This post
covers the two main topics discussed by Dr Andrew Jermy, Senior Editor at
Nature, during his talk entitled EDITORIAL
CAREERS AND PUBLISHING AT NATURE.
PART 1: PUBLISHING AT NATURE
With
acceptance rates of less than 10%, NATURE is a highly selective journal aiming
to “publish the best work in the field”.
Common misconceptions regarding publishing in this journal
and why they are wrong:
Misconception:
You have to know the editor.
Comment: After
submission, the editors deal with every manuscript in the same way.
Misconception:
You have to have a big name on the paper.
Comment:
Their decisions are not based on the authors named on the paper.
Misconception:
It is a lottery.
Comment: The
editors spend a lot of time making sure their decisions are consistent and
accurate, and discuss the manuscripts between them.
Misconception:
The editorial process is a black box.
Comment: You
can ask any questions about the process at any time and they will explain.
Thinking about submitting to Nature? Make sure you follow these
guidelines:
Plan your work
carefully. Consider the scope of your project. Is your hypothesis truly novel
and groundbreaking? Think about this at the very early stages!
Pick the journal
carefully. Are similar papers in the journal? You don't want journals with
studies that are very similar because they lose their novelty factor.
Be honest
and assess where your advance fits into the field. Is it really groundbreaking
or just important?
Do not submit
prematurely. Consider how mature the
study is before you submit.
Submit in
format compatible with the journal.
Read guide
to authors and comply with journal policies.
Ask if in doubt.
Write
informative cover letter:
State the background of the field of study
State the key findings and why your study is important
Suggested/excluded
reviewers
Avoid
grandstanding and cliché
Address
to the editor or journal (not ‘Dear Sir’)
If you are
not sure whether your work is Nature material, it is worth having a look at the
“Pre-submission enquiry” where you
only send the title, the abstract and a brief description of your manuscript.
The main advantage is that decisions are made in one or two days, versus four
to five days for a full manuscript.
If you have
decided to submit, here are some tips on how
to write your paper:
Make sure it
is CLEARLY WRITTEN and describes what's in the study. Do not try to oversell
the story, cover the novelty appropriately instead.
Get the title
right: succinct, informative and tempting (no puns or questions). Andrew reads the
title, if the title is interesting then he reads the abstract, if the abstract
is interesting then he reads the paper.
The abstract
needs to cover the background of the area, introduce the key findings and how
they are changing the field.
In the
introduction, the most important paragraph is the first one! Give the reader context to understand the
significance of your work.
Use methods
and supplementary information sections for details.
Devise
figures to enhance story-telling.
Explain, don't
hype, and avoid clichés (ultra, very, etc)
The conclusion
should offer something NEW.
Ask a
colleague from unrelated field to read your manuscript to see if you can get
your message across.
Something
worth remembering every time we submit is the role that both the editor and the
referee play in assessing our manuscripts.
The role of the editor is to assess the following:
If the study
is appropriate for the journal
The
importance to the field and the wider audience
If the
overall level of experimentation is appropriate to answer the questions
The depth of
the study (size and scope)
The compliance
with the editorial policies
The role of the referee is to look at:
The level of
experimentation focusing in detail on each experiment
The quality
of each piece of data presented
PART 2: EDITORIAL CAREERS AT NATURE
There are
four main entry points for an editorial career at Nature:
1. Copy Editor
2. Journalist
3. Commissioning Editor
4. Manuscript Editor
Due to his
experience, Andrew talked about the Commissioning and the Manuscript Editor
roles.
Commissioning Editor
The
commission is based on the interest and novelty of the topic. Sources for new
ideas can come from:
Reading literature
Conferences/lab visits
Discussions with scientists and colleagues
General media
As a
commissioning editor, you collaborate with the authors by helping them to
improve their writing. You also discuss with them whether the figures in their
manuscript are necessary and if they are conveying the right message.
Once it has
passed through peer-review and the manuscript is ready to be published, you get
to do some fun things like:
Work closely with the art editor to get consistent and high
quality figures
Work on the journal covers, for example exciting 3D ones!
You also get
to develop your scientific writing (writing editorials and highlight new
stories) and to participate in special projects, for example social media.
As with all
jobs, there are also some dull tasks like proof reading and web checking.
Manuscript Editor
The bulk of
the task in this job is to assess manuscripts.
On average you
get 10 new manuscripts every week! Andrew spends 20 to 25 hours per week
reading new manuscripts. He takes about 2 to 2.5 hours to read one, to look at the
literature and to assess it.
Other tasks
are meeting with other editors to discuss what's happening in the other areas
of the company and manage the peer-review process.
Pros of the job:
Intellectual
stimulation
Dynamic and
informal job
Good career
prospects
Job security
Connected with numerous fields
Forefront of current research
Popularity
Family-friendly
Travel to conferences
Cons of the job:
Heavy and constant work load
Tight deadlines
Unpopularity
Occasional confrontation
Salary: entry level position more or less equivalent to a post-doc's salary and senior level position equivalent to a lecturer's salary
Some tasks can be quite mundane
Travel to conferences
Getting a job in editorial:
Jobs are
normally advertised in scientific press (naturejobs.com).
Short term contracts
like maternity leave are a great way to get into the company. Then you know the
job and show that you can do it well.
“Name recognition” is important to get you to
the shortlist. For example, if you have met one of the editors at a conference
you can then e-mail him/her and ask about questions regarding the job, etc.