”Getting Published” John E. Hermansen Scientific Publication Meeting, 7 May 2008

1. ”Getting Published” John E. Hermansen Scientific Publication Meeting, 7 May 2008 Experience from editorial work with Livestock Science

2. Livestock Science promotes the sound development of the livestock • sector by publishing original peer-reviewed research and review articles • covering all aspects of this field. • The journal welcomes submissions on the areas of: • genetics, • breeding, • growth, • reproduction, • nutrition, • management, • health, • production systems, • genetic resources, • tropical livestock farming, • welfare, • ethics and behaviour

3. Editor-in-Chief J. Boyazoglu (Thessaloniki, Greece) Co-Editor-in-Chief John E. Hermansen (Foulum, Denmark) Section Editors Genetics and Breeding: J.J. Sölkner (Vienna, Austria) Ruminant Nutrition: E.R. Ørskov (Aberdeen, UK), M.R. Weisbjerg (Foulum, Denmark) Non-Ruminant Nutrition: M. Etienne (Saint-Gilles, France), C. Lauridsen (Foulum, Denmark) Management, Health, Welfare, and Behaviour: J.E. Hermansen (Foulum, Denmark) Animal Genetic Resources and Tropical Livestock Farming: R.A. Cardellino (Pelotas, Brazil) Livestock Farming Systems: P.N. Bhat (Noida, India), A. Gibon (Castanet Tolosan, France) Growth Physiology: S. Pierzynowski (Lund, Sweden) Reproduction Physiology: M.J. D’Occhio (Gatton, Queensland, Australia), M. Kent-First (Wisconsin, USA)

4. The life of a paper in the pipeline Received at editorial office (inflow 2007 570 ms) Editor in Chief – Preliminary evaluation (approx. 20% reject) Section Editor – Preliminary evaluation (approx. 20% reject) (Selection of reviewers) Reviewers Recommendation to Section Editor and comments to author Section Editor decide (approx. 20% reject) Author – message on acceptance and/or comments to be addressed in a revision • EC reasons for rejection: • Outside the general scope of the journal • Technical quality of the paper: • Guidelines for authors ignored • Suspicion that the authors have not • had time to read the ms after typing • Considered of too local interest • Obviously poor quality science • SE reasons for rejection: • Outside the general scope of the journal • Too little added value/novelty of work

5. Editorial Advisory Board S.A. Abdulrazak (Njoro, Kenya) H. Aidaros (Cairo, Egypt) L. Bull (Raleigh, NC, USA) N. Casey (Pretoria, South Africa) E.P. Cunningham (Dublin, Ireland) C. Devendra (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) M’N Djemali (Tunis, Tunisia) D. Fraser (Vancouver, Canada) T. Fujihara (Matsue-shi, Japan) E.S.E. Galal (Cairo, Egypt) J.P.C. Greyling (Bloemfonkein, South Africa) J.K. Ha (Seoul, Korea) H. Hartadi (Yogyakarta, Indonesia) P. Horn (Kaposvár, Hungary) L. Iñiguez (Aleppo, Syria) M. Kaps (Zagreb, Croatia) T. Kristensen (Foulum, Denmark) B. Langlois (Jouy-en-Josas, France) S. Lebbie (Little Rock, AR, USA) J.X. Liu (Hangzhou, PR China) De-xun Lu (Innner Mongolia, PR China) S.D. Lukefahr (Kingsville, TX, USA) F. Madec (Ploufragan, France) J.I. McNitt (Baton Rouge, LA, USA) P. Morand-Fehr (Paris, France) L. Rydhmer (Uppsala, Sweden) V. Santé-Lhoutellier (Saint Genès, France) L.R. Schaefer (Guelph, ON, Canada) M. Schneeberger (Zurich, Switzerland) M. Soller (Jerusalem, Israel) E. Strandberg (Uppsala, Sweden) A. Tajima (Lbaraki, Japan) M. Thibier (Canberra, Australia) J. van Arendonk (Wageningen, The Netherlands) J.H.J. van der Werf (Armidale, NSW, Australia) A.J. van der Zijpp (Wageningen, The Netherlands) D.M. Weary (Vancouver, Canada) C. Wenk (Zürich, Switzerland) A. Zainal Mohd-Jelan (Selangor, Malaysia) G. Zervas (Athens, Greece)

6. Standard messages to authors • Accept • Will be acceptable after minor revision • Will be acceptable after moderate revision • Will be reconsidered for publication after major revision • Not acceptable in it’s present form After submission of revised ms 2. and 3.: SE check and decide (accept of new revision)

7. 4.Major revision: • SE decides or has the paper reviewed again, most often by the same reviewers • If revision obviously have not been performed adequately the paper will • be rejected • The more clear the revisions have been explained in a covering letter, the • better chance that SE will decide without a complete new revision • If reviewer suggestions and critisims can be met/argued against, the paper • will most often be accepted – maybe after further revision. • (SE and reviewers are reluctant to be too critical if what they have asked for have • been addressed – even if they are not fully satisfied with the final results) • 5. Not accepted in its present form: • SE will have the paper reviewed again • (50:50 to have the paper ultimately accepted)

8. Conclusions • Make the efforts to submit a paper of high technical quality that are • in accordance with guidelines for authors • Make sure that the paper’s messages to an international readership • are highlightened • Do not be offended by receiving a message with ”Major revision” • Explain revisions made adequately in a covering letter to ease • the process afterwards • Journals (Editors and reviewers) may be wrong, so if you are mistreated, • remember there are more Journal’s