在点击“提交”之前,先做自己的第一个审稿人

IF 1.6 Q2 COMMUNICATION Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-11-16 DOI:10.6087/kcse.288
J. Iwaz
{"title":"在点击“提交”之前,先做自己的第一个审稿人","authors":"J. Iwaz","doi":"10.6087/kcse.288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For various reasons, despite previous linguistic, formatting, and other checks, beginner-authored or multi-authored manuscripts may be rushed to submission while lacking consistency. This article provides a clear outline of the final round of checks for section consistency, subsection consistency, and overall coherence that a scientific manuscript should undergo before submission. Checks for consistency should target the following: consistency between full and short titles; the exact answer in conclusion to research objectives (questions) and matching between methods and results in the abstract; consistency from a comprehensive view of the research field to the announcement of a single specific objective in the introduction section; coherence between methods and results sections and between results and illustrations in the rest of the text; and, recalls of the objective, the results, and the conclusions in the discussion section. Finally, consistency should be ensured between the various sections of the abstract and those of the manuscript, with the ideal abstract being a true miniature of the manuscript. An original figure provides a handy visual checklist authors might use to implement and achieve manuscript drafting. This round of checks increases readability, comprehensibility, confidence in the results, and the credibility of the authors. Subsequently, confidence and credibility will increase the probability of publication and the visibility of a whole team’s work.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Before you click “submit,” be your own first reviewer\",\"authors\":\"J. Iwaz\",\"doi\":\"10.6087/kcse.288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For various reasons, despite previous linguistic, formatting, and other checks, beginner-authored or multi-authored manuscripts may be rushed to submission while lacking consistency. This article provides a clear outline of the final round of checks for section consistency, subsection consistency, and overall coherence that a scientific manuscript should undergo before submission. Checks for consistency should target the following: consistency between full and short titles; the exact answer in conclusion to research objectives (questions) and matching between methods and results in the abstract; consistency from a comprehensive view of the research field to the announcement of a single specific objective in the introduction section; coherence between methods and results sections and between results and illustrations in the rest of the text; and, recalls of the objective, the results, and the conclusions in the discussion section. Finally, consistency should be ensured between the various sections of the abstract and those of the manuscript, with the ideal abstract being a true miniature of the manuscript. An original figure provides a handy visual checklist authors might use to implement and achieve manuscript drafting. This round of checks increases readability, comprehensibility, confidence in the results, and the credibility of the authors. Subsequently, confidence and credibility will increase the probability of publication and the visibility of a whole team’s work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43802,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Editing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Editing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.288\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Editing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

由于各种原因,尽管先前的语言、格式和其他检查,初学者或多人撰写的手稿可能会在缺乏一致性的情况下匆忙提交。这篇文章提供了一个清晰的大纲,最后一轮检查的部分一致性,分段一致性,和整体的一致性,科学手稿应该在提交之前进行。一致性检查的目标应该是:完整和简短标题之间的一致性;结论中对研究目标(问题)的准确回答,抽象中方法与结果的匹配;从研究领域的综合观点到在引言部分宣布单一具体目标的一致性;方法和结果部分之间以及文本其余部分的结果和插图之间的一致性;在讨论部分回顾目标、结果和结论。最后,要保证摘要各部分与稿件各部分的一致性,使理想的摘要成为稿件的真正缩影。原始图形提供了一个方便的可视化清单,作者可以使用它来实现和实现手稿起草。这一轮检查增加了可读性、可理解性、对结果的信心以及作者的可信度。随后,信心和可信度将增加整个团队工作的发表概率和可见度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Before you click “submit,” be your own first reviewer
For various reasons, despite previous linguistic, formatting, and other checks, beginner-authored or multi-authored manuscripts may be rushed to submission while lacking consistency. This article provides a clear outline of the final round of checks for section consistency, subsection consistency, and overall coherence that a scientific manuscript should undergo before submission. Checks for consistency should target the following: consistency between full and short titles; the exact answer in conclusion to research objectives (questions) and matching between methods and results in the abstract; consistency from a comprehensive view of the research field to the announcement of a single specific objective in the introduction section; coherence between methods and results sections and between results and illustrations in the rest of the text; and, recalls of the objective, the results, and the conclusions in the discussion section. Finally, consistency should be ensured between the various sections of the abstract and those of the manuscript, with the ideal abstract being a true miniature of the manuscript. An original figure provides a handy visual checklist authors might use to implement and achieve manuscript drafting. This round of checks increases readability, comprehensibility, confidence in the results, and the credibility of the authors. Subsequently, confidence and credibility will increase the probability of publication and the visibility of a whole team’s work.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science Editing
Science Editing COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Science Editing (Sci Ed) is the official journal of the Korean Council of Science Editors (https://kcse.org) and Council of Asian Science Editors (https://asianeditor.org). It aims to improve the culture and health of human being by promoting the quality of editing and publishing scientific, technical, and medical journals. Expected readers are editors, publishers, reviewers, and authors of the journals around the world; however, specially focused to those in Asia. Since scholarly journals in Asia are mostly published by the academic societies, universities, or non-profit organizations, Sci Ed is sought to play a role in journal development. The number of publications from Asia is increasing rapidly and overpass that of other continents; meanwhile, the number of international journals and highly appreciated journals is yet to be coming forward. It is task of Asian editors to pledge the journal quality and broaden the visibility and accessibility. Therefore, its scope includes the followings in the field of science, technology, and medicine.
期刊最新文献
Research trends on resilience related to nursing and patients: a bibliometric analysis Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics Impact factor surge in Korean medical journals during the COVID-19 era: a bibliometric study Trends in research on ChatGPT and adoption-related issues discussed in articles: a narrative review Get Full Text Research (GetFTR): can it be a good tool for researchers?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1