							
							<p>Do not get disheartened by rejection &ndash; papers are rejected for many reasons, and the rejection could be unrelated to the quality of your work. If your research is innovative and breaking new ground, it can take time to find a journal that will take a chance on your work, especially if you are a relatively new researcher.</p>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
				</page-container>
			</base-container>
		</div> <!-- END content wrapper -->
		
		<!-- scripts -->
		<script src="../js/vendor.min.js"></script>
		<script src="../js/vue-components.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			new Vue({
			  el: "#app",
			  data: {},
			  mounted: function () {
				var core = document.createElement('script');
				core.src = "../js/core.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(core);

				var project = document.createElement('script');
				project.src = "../js/project.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(project);
			  }
			});
		</script>

	</body>
</html>