22/09/2013

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL JORGE BASADRE GROHMANN

ESCUELA DE POSGRADO

CURSO METODOLOGA DE LA INVESTIGACIN CIENTFICA CON ENFOQUE DE ARTCULO CIENTFICO

tica en la publicacin de artculos cientficos

WenceslaoT.MedinaEspinoza
Setiembre2013 Tacna Per

Objetivo de la presentacin
Indicar los aspectos ticos a considerar en la preparacin publicacin de artculos cientficos.

22/09/2013

Nosoloescribir,tambinpublicar
Comorequisitodegraduacin. Comorequisitodepromocin laboral. Paraobtenerpremiosydinero. Paraserreconocido. Paradiseminarelconocimiento.

Scientific Publication is a Team Effort

Journal

Authors

Reviewer

ACS Journals:http://pubs.acs.org/about.html

22/09/2013

Preparation and Submission of Manuscripts:

Follow General Rules:
Ensure work is new and original research All Authors listed on ms are aware of submission and agree with content and support submission Agree that the manuscript can be examined by anonymous reviewers. Provide copies of related work submitted or published elsewhere Obtain copyright permission if figures/tables need to be reproduced Include proper affiliation
5

Author Responsibilities

What is publishable.
Journalsliketopublishpapersthataregoingtobewidelyreadanduseful tothereaders Papersthatreportoriginalandsignificantfindings thatarelikelytobeof interesttoabroadspectrumofitsreaders Papersthatarewellorganizedandwellwritten,withclearstatements regardinghowthefindingsrelatetoandadvancethe understanding/developmentofthesubject Papersthatareconciseandyetcomplete intheirpresentationofthe findings
6

22/09/2013

Mission of Scientific Journals

To publish original, high quality, and important findings in a specific scientific area with peer- review Example: The purpose of Journal of Food Science is to publish important findings in food science and technology. Therefore, the contents of a manuscript should be within this scope and be relevant to the readership of the Journal of Food Science.

Roles of the Scientific Editor

Scientific Editor decides the publication fate of manuscripts based on the opinions of other scientists who judge the quality of submitted papers - peer review process. Scientific Editor is the guardian of scholarly record, with the duty to ensure that published papers are scientifically of high quality and free from errors.

22/09/2013

Criteria for Acceptance

Originality Novel or creative research methodology New and important research findings

CriteriaforAcceptance
Scientific Quality Appropriate experimental design and methodology Data presentation and interpretation Appropriate statistical analysis Depth of the investigation Substance of the results Thorough and logical discussion of results
10

22/09/2013

Criteria for Acceptance

Clarity of Presentation Organization of presentation Readability, clarity of writing, and grammar Paper is much more likely to be rejected based on inadequate analysis than lack of originality

11

Criteria for Acceptance

Importance to the Scientific Field and the Readership Usefulness of findings to scientists and researchers.

12

22/09/2013

Two Essential Ingredients for successful paper Good organization Appropriate language within the organization

13

Immediate Rejection Criteria

The subject matter is of insufficient interest to the readership to a specific journal Lack of new information The results are trivial, predictable, or duplicative of others Insufficient international importance or interest Scientific quality is substandard due to poor experimental design and methodology Improper conclusion Suspected misconduct - fabrication and plagiarism
14

22/09/2013

Cmo tomar las revisiones?

Dejar la rabia al lado (patear una puerta!) Lo que dicen los revisores sirve para mejorar la calidad de la investigacin. A veces los revisores son las nicas personas (en calidad de expertos) que pueden opinar sobre lo que uno hace. Ellos tienen el deber de criticar constructivamente la investigacin (y no el investigador). El dilogo con los revisores y el editor debe ser enriquecedor.

15

Qu se hace con un rechazo?

Es necesario estar preparado sicolgicamente para aceptar el rechazo. Esto es muy duro y a veces uno no se lo espera. Sin embargo, el rechazo constructivo debe ser tomado como una ayuda en la formacin del investigador. Es necesario considerarlo, es una crtica muy valiosa, uno debe aprender de la evaluacin. Decidir si el artculo es mejorable para volver a enviarlo a la misma revista, o a una de menor impacto o bien se archiva.
16

22/09/2013

CRITERIOSPARALAREDACCINDEPAPERS
17

Introduction
Provide the readers with sufficient background information to evaluate the results of the research No more than 2 typed pages usually Focus on the main subject Brief and well integrated review of pertinent work Cite key and current literature
12

22/09/2013

Introduction
Extensive review of the literature is not needed Explain the importance of your research
What new or important scientific information is needed to advance knowledge in the subject area? State clearly why the research is needed and worth doing

State the objectives of your work

13

Materials and Methods

Providesufficientanalyticalinformationsothatworkcanberepeated. Useappropriateexperimentaldesigntoanswertheresearchquestion. Citeandusetheacceptedandcurrentmethodology. Ifapublishedmethodismodified,suchmodificationsmustbedescribedindetail. Describenewmethodsindetail. Describestatisticalanalysisofdataifappropriate. Usesubheadingsasneededforclarity.
14

10

22/09/2013

Results
Present research data concisely and interpret the data scientifically. Short and sweet with no excess verbiage. Work consistent with the objectives stated in the Introduction.

21

Results
Reproducibilityandsensitivityofanalyticalmethods Reportrepresentativedataratherthanendless repetitivedata Numericaldatawiththecorrectnumberofsignificant digits

22

11

22/09/2013

Results
Present results concisely using tables and figures as needed. Table and figure legends should be accompanied with sufficient information to make the main point so that minimal text is needed. Do not present the same information in both tables, figures, and the text. All tables and figures must be numbered in the order in which they are mentioned in the text.

23

Discussion
Show the relationships among observed facts. Point out any exceptions or lack of correlations, and define any unsettled points. Discuss the discrepancies between new results and previously reported results in similar studies. Discuss the research limitations and identify future research. Discuss the theoretical implications and possible practical applications of your research.

24

12

22/09/2013

Conclusion
Identify key findings and application to food science and technology Conclusion should not be a summary of the work done or a virtual duplication of the abstract. Conclusions should be justified by the experimental design, methods, and results.

25

References
Cite current and key pertinent references. Consider references from the journal itself. Reference citations must be accurate and complete. The number of references should be appropriate without a complete historical bibliography
26

13

22/09/2013

CONSIDERACIONESTICAS
27

Consideraciones ticas
Every scientist is responsible for protecting the integrity of science Davis(2005) Ethics refers to the choices we make that affect others for good or ill. Various ethical breaches can occur in science, as in any field. However, in science, two ethical errors are considered unforgivable distorting your own data and plagiarizing the work of others. Both are matters of honesty vs. dishonesty, but in real life application they are not always as black and white as this distinction would make it seem.
28

14

22/09/2013

Consideraciones ticas
Scientific progress depends upon trust trust in the personal honesty of other scientists and trust in the honesty of their data. Simply settle for nothing less than careful research, use of scientific reasoning, an open mind, clear and accurate communication, and a willingness to be honest at all costs (Davis, 2005). Unintentional distortions can be more problematical: Was that odd result in one dataset simply an anomaly?
29

Consideraciones ticas
Write only what you know to be true. It means no falsified data, no fictional notes, no creative quotations. No exceptions

30

15

22/09/2013

Useful Definitions: Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting or reporting research
Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct: A Guidance Document for Editors, January 2000, Office of Research Integrity, Office of Public Health and Science, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services http://ori.dhhs.gov

31

What is not acceptable

Papers that are routine extensions of previous reports and that do not appreciably advance fundamental understanding or knowledge in the area Incremental / fragmentary reports of research results Verbose, poorly organized, papers cluttered with unnecessary or poor quality illustrations Violations of ethical guidelines, including plagiarism of any type or degree (of others or of oneself)
32

16

22/09/2013

Useful Definitions: Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism

Plagiarism: using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (Nat. Acad. Press document) Self-Plagiarism: The verbatim copying or reuse of ones own research (IEEE Policy statement) Both types of plagiarism are considered to be unacceptable practice by most scientific publications

33

Other Types of Ethical Violations

Duplicate publication/submission of research findings; failure to inform the editor of related papers that the author has under consideration or in press Unrevealed conflicts of interest that could affect the interpretation of the findings Misrepresentation of research findings - use of selective or fraudulent data to support a hypothesis or claim

34

17

22/09/2013

Referencias
Ahmadizad S.2009.Howtowriteandpublishascientificpaper(ISI).Facultyof SportSciences,Shahid Beheshti University. Bouchon P,Saz C.2008.Seminario deTesis.Departamento deIngeniera Qumica yBioprocesos.Pontificia UniversidadCatlica deChile. LundD,MinD.2009.EffectivePreparationofScientificManuscripts.TheOhio StateUniversity. Prashant V.Kamat.2006.IssuesrelatedtoScientificPublication Presentation, EthicsandImpact.

35

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL JORGE BASADRE GROHMANN

ESCUELA DE POSGRADO

CURSO METODOLOGA DE LA INVESTIGACIN CIENTFICA CON ENFOQUE DE ARTCULO CIENTFICO

tica en la publicacin de artculos cientficos

WenceslaoT.MedinaEspinoza
DoctorenCienciasdelaIngeniera wtmedina@uc.cl
Setiembre2013 Tacna Per

18