What makes a plant science manuscript successful for publication?

被引:4
|
作者
Setter, Timothy L. [1 ]
Munns, Rana [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Stefanova, Katia [5 ,6 ]
Shabala, Sergey [7 ]
机构
[1] Agr & Environm Consultant, POB 305, Bull Creek, WA 6149, Australia
[2] Univ Western Australia, ARC Ctr Excellence Plant Energy Biol, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
[3] Univ Western Australia, Sch Agr & Environm, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
[4] CSIRO Agr & Food, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
[5] Univ Western Australia, Inst Agr, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
[6] Curtin Univ, SAGI West, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
[7] Univ Tasmania, Tasmanian Inst Agr, Private Bag 54, Hobart, Tas 7001, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
experimental design; manuscripts; publishing; scientific writing; statistical analysis;
D O I
10.1071/FP20124
中图分类号
Q94 [植物学];
学科分类号
071001 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1138 / 1146
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] What Makes a Link Successful on Wikipedia?
    Dimitrov, Dimitar
    Singer, Philipp
    Lemmerich, Florian
    Strohmaier, Markus
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 26TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WORLD WIDE WEB (WWW'17), 2017, : 917 - 926
  • [42] WHAT MAKES SCIENCE NEWS
    RENSBERGER, B
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 1992, 204 : 56 - IEC
  • [43] WHAT MAKES SCIENCE HARD
    TOBIAS, S
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION, 1991, 55 (04) : 378 - 382
  • [44] What makes for sound science?
    Fabrizio Costa
    Grant Cramer
    E. Jean Finnegan
    BMC Plant Biology, 17
  • [45] WHAT MAKES SCIENCE HARD
    LAGOWSKI, JJ
    JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION, 1986, 63 (09) : 737 - 737
  • [46] What makes for sound science?
    Costa, Fabrizio
    Cramer, Grant
    Finnegan, E. Jean
    BMC PLANT BIOLOGY, 2017, 17
  • [47] What makes a good article? Generating an insightful manuscript
    Lee, Nick
    Greenley, Gordon
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 2009, 43 (5-6) : 577 - 582
  • [48] What Makes a Manuscript Holistic? Revisited and Still Relevant
    Cowling, W. Richard, III
    JOURNAL OF HOLISTIC NURSING, 2015, 33 (03) : 180 - 181
  • [49] Assassin or Zealot: What Makes a Good Manuscript Review?
    Merrill, Evelyn
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 2014, 78 (07): : 1129 - 1130
  • [50] Uncemented science at its best! What makes a paper successful, meaning in this case much cited?
    Lubbeke, Anne
    ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA, 2020, 91 (03) : 228 - 229