Gettingpublished in psychiatry Philip Gorwood, Editors-in-chief of EuropeanPsychiatry
Why? • Number of articles, yourrank, and the impact factor are obvious markers of yourproductivity (≠ value!) • There are requiredcut-offs for manyroles (University, research, employment…) • So do your CV accordingly • International (englishspeaking) paperswith an IF… and then the others (sort out the sheepfrom the goats…) • Is it possible to sum-up yourproductivity in 2 numbers? Unfortunatelyyes!
Publish or Perish is also a software Cites Rank … Journal Year 153 1BiolPsychiatry 2000 146 2 Hum Molec Genet 2004 … 33 33 SZ Res 2001 … www.harzing.com
h-index 153 times 33 times Least frequently quoted article 33rd most quoted article First most quoted article
Limits of the h-index • Age is an advantage… although not reallyeasy to modify • Self-quotationis to bepromoted… but protections are being made • Rank of authorisabolished • Impact factor is NOT an equivalent of quality (memory of water… publishingmistakes…)
Publishing • IF for psychiatry and relatedfields (neuroscience) are rather good, soanchorpointsexist: • 0.1 to 2, 2 to 5, 5 to 10, 10 and above • Best rankis first (thereis no two first authors!) for youngpsychiatrists, and last for oldones.., then second, thenthird, then… absolutelyequivalent. • More than 6 authorsissuspicious • Getyourthree (relatively) good articles as first author, beforethosewithother places, and on the sametopic (reputation, referee, invitations…)
Whymyworkwillbepublished? • Becauseitisperfect (0.1%) • Pre-hochypothesisdriven, with the appropriatesample and design (you do not needanyadvice!) • Becauseitis good • Estimatewhatis the gold standard and the cut-off value (sample size, performance of technic, length of the cohort, attrition rate…) • Becauseitisdifferent • Being as good as othersis not sufficient. Do it but makeyourown input (assessment, recruitment… • Becauseit opens new aspects • Sometimes, addingjust one assessment, a specificsubsamplecan do a lot, and might not betoocosty if above the wholeresearch • Becauseitrequires an expertise, or technicity, or staff… whichisdifficult to get • Becauseitwillbe QUOTED
Then chose the mostapropriate journal • Impact factor according to the « value » of yourmanuscript (number of times itshouldbequoted once published…) • Topic (specific or not) • Style (science or literature) • Country (location of the editors) • Delay: submission->editor->referees->publication • Do not forgetthatusing social relationshipsis not a sin.. If doneadequatly
Hi boss, where do youthink I shouldsendthis one? • Whenyou check and recheckyourown article, yourincreaseyour confidence, not its value! • So sendit to others! Colleagues, thosewith a good experience, good statisticians, methodologists… Significant input couldbeenough to sign as co-author • Somebodywithhighreputation and withwhomyou have been working (post-doc…) couldbeproposed as co-author if improving the article. This couldmake a bigdifference…
What about Open accessjournal? • You have received an email tellingthat the journal XX would love publishing one of yournextwork… • Free access… Large chances of download and quotations… • But no impact factor • So beaware: 80% will die, 10% willneverget an IF… so 10% of chances thatitwillbe a good choice on the long term. • Difficult to guess how wherewewillgetat the end of the day • But canbeextremelysuccessful (Plos One…)
Managing the publishingbeforedoing the workisbeterthanlater • Probability of arguments for the number and the order of authorsis 100% • Better fixing the rulesbefore… but do thatsmoothly (whoisdoingwhat… withawhatorder) • Is itbetter to benumber 8 in a splendid article of a team withhighreputation or 1st in a more modestresearch…? Do both!
Whiledoing the research… • High levelresearchisusually made in large team withmany leaders • Yourrolewillthenbeveryclear… thereforelimited • But addingsomethingelse, not too time-consuming, a bit risky, underyour supervision, isalwayswelcome! « Win or loose » bet, not toocosty.
The coverletterisvery important, why? • This is the only place wereyoumayexplainwhyyourideawasbrilliant, yourresultsmagnificant, with no need to justify… • This is the only chance you have to talk to the editor, and thisis important, because: • The editor does not have the sameexpectanciesthan referees and readers • Quality and Adequacyyes or no • Potential for quotation how much • Originality of the topic… and the sample! • Honestyyes or no
Mind the referees you are proposing • 100% of referees fromyourown country islogical (you know them) but suspicious (youdid not understand the rules) • 100% of very important referees (Jim van Os, E Vieta…) is not appropriate, becausethey are not available. • Propose the onesthat (1) publishedwell in the field, (2) not tooharsh, (3) if possible thatyou know (even a little).
For the submittedmaterial • 10% of letters are adressed to another journal • References and tables (guidelines of the journal) are not appropriate in 50% of cases • You materialwillbeanalyseddeeply, but the decisionwillbetaken in a couple of minutes • Withsomanysubmitted articles, editors are looking for rejection points • Double check the parts of the ms that are systematicallychecked (end of introduction, tables and figures, beginning of conclusion, sample in the method section)
The life of your ms once submitted on the web… The example of the journal EuropeanPsychiatry
Anchorpoints of EuropeanPsychiatry • Founded in 1986 by Patrice Boyer, Julien-Daniel Guelfi and Yves Lecrubier • Editorial office @ hospitalSalpêtriere (Paris) • Published by Elsevier (Paris) • First name: Psychiatrie & Psychobiologie • In 2009 transferred to EPA • 11/2004 Editorshiphanded over to Sophia Frangou, Philip Gorwood and Reinhard Heun @ Sainte-Anne hospital(Paris)
House journal of the EPA • 8 issues a year (80-100 a year) • Averagetime: • 1 week for rejection • 3 weeks for referees • Web: http://www.ees.elsevier.com/eurpsy/ • Type of articles: original(letters & reviews≈0) • Topics: whatever!
Procedure • Veryregular check of the web (>1/week) • « What are the reasons I should refuse this one » philosophy (sorry about that!) becausewealready have toomuch in the pipeline • Kind but clearletter (1 of the 3 editor) for initial rejection. • If impossible to rejectimmediatly, looking for 6 referees (fromPubMed, good journals on the specifictopic, includingonly 1 proposed), and cancel ourdemandwhen 2 or 3 are reached
Referees • How referees are chosen? • Topicand domain of expertise • Recent article in PubMed in good journals • Out of the black list • How to chase • Finding emails withspecific software from Elsevier® • Reminding (+++) withautomatic emails • Agreement betweenreferees isaround 0%, but excellent for global tendency. • We have lists of referees whichdecisionsisalwaysaccept or reject… • Refreesgive an advice, they do not have a role in the decision
Issue 1: Difficult to stop accepting Toomuch articles alreadyaccepted (too good to berefused, althoughweshould not) But quickly on PubMed (so no damage for the authors) Then a long delaybetweenPubMed (quotable) to the journal (considered as quotable for the IF)…. Whichmightbe positive !?
Issue 2: Link with the EPA Strength of a broad association, linkwithkeykeaders, support of the congress, clear-cutidentity… EurPsychiatry/EPA relationships. Editors are bothindependent and related… Last issue: European guidance- a project of the EPA (prevention, promotion, quality, antidepressants, suicide, COI)
Issue 3: Link with the Editor Elsevier is a rich, worldwide editor with excellent access (Web of Science) Veryprofessionalwork (reliable, quick, reactive) Elsevier wants, understandably, to make money…
Issue 4: 3 editors vs 1 Time-consuming job, easy to loosefriends and politically sensitive + Easier to manage the 1/3 of the work Possibility to forward ms Important to share important decisions, directions, pressure. - Slower (1 meeting a year), 3 meanspossibility of subgroups! Cerberus, guardian of Hell, a ferocious three-headed dog, was rarely seduced or bitten (Psyche, Cumes sybilla, Thésée, Orphée and Hercules) with the help of presents (cake of honey and opiates)…
Issue 4: 3 editors vs 1 Time-consuming job, easy to loosefriends and politically sensitive + Easier to manage the 1/3 of the work Possibility to forward ms Important to share important decisions, directions, pressure. - Slower (1 meeting a year), 3 meanspossibility of subgroups! philip Reine sophia Cerberus, guardian of Hell, a ferocious three-headed dog, was rarely seduced or bitten (Psyche, Cumes sybilla, Thésée, Orphée and Hercules) with the help of presents (cake of honey and opiates)…
Issue 4: 3 editors vs 1 Time-consuming job, easy to loose friends and politically sensitive + Easier to manage the 1/3 of the work Possibility to forward ms Important to share important decisions, directions, pressure. - Slower (1 meeting a year), 3 means possibility of subgroups! Sophia Philip Reine Reine Cerberus, guardian of Hell, a ferocious three-headed dog, was rarely seduced or bitten (Psyche, Cumes sybilla, Thésée, Orphée and Hercules) with the help of presents (cake of honey and opiates)…