Este é um Blog educacional, dedicado a discussões acadêmicas sobre a Ecologia Evolutiva. Contém chamadas específicas relacionadas às disciplinas de Ecologia da Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, e textos didáticos gerais.
Bem vindos às aulas! Começamos falando de FAZER ciência. Há uma diferença muito grande de quando assumimos ser parte da estruturação do conhecimento, se comparado com quando somos "consumidores" do conhecimento. Se está no caminho de construir suas IDÉIAS a partir de sua pesquisa (que sim, SÃO coisas diferentes - os dados gerados para responder as hipóteses de seus orientadores podem servir para responder a SUA hipótese também!), sua forma de ler também tem que mudar. Não mais irás ler somente pela informação que antes absorvia quase passivamente. Agora deve questionar o conhecimento, e estudar a sua forma de ser apresentado. Quer questionar tudo? Correto! Quer entender o formato? Corretíssimo! Há uma maneira de se portar diante do processo de submissão de artigos para publicação, uma das mais ritualísticas e isentas metodologias de formalização de autoria e de validação do conhecimento já pensado pelo mundo ocidental. Ainda muito imperfeita, embora bem funcional. Para aprender um pouco mais sobre estes ritos, transcrevo o artigo de Walsh e Mommsen nos próximos 3 posts. Boa leitura crítica!
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 152 (2009) 291–292
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cbpa
1095-6433/$ – see front matter © 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.
The do's and don't's of submitting scientific papers
We have presented versions of the material below at various
meetings as part of discussions for our junior colleagues who are
relatively new to the scientific publication process. While some of it
seems to be stating the obvious, based on submissions we sometimes
receive even from senior authors, we thought it might be helpful to
publish these tips in the form of “Do's” and “Don't's”
…examine the scope of the journal and description of its contents
You might be amazed at the number of “inappropriate” manuscripts
editors receive and have to rapidly “desk reject” (without
review, or after a quick examination by an editorial board member)
simply because they don't address the interests of the journal's
audience. Some good questions to ask yourself in this regard are: Do
papers like yours appear in the journal? Have you cited papers that
have appeared in the journal or similar journals? If still in doubt, send
only the title, authors and abstract to the journal office for a quick
opinion on appropriateness, or even the whole paper. In the case of
CBP specifically, we are often asked “Part A, B, C, or D?”. The same
advice above applies.
…format the paper appropriately.
There is the tendency amongst authors to say “I'll format the paper
and reference style later, after it has been accepted”. This is especially
true if a paper has previously been rejected by another journal whose
format is “similar”. If you pay attention to the details of the
appropriate format for the journal you are submitting to now, you
will have one fewer thing to be criticized about by both the editorial
staff and referees. In a paper that might be “controversial”, poor
format could just be the straw that breaks the camel's back and tips a
referee to tick the “reject” box.
…look at costs.
Does the journal of choice levy page charges or submission fees, or
fees for color illustrations or photos, or reprint charges? Clear the
expenses up front with your advisor. You want to avoid the “good
news your paper is accepted, bad news you owe us $700” scenario. If
you are short of funds, many journals have an “as affordable” policy
that might subsidize some of your costs if you plead poverty. It can't
hurt to ask. CBP has no page charges or submission fees, and our
publisher sometimes allows us to grant free color if there are
mitigating factors and if the use of color is “scientifically justified/
…prepare a detailed cover letter.
You need to state that the manuscript is not being considered
elsewhere, that the data (or parts of the data set) have not been
published elsewhere, that you have the permission of all co-authors,
and other formal information. In addition, you should include a
sentence or two describing the novel finding, why you are so totally
excited about your work (the “newsworthiness factor”), and why you
think it would be appropriate for the journal. Make sure you have
appropriately addressed the cover letter! You would be amazed at
how many letters we receive addressed to the editor of another
journal (obviously the most recent place where the paper was
rejected). Not a very promising start.
…suggest potential referees (up to 5 or 6) and an Editor and member
of the Editorial Board whom you think would best be suited to handle
Of course it is the editor's prerogative to identify and assign
referees, but the reality is that journal staff members are overworked.
If you can do a little background work to help them, it will be
appreciated. Also, although journal editors and editorial board
members tend to be broadly trained and interested, they do not
know all fields equally well. By suggesting appropriate referees, you
maximize the chances that your manuscript will get knowledgeable
reviewers and not something out of context. Of course, avoid the
obvious conflicts of interests (researchers from the same institution,
folks who are very close collaborators of yours, folks who are simply
“your buddies”). A good question to ask: “Have I cited papers by the
people I am suggesting as referees?” This gives you confidence that
you have chosen appropriate people, and of course, human nature
being what it is, the referee will be chuffed that you have cited him or
her (assuming of course that you have appropriately and fairly
represented their published findings!).
Similar considerations apply to the choice of an appropriate
member of the editorial board. Often, when a manuscript is received,
the editor will directly assign it to an editorial board member for a
quick read (to see if it's appropriate) and to ask for referee
You don't want to make a habit of this, but: you can in fact suggest
people whom you do not want to review your paper, due to a personal
conflict, because they are an extreme competitor (not quite so much of
a problem in our comparative world), or simply because you feel from
prior experience that they are so opposed to your ideas as to not be
able to give a fair evaluation.
There is no guarantee that the Editors will heed any or all of your
suggestions, but there are times when we look at these lists and say:
“great list, couldn't have done better myself, let's use them all”.
Patrick J. Walsh*
University of Ottawa
Thomas P. Mommsen*
University of Victoria
Göran E. Nilsson
University of Oslo
E-mail addresses: email@example.com (P.J. Walsh),
firstname.lastname@example.org (T.P. Mommsen),
email@example.com (G.E. Nilsson).