How authors can maximise the chance of manuscript acceptance and article visibility

Learned Publishing

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 28-31

  Kalwij, Jesse M ^a   Smit, Christian ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872017572     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20130106     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Fox, J. and Petchey, O.L. 2010. Pubcreds: fixing the peer review process by "privatizing" the reviewer commons. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 91(3): 325-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623-91.3.325
2. Ling, F. 2011. Improving peer review: increasing reviewer participation. Learned Publishing, 24(3): 231-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20110311
3. Primack, R.B. 2009. Why did we reject your paper? Biological Conservation, 142(8): 1559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.027
4. Pärtel, M., Chiarucci, A., Díaz, S., and Wilson, J.B. 2010. The nature of vegetation science. Journal of Vegetation Science, 21(1): 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01159.x
5. Neff, B.D. and Olden, J.D. 2010. Not so fast: inflation in impact factors contributes to apparent improve-ments in journal quality. BioScience, 60(6): 455-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.6.9
6. Smit, C. 2006. Peer review: time for a change? BioScience, 56(9): 712-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[712:PRTFAC]2.0.CO;2
7. Nicholas, D., Jamali, H.R., and Rowlands, I. 2006. On the tips of their tongues: authors and their views on scholarly publishing. Learned Publishing, 19(3): 193-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315106777877494
8. Carmi, R. and Koch, C. 2007. Improving peer review with CARMA. Learned Publishing, 20(3): 173-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315107X204067
9. Souder, L. 2011. The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24(1): 55-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20110109
10. Ball, P. 2007. Achievement index climbs the ranks. Nature, 448(7155): 737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/448737a
11. Krauss, J. 2007. Journal self-citation rates in eco-logical sciences. Scientometrics, 73(1): 79-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1727-7
12. Hirsch, J.E. 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46): 16569-16572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
13. Neff, B.D. and Olden, J.D. 2006. Is peer review a game of chance? BioScience, 56(4): 333-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333:IPRAGO]2.0.CO;2
14. Aubrey, D.P. and Holyoak, M. 2010. Targeting journals and covering letters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(3): 161-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-8.3.161
15. Cassey, P. and Blackburn, T.M. 2003. Publication rejec-tion among ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(8): 375-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0234:PARASE]2.0.CO;2
16. DeBehnke, D.J., Kline, J.A., and Shih, R.D. 2001. Research fundamentals: choosing an appropriate jour-nal, manuscript preparation, and interactions with editors. Academic Emergency Medicine, 8(8): 844-850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb00219.x
17. McAllister, R.R.J., Izquierdo, L.R., Janssen, M.A., and Smith, D.M.S. 2009. Research impact within the inter-national arid literature: an Australian perspective based on network theory. Journal of Arid Environments, 73(9): 862-871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.03.014
18. Opatrný, T. 2008. Playing the system to give low-impact journal more clout. Nature, 455(7210): 167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/455167b
19. Strader, C.R. 2009. Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings: implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations. Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(4): 243-250, http://alcts.metapress.com/content/t0364j32174n0h82/
20. Hopfensperger, K., Soykan, C., Lookingbill, T., and Budden, A.E. 2008. The quest for an ecological postdoc. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(1): 49-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2008)6[49:TQFAEP]2.0.CO;2
21. Martinez, E.D., Botos, J., Dohoney, K.M., Geiman, T.M., Kolla, S.S., Olivera, A., Qiu, Y., Rayasam, G.V., Stavreva, D.A., and Cohen-Fix, O. 2007. Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal inves-tigator transition. EMBO Reports, 8(11): 977-981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401110
22. Leimu, R., Lortie, C.J., Aarssen, L., Budden, A.E., Koricheva, J., and Tregenza, T. 2008. Does it pay to have a 'bigwig' as a co-author? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(8): 410-411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2008)6[410:DIPTHA]2.0.CO;2
23. Weltzin, J.F., Belote, R.T., Williams, L.T., Keller, J.K., and Engel, E.C. 2006. Authorship in ecology: attri-bution, accountability, and responsibility. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(8): 435-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[435:AIEAAA]2.0.CO;2
24. Albert, T. and Wager, E. How to handle authorship dis-putes: a guide for new researchers. The COPE Report 2003: annual report of the Committee on Publication Ethics. London, BMJ Books, 2004, pp. 32-34, http://www.publi-cationethics.org.uk (accessed 15 October 2012).
25. Leimu, R. and Koricheva, J. 2005. What deter-mines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(1): 28-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010