Mastering the scientific peer review process:tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Are you a student at a higher institution or an early-career researcher who is striving to understand and master the peer review process so to increase the odds of getting a paper published in the Journal of Forestry Research or another reputable,peer-reviewed,scientific journal?In this paper,a young,senior editor provides a handbook of the peer review process based on his decadal experience in scientific publishing.He covers major information you need to know during the entire process,from selecting journals to completing the proofing of your accepted paper.He introduces key points for consideration,such as avoidance of predatory journals,dubious research practices and ethics,interaction with peers,reviewers,and editors,and the pursuit of aretê.Finally,he points out some common statistical errors and misconceptions,such as P hacking and incorrect effect size inference.He hopes that this paper will enhance your understanding and knowledge of the peer-review process.

Six statistical issues in scientific writing that might lead to rejection of a manuscript

Communication plays an important role in advancing scientific fields and disciplines,defining what knowledge is made accessible to the public,and guiding policymaking and regulation of public authorities for the benefit of the environment and society.Hence,what is finally published is of great importance for scientific advancement,social development,environmental and public health,and economic agendas.In recognition of these,the goal of a researcher is to communicate research findings to the scientific community and ultimately,to the public.However,this may often be challenging due to competition for publication space,although to a lesser extent nowadays that online-only publications have expanded.This editorial introduces six statistics-related issues in scientific writing that you should be aware of.These issues can lead to desk rejection or rejection following a peer review,but even if papers containing such issues are published,they may prevent cumulative science,undermine scientific advancement,mislead the public,and result in incorrect or weak policies and regulations.Therefore,addressing these issues from the early research stages can facilitate scientific advancement and prevent rejection of your paper.

How to write an appealing scientific story

One of the fundamental aspects of the scientific ideal is to disseminate important findings and communicate with peers fairly, freely and openly. After you＇ve sweated for weeks, months or even years in the lab, fretted each night about experimental progress, and finally achieved amazing western blot films, brain slices and cellular images or discovered novel rat behavior, the next thing to do is to announce to the world that you＇ve found SOMETHING! However, how can you ensure your voice does not drown and vanish in the current flood of global information？ An effective and permanent way is to publish your article in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. Although the procedure for preparing a scientific manuscript can be complicated, there are a few tips we would like to share with you before you start writing.

The Manuscript Drafting Journey of a NNE Scientific Writer： An Ethnographic Case Study

Given that there is a dramatic increase of the English manuscript submission rate of doctoral students, yet little research effort is devoted to this line, the author investigates the manuscript drafting strategies of one Taiwan Residents hydraulics major doctoral student, who was required by his department to have international publications for the qualifications for the degree. The study employs Ken Hyland＇s social constructionist approach to disciplinary writing and follows an ethnographic research method for the collection/analysis of the data. The results show that the participating student, in order to establish a professional persona for the heightening of manuscript acceptance possibility, followed some prescribed procedures such as citing higher potential journals, adhering to the expert model, and formulizing the research procedures/results. A conflicting rhetorical structure of literature review writing and the favor of doing applied research for publication purpose were also found in his writing. The author addresses the implicated meanings of these writing attempts and concludes that a ＂short-sighted operation＂ of writing attempts may undermine the value of a research. This study contributes to international scientific research communities＇ understanding of this group of writers＇ disciplinary knowledge construction and writing for publication.

Finding your scientific story by writing backwards

To succeed,a scientist must write well.Substantial guidance exists on writing papers that follow the classic Introduction,Methods,Results,and Discussion(IMRaD)structure.Here,we fill a critical gap in this pedagogical canon.We offer guidance on developing a good scientific story.This valuable—yet often poorly achieved—skill can increase the impact of a study and its likelihood of acceptance.A scientific story goes beyond presenting information.It is a cohesive narrative that engages the reader by presenting and solving a problem,with a beginning,middle,and end.To create this narrative structure,we urge writers to consider starting at the end of their study,starting with writing their main conclusions,which provide the basis of the Discussion,and then work backwards:Results→Methods→refine the Discussion→Introduction→Abstract→Title.In this brief and informal editorial,we offer guidance to a wide audience,ranging from upper-level undergraduates(who have just conducted their first research project)to senior scientists(who may benefit from re-thinking their approach to writing).To do so,we provide specific instruction,examples,and a guide to the literature on how to“write backwards”,linking scientific storytelling to the IMRaD structure.