What makes a plant science manuscript successful for publication?
Timothy L. Setter
A G , Rana Munns B C , Katia Stefanova D E and Sergey Shabala F
A Agricultural and Environmental Consultant, PO Box 305, Bull Creek, WA 6149, Australia.
B ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, and School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
C CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
D Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
E SAGI West, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia.
F Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 54, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
G Corresponding author. Email: timsetter@bigpond.com
Functional Plant Biology 47(12) 1138-1146 https://doi.org/10.1071/FP20124
Submitted: 30 April 2020 Accepted: 26 June 2020 Published: 22 July 2020
Journal compilation © CSIRO 2020 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Dissemination of new knowledge is arguably the most critical component of the academic activity. In this context, scientific publishing is a pinnacle of any research work. Although the scientific content has always been the primary measure of a paper’s impact, by itself it may not always be sufficient for maximum impact. Good scientific writing and ability to meet priority characteristics of the target journal are essential, and inability to meet appropriate standards may jeopardise the chances for dissemination of results. This paper analyses the key features necessary for successfully publishing scientific research manuscripts. Conclusions are validated by a survey of 22 international scientific journals in agriculture and plant biology whose editors-in-chief have provided current data on key features related to manuscript acceptance or rejection. The top priorities for manuscript rejection by scientific journals in agriculture and plant biology are: (1) lack of sufficient novelty; (2) flaws in methods or data interpretation; (3) inadequate data analyses; and (4) poor critical scientific thinking. The inability to meet these requirements may result in rejection of even the best set of data. Recommendations are made for critical thinking and integration of good scientific writing with quality research. These recommendations will improve the quality of manuscripts submitted for publication to scientific journals and hence improve their likelihood of acceptance.
Additional keywords: experimental design, manuscripts, publishing, scientific writing, statistical analysis.
References
Barnes C (2015) The use of altmetrics as a tool for measuring research impact. Australian Academic and Research Libraries 46, 121–134.| The use of altmetrics as a tool for measuring research impact.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barrass R (1978) Scientists must write. A guide to better writing for scientists, engineers and students. (Chapman & Hall Publishers: London, UK)
Gastel B, Day RA (2016) ‘How to write and publish a scientific paper,’ 8th edn. (Greenwood: Santa Barbara, CA, USA)
Greenway H, Gibbs J, Atwell BJ, Turner DW (2020) Using thought experiments to strengthen critical thinking at universities. Feature essay 3.1 in ‘Water movement in plants’. In ‘Plants in action,’ 2nd edn. (Eds B Choat, R Munns) (Australian Society of Plant Scientists) Available at https://www.asps.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Final-of-Feature-Essay-3.2-08062030282.pdf [Verified 1 July 2020]
Harmon JE, Gross AG (2007) ‘The scientific literature. A guided tour.’ (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA)
Heard SB (2016) ‘The scientist’s guide to writing. How to write more easily and effectively throughout your scientific career.’ (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA)
JIF (2018) Journal impact factor. Available at https://apps/clarivate.com/mjl-beta/search-results [Verified 25 April 2020]
Lindsay D (2011) ‘Scientific writing = thinking in words.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic., Australia)
SJR (2018) SJR: Scientific Journal Rankings – Scimago. Available at https://scimagojr.com>journalrank.php [Verified 1 July 2020]
Tananbaum G (2013) Article-level metrics. Available at www.sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/sparc-alm-primer.pdf [Verified 1 July 2020]
University of Leeds (2019) ‘Writing for science subjects: 10 characteristics of scientific writing.’ Available at https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/sta/skills-scientific-writing-uni-of-leeds.pdf [Verified 1 July 2020]
University of Leicester (2009) Writing for science. Student learning development. Available at https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/all-resources/study-guides-pdfs/writing-skills-pdfs/writing-for-science-v1.0.pdf [Verified 1 July 2020]
Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA’s statement on P-values: context, process, and purpose The American Statistician 70, 129–133.
| The ASA’s statement on P-values: context, process, and purposeCrossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
