peer-reviewed process tensions. -...

Peer-reviewed process tensions.

Dr. Elaine van Ommen KloekeElsevier Agronomy & Remote Sensing

En consecuencia…

Emilio Chuvieco - Universidad de Alcalá


Articles Published vs. Impact Factors, 2013Im

pact

Fac

tor

RSE

TGARSISPRS JSTARSOpen RSJ

IntJApplEarthObs&RSPERS

GeoSci&RSLettersGISsci&RS RS Letters IJRS

CJRSEurJRS

GeoCarto

J.ApplRS

JInRSSoc

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of Papers

Marvin Bauer, Former EiC Remote Sensing of Environment

El modelo de escrito científico: IMRAD

• Introducción / Métodos / Resultados / Discusión.• ¿Qué quiere estudiarse? Introducción • ¿Cómo se ha estudiado? Métodos• ¿Qué se ha obtenido? Resultados• ¿Qué implican esos resultados? Discusión.


Ethical issues• Publish poor papers: Open-access journals.• Sending same paper to different journals:• One journal at a time (it saves your time, but increases others).• One journal after another (take proper note of evaluators’ comments).

• Creating auto-reviewers.• Ghost/gift/exchange authorship• Inventing/manipulating results.• Publishing several times the same paper.• Plagiarism.

Tipos de plagiarismo

Emilio Chuvieco - Universidad de AlcaláDr. Elaine van Ommen KloekeElsevier Agronomy & Remote Sensing

The worst case so far!!


Consequences of Plagiarism• Potential consequences can vary according to the severity of the

misconduct and the standards set by the journal editors, institutions and funding bodies.• Before the publication:• Immediate Rejection.

• After the publication:• Written letters of concern and reprimand.• Article retractions• Some form of disciplinary action on the part of the researcher’s institute or

funding body.

Tipos de revistas científicasPor suscripción(paga el lector)

Open Access (paga el autor)

• El negocio está en publicarcalidad.• Los artículos están menos

disponibles (y serán másdifíciles de citar).• Si no se citan no sube el

limpacto.• Pueden ser OA pagando.

• El negocio está en publicar: menor control editorial.• Los artículos están más

disponibles: más fácilmentecitables.• Más disponibles para países

en desarrollo.

En los H2020 todos tienen que ser Open access

¿En qué revista?• Seleccionar en función del cuál es el punto de innovación

principal:• Perfil de la audiencia interesada en ese resultado.• Revista con adecuado impacto a la relevancia del artículo.

• Indicadores de calidad.• Índice de impacto (CI) de la revista:• Posición dentro del rango de las revistas del campo (tercio superior /

medio / inferior).• Otros indicadores de calidad: número de citas (citas / año).

Before writing the paper...• Have you done something new and interesting?• Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?• Have you checked the latest results in the field?• Have you verified the findings?• Did you perform the appropriate controls?• Do your results fit - is the story complete?


Focus• Thank you for submitting your paper to Remote Sensing of

Environment; we appreciate your interest in publishing it in RSE. However, the main scope of the paper and the input datasets are not appropriate for RSE as the main focus of your work is not the analysis of remote sensing images, and therefore we recommend you to submit it to another journal with a closer orientation to your main topic of interest. With the large number of papers we are receiving we must be very selective and are unable to fully review all submitted papers.

Innovation• Clearly show that your paper merits publication:• New methods.• New interpretation of data.• New scopes-mixes…

• “Simple comparison of a decision tree classifier to maximum likelihood does not sufficiently add to the remote sensing literature”.• Regression models without physical understanding.• Are you aware of recent literature?

Structure• 1 Introduction• 2 Study Site and Materials (have as many sub-headings as needed to

introduce all the datasets used, their pre-processing)• 3 Methods• 3.1 Objective 1 (4-8 words to summarise objective 1)• 3.2 Objective 2 (4-8 words to summarise objective 2)• 3.3 Objective 3 (and so on)

• 4 Results• 4.1 Objective 1 (same words as 4.1)• 4.2 Objective 2 (same words as 4.1 and so on)• 4.3 Objective 3

• 5 Discussion• 5.1 Objective 1• 5.2 Objective 2• 5.3 Objective 3

• 6 Conclusion

Formal issues• Follow strictly the author guide. Length.• Be sure that ALL references are included.• Be sure that ALL quotations are exact (the original authors

support what you support).• Be consistent in your terms, once they are clearly identified.• Use IS units (m2 better than ha).

Language• Good papers are rejected for poor grammar.• Use native English speaker if you are not confident:• Check technical terms.

• Use scientific style: • Short sentences.• Be consistent with verb tense.• Impersonal style is more common.• Avoid using loose statements ('seems to be due to').

• Avoid use of many acronyms and indicate what ALL mean.

Figures• Include legends, scale in maps. Name axis in graphs. • Useful workflow figure:• “It would be extremely beneficial for readers follow text because the

methodology is new and involves multiple steps. The figure would also help visually describe how multiple remotely sensed data are integrated”.

Paper content• Cover letter• Tiltle• Highlights.• Abstract.• Keywords• Introduction: relevance and literature review• Objectives• Methods.• Results.• Discussion

Título• Que sea descriptivo del contenido:• ¿Cuál es el mensaje principal?

• No excesivamente largo:• Para eso está el resumen.

• Adaptado al medio:• Evitar títulos sensacionalistas en revistas científicas (ojo a las preguntas).• Indicativo (qué has hecho?) mejor que informativo (de qué va?).

• A veces se solicita también un título abreviado (para el encabezado).

Resumen• Clave para que el artículo se lea (el 95% de los que buscan en

internet sólo leen el abstract).• Definir con precisión:• Qué se pretendía.• Qué se consiguió.• Cómo.• Resultados más relevantes.• Limitaciones.

• Algunas revistas piden abstract estructurados.

Introduction• Provide a brief context to the readers:• Why this topic is relevant?• Why this topic is relevant for this journal?

• Address the problem• Literature review:• It is critical!!!• Demonstrate that you know well what others did.• Literature review is not a collection of citations!! Interpret, summarize,

relate to…

Introduction• “Significantly reduce the Introduction and focus on the

introductory topics that are directly related to your study. The review of other classification systems is interesting but tangential to your study”.• “the present state of the art is weak: Nothing is said about

previous works addressing the multi-track approach. How novel is this methodology?”• “I am concerned that all the relevant (including recent papers)

previous international scientific literature on your topic has not been reviewed in sufficient depth. It is essential (I mean ESSENTIAL) that you place your objective/aims and results into a broader scientific context”

Objectives• Clearly identify what you try to achieve:• 1 – 2 objectives, no more.

• Why are they relevant.• Relate them to the state of the art:• Limitations – problems that your work will address / improve.

Explanation of Methods• Describe how the problem was studied.• Include description of input data.• Include detailed information of how you did whatever you did.Other researchers should be able to reproduce your work using the method description• Include brief description of critical techniques even if they are

not yours (the reviewer does not need to read other papers to understand yours!).• References to commercial programs are generally not required:

explain the algorithms.• Include validation strategies.

Explanation of Methods• “While the methods are explained in detail in some places, this

isn't consistent, and I couldn't find details on how you formed your decision trees”.• “This section needs improvement - the authors should focus on

presenting the methods and the thresholds used in the study without digressing. Describe your methods, explain all terms, and list the specific tests used”.• “Methods poorly documented”• “Further, the justification for using so many texture and spectral

variables in the NN algorithm is not presented (it reads like a fishing expedition)” (too many topics implie confusion).

Results• Be clear & easy to understand.• Link to objectives.• Highlight the main findings:• But not repeat whatever is evident in the tables!

• Feature unexpected findings• Provide proper statistical interpretation.• Include clear illustrations & figures:• Wherever they are quoted.• At the end of the paper.

Results• “The presentation of the results is very weak (figures and text),

the author should at least enter into more details to explain the results if there were some interesting things to show regarding the comparison of methods”.• “the results section is written poorly; the authors simply point

the reader to tables, rather than synthesizing and presenting the relevant results”.

Accuracy assessment• Is critical in any research paper.• Statistically design sample:• Guided sampling is not adequate, not probabilistic.

• Adequate use of validation metrics.• Sometimes simulated images are very useful:• “I am surprised that they did not use simulated gap image to evaluate the

performance of their method. They claim "our recovery results can't be tested by simulated SLC-off images", but I do not know why did not do it.

Discussion• Most important section!• What do your results mean / imply?• Are your conclusions well grounded in your results?

• Demonstrate why your paper goes beyond the current knowledge• Align discussion to results AND to objectives.• What is the ‘bigger picture’?• Go beyond your results: Compare your own results with published work• Show applicability to other sites-conditions…

Discussion• “The discussion section contains very little new information and

only one citation. Here, the authors need to clearly show how their findings fit into the existing literature”.• “There is no real discussion to compare results with

bibliography”.• The Discussion section is where you 'give back' to the

international readership of RSE and place your findings into a broader scientific context. It is where you allow others to learn from your analysis. As such the Discussion section should contain many references and dovetail back to the issues raised in the Introduction section.

Conclusion• Should be clear & concise• Provide justification for the work• Advance the present state of knowledge• Provide suggested future experiments• Quantitative guidance on what was achieved is important to

highlight in conclusions.• “Please re-write conclusions. In the present form it is sounding

like literature review all over again”.

Acknowledgements• Advisors• Financial Supporters & Funders• Proofreaders & Typists• Suppliers who may have donated materials

References• Do not use too many references (some limit to 40/50)• Always ensure you have fully absorbed material you are

referencing• Use published work – not grey literature• Avoid excessive self-citations• Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same

region/country• Conform strictly to the style in the guide for authors (Endnote

/Procite styles).

Sistemas de gestión editorial• Se utilizan para facilitar la tramitación de los artículos.• Casi todas las revistas prestigiosas cuentan con algún sistema

propietario: Elsevier, Springer…• Hay algunos de dominio público: OJS, Open Journal System.

http://ees.elsevier.com/rse/default.asp


Peer-reviewed process

Revisor1

Associate Editor

Recomendation

Revisor2Minor revision

Editing process

RejectSubmit paper

Editor in chief

Major revision

AceptanceRevisor 3

Screeningprocess

Proof correction


How reviewers are selected• Very difficult to get good reviewers! Critical for the journal

success!!• 1-2 suggested by the author (if they are solid enough).• Different regional origins.• Recent authors of that topic:• Journal database.• External databases: JCR, Scopus, Google scholar…

• Take into account recent reviews (avoid overloading).

Criterios para evaluar un artículo

• Contenido científico:• Originalidad y relevancia del tema.• Objetivos bien presentados.• Diseño experimental sólido.• Resultados bien interpretados.• Conclusiones siguen a los resultados.

• Redacción:• Redacción adecuada.• Redacción acorde con lo que se expone.• Sin errores matemáticos o lógicos.

Editor decisions• Desk-rejection by EiC, based on his/her own review or AE

evaluation.• Decision after reviewers’ and EiC opinions:• Accept as it is: very rare in my experience• Minor revision• Major revision. OK if the reviews are constructive and you make rigorous

changes.• Subject not appropriate: unfocused.• Reject and resubmit is becoming more common: there is potential for the

paper, but not in its current form.• Reject (not always the end of the world).

Editor decisions• This is not a democracy.• Example:• 4 reviews received, 3 minor revision, 1 reject• The editor may reject the paper if the fourth reviewer found a fundamental

flaw that the other reviewers failed to notice• Or the editor may make a revise decision

• The interpretation of what constitutes minor and major revision can vary considerably among reviewers and editors.• Example:• Subject not appropriate: different topic / low quality for RSE

Submitting a new version• Respond to all points - even if you disagree• Write a polite, scientifically solid rebuttal: avoid personal

arguments.• State specifically what changes you have made to address the

reviewers’ comments, mentioning the page and line numbers where changes have been made• Perform additional calculations, computations, or experiments if

required; these usually serve to make the final paper stronger• Revision is not guarantee of approval!

When the paper is rejected• Complain to the editor, including only scientific arguments.• If evidences of bad reviewing are found, the editor usually

decides to send it to other reviewers.• The author may decide to modify the paper and submit it again

to the same (unusual) or another journal.• Some authors decide to submit the paper without changes:• It is a publication: always our name will be associated to the paper

contents.

Artículos rechazados

Length of the whole process• Depends on the journal quality.• Desk-rejection: 1-2 weeks.• Reviewing process: 4-8 weeks.• Resubmission (it depends on the author)• Publication:• Online publication: immediate.• Paper publication (if any): 2-10 weeks.

peer-reviewed process tensions. -...

Documents