Published in Writing Papers Written by mai 12 2017 0

Peer review is the system for evaluating the quality, validity, and relevance of scholarly research. The process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback from relevant experts which they can use to make improvements to their work, thus ensuring it is of the highest standard possible. Authors expect reviews to contain an honest and constructive appraisal, which is completed in a timely manner and provides feedback that is both clear and concise.

What is peer review?

Peer review, also known as refereeing, is a collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. The evaluation and critique generated from peer review provides authors with feedback to improve their work and, critically, allows the editor to assess the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal. The peer-review process does receive much criticism and is not without its limitations; however, it remains a widely recognized standard in terms of journal quality.

Why review?

  • To help authors improve their papers, applying your professional expertise to help others.
  • To assist in maintaining a good, rigorous peer-review process resulting in the publication of the best and brightest – you can have a part in championing the next key paper in your own field of interest.
  • To maintain awareness of the current research emerging within your subject area.
  • To build relationships with the editorial team of a journal and improve your academic and professional profile.
  • Although often anonymous, the review process can act as a conversation between author, reviewer, and editor as to how the paper can be improved to maximize its impact and further research in the field.
  • Help to draw attention to any gaps in references and make the author aware of any additional literature that may provide useful comparison, or clarification of an approach.
  • To gain a sense of prestige in being consulted as an expert.

What to consider before saying 'yes' to reviewing

Before agreeing to review for a journal, you should take note of the following:

  • What form of review does the journal operate? (single/blind/open)
  • How you will need to submit your review – for example, is there a structured form for reviewers to complete or will you be required to write free text?
  • Papers and correspondence sent to reviewers in the course of conducting peer review are to be dealt with as privileged confidential documents.
  • If a conflict of interest exists, you should make the editor aware of this as soon as possible.
  • Whether you are able to complete the level of review required by the editor in the allotted time – extensions can be provided or a brief report may suffice on some occasions. If you are struggling to meet the deadline, let the editor know, so they can inform the author if there is a delay.

Writing a review: a step-by-step guide

Research:

1. Investigate the journal’s content

  • Visit the journal homepage (on Taylor & Francis Online) to get a sense of the journal’s published content and house style. This will help you in deciding whether the paper being reviewed is suitable or not.
  • Refer to the Instructions for Authors to see if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal (e.g. length, scope, and presentation).
  • Complete the review questions or report form to indicate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the paper.
  • A referee may disagree with the author’s opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.
  • Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.

Writing your report:

2. Make an assessment

  • Complete the review questions or report form to indicate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the paper.
  • A referee may disagree with the author’s opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.
  • Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.

3. Answer key questions

The main factors you should provide advice on as a reviewer are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the readership of the journal.

Try to have the following questions in mind while you are reading the manuscript:

  • Is the submission original?
  • Is the research cutting edge or topical?
  • Does it help to expand or further research in this subject area?
  • Does it significantly build on (the author’s) previous work?
  • Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
  • Would you recommend that the author reconsider the paper for a related or alternative journal?
  • Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?
  • Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
  • Is there an abstract or brief summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section? Is the paper complete?
  • Is the submission in Standard English to aid the understanding of the reader? For non-native speakers, an English editing service may be useful (see our Author Services website for advice).
  • Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
  • Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
  • Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?

Other aspects to consider

Abstract – Has this been provided (if required)? Does it adequately summarize the key findings/approach of the paper?

Length – Reviewers are asked to consider whether the content of a paper is of sufficient interest to justify its length. Each paper should be of the shortest length required to contain all useful and relevant information, and no longer.

Originality – Is the work relevant and novel? Does it contain significant additional material to that already published?

Presentation – Is the writing style clear and appropriate to the readership? Are any tables or graphics clear to read and labeled appropriately?

References – Does the paper contain the appropriate referencing to provide adequate context for the present work?

4. Make a recommendation

Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. The specific decision types used by a journal may vary but the key decisions are:

  • Accept – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Minor revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
  • Major revision – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
  • Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

5. Provide detailed comments

  • These should be suitable for transmission to the authors: use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
  • If you have time, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
  • Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.
  • It is not the job of the reviewer to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.

Think about the following when compiling your feedback:

  • Does the paper make a significant contribution to contemporary [subject]?
  • Is the research likely to have an impact on [subject] practice or debate?
  • Does the paper present or expand upon novel or interesting ideas?
  • Is the paper likely to be of sufficient interest to be cited by other researchers?
  • Are the methods, analysis, and conclusions robust and to a high standard?
  • Is the paper well integrated and up to date with the existing body of literature?
  • Being critical whilst remaining sensitive to the author isn’t always easy and comments should be carefully constructed so that the author fully understands what actions they need to take to improve their paper. For example, generalized or vague statements should be avoided along with any negative comments which aren’t relevant or constructive.

See the “sample comments” section for examples on how to phrase your feedback.

Revised papers

When authors make revisions to their article in response to reviewer comments, they are asked to submit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to the reviewers. The revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer if possible, who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.

What if you are unable to review?

Sometimes you will be asked to review a paper when you do not have sufficient time available. In this situation, you should make the editorial office aware that you are unavailable as soon as possible. It is very helpful if you are able to recommend an alternative expert or someone whose opinion you trust.

If you are unable to complete your report on a paper in the agreed time-frame required by the journal, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that the refereeing procedure is not delayed.

Make the editors aware of any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the paper under review.

Sample comments

Please note that these are just examples of how you might provide feedback on an author’s work. Your review should, of course, always be tailored to the paper in question and the specific requirements of the journal and the editor.

Positive comments

  • The manuscript is well-written in an engaging and lively style.
  • The level is appropriate to our readership.
  • The subject is very important. It is currently something of a “hot topic,” and it is one to which the author(s) have made significant contributions.
  • This manuscript ticks all the boxes we normally have in mind for an X paper, and I have no hesitation in recommending that it be accepted for publication after a few typos and other minor details have been attended to.
  • Given the complexity involved, the author has produced a number of positive and welcome outcomes including the literature review which offers a useful overview of current research and policy and the resulting bibliography which provides a very useful resource for current practitioners.
  • This is a well-written article that does identify an important gap.

When constructive criticism is required

  • In the “Discussion” section I would have wished to see more information on…
  • Overall I do not think that this article contains enough robust data to evidence the statement made on page X, lines Y–Z.
  • I would strongly advise the author(s) of this paper to rewrite their introduction, analysis, and discussion to produce a more contextualized introduction to…
  • There is an interesting finding in this research about .... However, there is insufficient discussion of exactly what this finding means and what its implications are.
  • This discussion could be enlarged to explain…
  • The authors could strengthen the paper by…
  • The paper would be significantly improved with the addition of more details about…
  • The abstract is very lengthy and goes into detailed accounts that are best suited for the article’s main discussion sections. As such, it is suggested the section is reduced in size and that only the most important elements remain.
  • To make this paper publishable the author needs to respond to the following substantive points...

When linguistic alterations are required

  • This paper would benefit from some closer proof reading. It includes numerous linguistic errors (e.g. agreement of verbs) that at times make it difficult to follow. I would suggest that it may be useful to engage a professional English language editor following a restructure of the paper.
  • The paper is to benefit from making stylistic changes in the way it has been written to make a stronger, clearer, and more compelling argumentative case.
  • There are a few sentences that require rephrasing for clarity.

Additional reviewer resources:

Peer review section of our Author Services website: http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/review/peer.asp

ScholarOne Manuscripts user guidelines: http://mchelp.manuscriptcentral.com/gethelpnow/guides.htm

ScholarOne Manuscripts Optima integrates elements of ScholarOne Manuscripts with Web of ScienceTM and EndNote from Thomson Reuters to give a range of tools that help make the lives of reviewers easier when using the system: http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/scholarone-manuscripts-optima/

Source

Published in Writing Papers Written by janvier 14 2017 0

Reporting results in a scientific journal is a process common to researchers in all disciplines. However, many scientific papers fail to communicate research work effectively. Pitfalls include using complicated jargon, including unnecessary details, and writing for your highly specialized colleagues instead of a wider audience.

Effective research articles are interesting and useful to a broad audience, including scientists in other fields. This infographic presents tips to help you write papers people will want to read.

Source: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/infographic-tips-to-writing-better-science-papers

Published in Publishing Papers Written by janvier 14 2017 0

 

Writing for academic journals is a highly competitive activity, and it’s important to understand that there could be several reasons behind a rejection. Furthermore, the journal peer-review process is an essential element of publication because no writer could identify and address all potential issues with a manuscript.

1. Do not rush submitting your article for publication.

In my first article for Elsevier Connect – “Five secrets to surviving (and thriving in) a PhD program” – I emphasized that scholars should start writing during the early stages of your research or doctoral study career. This secret does not entail submitting your manuscript for publication the moment you have crafted its conclusion. Authors sometimes rely on the fact that they will always have an opportunity to address their work’s shortcomings after the feedback received from the journal editor and reviewers has identified them.

A proactive approach and attitude will reduce the chance of rejection and disappointment. In my opinion, a logical flow of activities dominates every research activity and should be followed for preparing a manuscript as well. Such activities include carefully re-reading your manuscript at different times and perhaps at different places. Re-reading is essential in the research field and helps identify the most common problems and shortcomings in the manuscript, which might otherwise be overlooked. Second, I find it very helpful to share my manuscripts with my colleagues and other researchers in my network and to request their feedback. In doing so, I highlight any sections of the manuscript that I would like reviewers to be absolutely clear on.

2. Select an appropriate publication outlet.

I also ask colleagues about the most appropriate journal to submit my manuscript to; finding the right journal for your article can dramatically improve the chances of acceptance and ensure it reaches your target audience.

Elsevier provides an innovative Journal Finder search facility on its website. Authors enter the article title, a brief abstract and the field of research to get a list of the most appropriate journals for their article. For a full discussion of how to select an appropriate journal see Knight and Steinbach (2008).

Less experienced scholars sometimes choose to submit their research work to two or more journals at the same time. Research ethics and policies of all scholarly journals suggest that authors should submit a manuscript to only one journal at a time. Doing otherwise can cause embarrassment and lead to copyright problems for the author, the university employer and the journals involved.

3. Read the aims and scope and author guidelines of your target journal carefully.

Once you have read and re-read your manuscript carefully several times, received feedback from your colleagues, and identified a target journal, the next important step is to read the aims and scope of the journals in your target research area. Doing so will improve the chances of having your manuscript accepted for publishing. Another important step is to download and absorb the author guidelines and ensure your manuscript conforms to them. Some publishers report that one paper in five does not follow the style and format requirements of the target journal, which might specify requirements for figures, tables and references.

Rejection can come at different times and in different formats. For instance, if your research objective is not in line with the aims and scope of the target journal, or if your manuscript is not structured and formatted according to the target journal layout, or if your manuscript does not have a reasonable chance of being able to satisfy the target journal’s publishing expectations, the manuscript can receive a desk rejection from the editor without being sent out for peer review. Desk rejections can be disheartening for authors, making them feel they have wasted valuable time and might even cause them to lose enthusiasm for their research topic. Sun and Linton (2014), Hierons (2016) and Craig (2010) offer useful discussions on the subject of “desk rejections.”

4. Make a good first impression with your title and abstract.

The title and abstract are incredibly important components of a manuscript as they are the first elements a journal editor sees. I have been fortunate to receive advice from editors and reviewers on my submissions, and feedback from many colleagues at academic conferences, and this is what I’ve learned:

  • The title should summarize the main theme of the article and reflect your contribution to the theory.
  • The abstract should be crafted carefully and encompass the aim and scope of the study; the key problem to be addressed and theory; the method used; the data set; key findings; limitations; and implications for theory and practice.

Dr. Angel Borja goes into detail about these components in “11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously.”

5. Have a professional editing firm copy-edit (not just proofread) your manuscript, including the main text, list of references, tables and figures.

The key characteristic of scientific writing is clarity. Before submitting a manuscript for publication, it is highly advisable to have a professional editing firm copy-edit your manuscript. An article submitted to a peer-reviewed journal will be scrutinized critically by the editorial board before it is selected for peer review. According to a statistic shared by Elsevier, between 30 percent and 50 percent of articles submitted to Elsevier journals are rejected before they even reach the peer-review stage, and one of the top reasons for rejection is poor language. A properly written, edited and presented text will be error free and understandable and will project a professional image that will help ensure your work is taken seriously in the world of publishing. On occasion, the major revisions conducted at the request of a reviewer will necessitate another round of editing.

Authors can facilitate the editing of their manuscripts by taking precautions at their end. These include proofreading their own manuscript for accuracy and wordiness (avoid unnecessary or normative descriptions like “it should be noted here” and “the authors believe) and sending it for editing only when it is complete in all respects and ready for publishing. Professional editing companies charge hefty fees, and it is simply not financially viable to have them conduct multiple rounds of editing on your article. Applications like the spelling and grammar checker in Microsoft Word or Grammarly are certainly worth applying to your article, but the benefits of proper editing are undeniable. For more on the difference between proofreading and editing, see the description in Elsevier’s WebShop.

6. Submit a cover letter with the manuscript.

Never underestimate the importance of a cover letter addressed to the editor or editor-in-chief of the target journal. Last year, I attended a conference in Boston. A “meet the editors” session revealed that many submissions do not include a covering letter, but the editors-in-chief present, who represented renewed and ISI-indexed Elsevier journals, argued that the cover letter gives authors an important opportunity to convince them that their research work is worth reviewing.

Accordingly, the content of the cover letter is also worth spending time on. Some inexperienced scholars paste the article’s abstract into their letter thinking it will be sufficient to make the case for publication; it is a practice best avoided. A good cover letter first outlines the main theme of the paper; second, argues the novelty of the paper; and third, justifies the relevance of the manuscript to the target journal. I would suggest limiting the cover letter to half a page. More importantly, peers and colleagues who read the article and provided feedback before the manuscript’s submission should be acknowledged in the cover letter.

7. Address reviewer comments very carefully.

Editors and editors-in-chief usually couch the acceptance of a manuscript as subject to a “revise and resubmit” based on the recommendations provided by the reviewer or reviewers. These revisions may necessitate either major or minor changes in the manuscript. Inexperienced scholars should understand a few key aspects of the revision process. First, it important to address the revisions diligently; second, is imperative to address all the comments received from the reviewers and avoid oversights; third, the resubmission of the revised manuscript must happen by the deadline provided by the journal; fourth, the revision process might comprise multiple rounds.

The revision process requires two major documents. The first is the revised manuscript highlighting all the modifications made following the recommendations received from the reviewers. The second is a letter listing the authors’ responses illustrating they have addressed all the concerns of the reviewers and editors. These two documents should be drafted carefully. The authors of the manuscript can agree or disagree with the comments of the reviewers (typically agreement is encouraged) and are not always obliged to implement their recommendations, but they should in all cases provide a well-argued justification for their course of action.

Conclusion

Given the ever increasing number of manuscripts submitted for publication, the process of preparing a manuscript well enough to have it accepted by a journal can be daunting. High-impact journals accept less than 10 percent of the articles submitted to them, although the acceptance ratio for special issues or special topics sections is normally over 40 percent. Scholars might have to resign themselves to having their articles rejected and then reworking them to submit them to a different journal before the manuscript is accepted.

The advice offered here is not exhaustive but it’s also not difficult to implement. These recommendations require proper attention, planning and careful implementation; however, following this advice could help doctoral students and other scholars improve the likelihood of getting their work published, and that is key to having a productive, exciting and rewarding academic career.

Source:  https://www.elsevier.com/connect/7-steps-to-publishing-in-a-scientific-journal

Published in Writing Papers Written by janvier 13 2017 0

These workshops are aimed at helping young African investigators acquire skills and develop strategic means to communicate with the broad neuroscience community and, in particular, to publish scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. The selected participants will, in addition, present their data at the SONA 2017 International Meeting (www.sona.2017.org) in poster format. Travel (flight tickets), lodging and meals during the workshop, and registration for the SONA 2017 Conference will be provided to the selected participants.

Requirements for participants:

The workshop is designed for young investigators from African institutions who wish to publish in international journals their research work related to basic and clinical neuroscience. Preference will be given to those with manuscripts prepared for publication to be “edited” during the workshop.

Instructions

Applicants from African institutions should submit:

1) the application form (incomplete forms will not be considered);

2) one letter of reference from the supervisor;

3) a copy of the abstract to be submitted (or already submitted) to the SONA 2017 International Meeting following the instructions indicated on the Conference website. The abstract should summarize/highlight the data the applicant wishes to publish. More material will be requested from the selected participants before the workshop.

The results of the selection of participants for the Workshop by the organizing committee will be communicated by February 24, 2017.

Application Deadline: February 12, 2017 (11:59p.m., CET)

Apply here

If there are any questions about the Workshop please contact Dr. Marina Bentivoglio (co-organizer) or Dr. Silvia Gabrieli (workshop assistant) at Cette adresse e-mail est protégée contre les robots spammeurs. Vous devez activer le JavaScript pour la visualiser.

Published in Publishing Papers Written by décembre 19 2016 0

In academic publishingpredatory open access publishing is an exploitative open-access publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). "Beall's List", a regularly updated report by Jeffrey Beall, sets forth criteria for categorizing predatory publications and lists publishers and independent journals that meet those criteria.Newer scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of becoming the victim of these practices.

Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016

Beall’s List of predatory scholarly open-access journals

Published in Writing Papers Written by décembre 03 2016 0

.
1. Know yourself: Know your area of expertise, what are your strengths and what are your weaknesses. 
2. Know the program from which you seek support: You are responsible for finding the appropriate program for support of your research. 
3. Read the program announcement: Programs and special activities have specific goals and specific requirements. 
4. Formulate an appropriate research objective
5. Develop a viable research plan.
6. State your research objective clearly in your proposal: A good research proposal includes a clear statement of the research objective. 
7. Frame your project around the work of others
8. Grammar and spelling count. 
9. Format and brevity are important. 
10. Know the review process.
11. Proof read your proposal before it is sent.
12. Submit your proposal on time.

Published in Writing Papers Written by septembre 17 2014 0

Writing the Scientific Paper

When you write about scientific topics to specialists in a particular scientific field, we call that scientific writing. (When you write to non-specialists about scientific topics, we call that science writing.)

The scientific paper has developed over the past three centuries into a tool to communicate the results of scientific inquiry. The main audience for scientific papers is extremely specialized. The purpose of these papers is twofold: to present information so that it is easy to retrieve, and to present enough information that the reader can duplicate the scientific study. A standard format with six main part helps readers to find expected information and analysis:

  • Title: it should be a pithy summary of the article's main focus. It should be very limited and specific.
  • Abstract: The summary of paper. It should state the goals, results, and the main conclusions of your study. You should list the parameters of your study (when and where was it conducted, if applicable; your sample size; the specific species, proteins, genes, etc., studied). Think of the process of writing the abstract as taking one or two sentences from each of your sections (an introductory sentence, a sentence stating the specific question addressed, a sentence listing your main techniques or procedures, two or three sentences describing your results, and one sentence describing your main conclusion).
  • Introduction: The background of your study, including why you have investigated the question that you have and how it relates to earlier research that has been done in the field. It may help to think of an introduction as a telescoping focus, where you begin with the broader context and gradually narrow to the specific problem addressed by the report. A typical (and very useful) construction of an introduction proceeds as follows:
  1. Open with two or three sentences placing your study subject in context.
  2. Follow with a description of the problem and its history, including previous research.
  3. Describe how your work addresses a gap in existing knowledge or ability (here's where you'll state why you've undertaken this study)
  1. State what information your article will address.
  • Methods and Materials: n this section you describe how you performed your study. You need to provide enough information here for the reader to duplicate your experiment. However, be reasonable about who the reader is. Assume that he or she is someone familiar with the basic practices of your field.

It's helpful to both writer and reader to organize this section chronologically: that is, describe each procedure in the order it was performed. For example, DNA-extraction, purification, amplification, assay, detection. Or, study area, study population, sampling technique, variables studied, analysis method.

Include in this section:

*  study design: procedures should be listed and described, or the reader should be referred to papers that have already described the used procedure

*  particular techniques used and why, if relevant

*  modifications of any techniques; be sure to describe the modification

*  specialized equipment, including brand-names

*  temporal, spatial, and historical description of study area and studied population

*  assumptions underlying the study

*  statistical methods, including software programs

  • Results: This section presents the facts--what was found in the course of this investigation. Detailed data--measurements, counts, percentages, patterns--usually appear in tables, figures, and graphs, and the text of the section draws attention to the key data and relationships among data. Three rules of thumb will help you with this section:

*  present results clearly and logically

*  avoid excess verbiage

*  consider providing a one-sentence summary at the beginning of each paragraph if you think it will help your reader understand your data

Remember to use table and figures effectively. But don't expect these to stand alone. Do not repeat all of the information in the text that appears in a table, but do summarize it.

  • Discussion: In this section you discuss your results. What aspect you choose to focus on depends on your results and on the main questions addressed by them. For example, if you were testing a new technique, you will want to discuss how useful this technique is: how well did it work, what are the benefits and drawbacks, etc. If you are presenting data that appear to refute or support earlier research, you will want to analyze both your own data and the earlier data--what conditions are different? how much difference is due to a change in the study design, and how much to a new property in the study subject? You may discuss the implication of your research--particularly if it has a direct bearing on a practical issue, such as conservation or public health.

This section centers on speculation. However, this does not free you to present wild and haphazard guesses. Focus your discussion around a particular question or hypothesis. Use subheadings to organize your thoughts, if necessary.

This section depends on a logical organization so readers can see the connection between your study question and your results. One typical approach is to make a list of all the ideas that you will discuss and to work out the logical relationships between them--what idea is most important? or, what point is most clearly made by your data? what ideas are subordinate to the main idea? what are the connections between ideas?

Achieving the Scientific Voice

Eight tips will help you match your style for most scientific publications.

  1. Develop a precise vocabulary: read the literature to become fluent, or at least familiar with, the sort of language that is standard to describe what you're trying to describe.
  2. Be as precise as possible: limit language.
    • Once you've labeled an activity, a condition, or a period of time, use that label consistently throughout the paper. Consistency is more important than creativity.
    • Define your terms and your assumptions.
  3. Be honest about the limitations of your knowledge or your research: give the reader enough information to come to the same conclusions that you did (or to come to different conclusions)
    • Include all the information the reader needs to interpret your data.
    • Remember, the key to all scientific discourse is that it be reproducible. Have you presented enough information clearly enough that the reader could reproduce your experiment, your research, or your investigation?
  4. When describing an activity, break it down into elements that can be described and labeled, and then present them in the order they occurred.
  5. When you use numbers, use them effectively. Don't present them so that they cause more work for the reader.
  6. Include details before conclusions, but only include those details you have been able to observe by the methods you have described. Do not include your feelings, attitudes, impressions, or opinions.
  7. Research your format and citations: do these match what have been used in current relevant journals?
  8. Run a spellcheck and proofread carefully. Read your paper out loud, and/ or have a friend look over it for misspelled words, missing words, etc.

 Source

Published in Searching Papers Written by septembre 17 2014 0

PubMed

A free search engine to search about medicine and biomedical journal literature. It searches several databases and interfaces Medline, directly. This search engine maps user’s search terms to the Medical subject heading (Mesh) and text words in Medline records and then searching. The PubMed offers users numerous powerful search filters to limit their searches and gives them desirable retrieval information.

Science Direct

One of the greatest bibliographic and full text electronic collections about science, technology and medicine. Also we can have an exact searching with regard to limitations and abilities that is offered by Science Direct.

Scopus

Abstracting and indexing database of scientific, technical, medical and social science literature. Includes peer-reviewed titles from international publishers, Open Access journals, conference proceedings, trade publications, patent records and quality web sources. Seamless links to full text sources where the library holds a subscription.

Web of Science

An online subscription-based scientific citation indexing service maintained by Thomson Reuters that provides a comprehensive citation search. It gives access to multiple databases that reference cross-disciplinary research, which allows for in-depth exploration of specialized sub-fields within an academic or scientific discipline.

Wiley online library

Wiley online library is an extensive multidisciplinary collection of online resources covering life, health and physical sciences, social science, and the humanities. It offers integrated access to more than 4 million articles from 1,500 journals, 9,000 books, and hundreds of reference works, laboratory protocols, encyclopedias, databases and handbooks.

ProQuest

For academic, corporate, government, school and public libraries, as well as professional researchers, ProQuest provides services that enable strategic acquisition, management and discovery of information collections. The library includes diverse spectrum of studies: business, political sciences, fiction, psychology, medicine and social sciences, art, history, etc. It also offers access to wide range of popular academic subjects and contains more than 5,000 academic journal titles, specific publications and diversified list of newspapers – full texts among them.

CiteSeerx

A digital library and an online academic journal that offer information within the field of computer science. It indexes academic resources through autonomous citation indexing system. This academic database is particularly helpful for students seeking information on computer and information sciences. It offers many other exclusive features to facilitate the students with the research process that include: ACI – Autonomous Citation Indexing, reference linking, citation statistics, automatic metadata extraction and related documents. Founded in 1998, it is the first online academic database and has since evolved into a more dynamic and user-friendly academic search engine.

HINARI

Set up by WHO together with major publishers, enables developing countries to gain access to one of the world’s largest collections of biomedical and health literature. More than 8,500 journals and 7000 e-books (in 30 different languages) are now available to health institutions in more than 100 countries, areas and territories benefiting many thousands of health workers and researchers, and in turn, contributing to improve world health. HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme provides free or very low cost online access to the major journals in biomedical and related social sciences to local, not-for-profit institutions in developing countries.

EBSCO Discovery Service

Offers streamlined access to all of your library's resources from a single search. Offering extensive bibliographic indexing of core scientific literature, this database provides multidisciplinary and multilingual coverage for science, technology, and medicine with special emphasis on European content. With superior relevance and value ranking, basic and advanced search tools, and open and flexible customization options, EDS is the ideal platform for all library users, including:

  • Undergraduate students performing simple searches
  • Post-graduate researchers, experienced scholars and professionals conducting multi-tiered research
  • School and public libraries whose students and patrons look for credible information and in-depth resources

PLOS ONE

Founded in 2006, PLOSE ONE provides a free access platform to everyone searching for science-related information. All the articles publish on PLOS ONE are published after going through a strict peer-reviewed process. This academic database has a meticulous procedure for publishing a journal. You can find plenty of articles and academic publications using this platform.

Arabways Newsletter

Sign up to our newsletter

  

Recent Twitter Posts

Membership

The main criterion for election as a ARABWAYS Member is scientific excellence. Only those scientists who have made significant contributions to the advancement of science can be nominated as Members

Becoming a member is easy! Just make sure you have all of the items listed below :

  • Curriculum Vitae/Resume
  • Students and Postdocs: Proof of enrollment/status such as letter of acceptance and contact information for a department/faculty contact. 
  • Membership form