SETS

17/06/2019

Apply Today:

http://www.naukri.com/job-listings-Medical-Writer-Mumbai-Scholarly-Editing-and-Translation-Services-Mumbai-2-to-4-years-170619005354

22/05/2018

Plagiarism is the unauthorized paraphrasing or word-for-word copying of others’ written work. Often, it is the result of students or researchers not understanding the citation rules clearly.

28/03/2018

A summary of the life and achievements of Dr. Stephen Hawking—a true inspiration

On March 14, 2018, the world awoke to the news of the passing of one of the greatest minds of the twenty-first century, Stephen Hawking. Here, we attempt to summarize his life and achievements in the field of science.

05/03/2018

Asia Becomes the Leader in Global Innovation Again!

Check out the complete article here: http://www.editingindia.com/asia-becomes-the-leader-in-global-innovation-again/

19/02/2018

SETS is hiring! For an enriching career in academic editing, apply now or refer the position to an acquaintance or friend!

Posted By - Scholarly Editing and Translation Services P. Ltd.. Keywords - English Language,Language Skills,Social Science,Subject Matter Expertise,Quality Assurance,MS Office,Copy Editor,Proofreader,Proofreading,Editing,Research Paper Editing. Job Description - Job Description: Perform substantive....

30/01/2018

Copyright is a crucial issue involving research data. Researchers, their employers and funders, and other researchers seeking to reuse the research data often raise questions regarding sharing of intellectual property in the form of published articles and other means.

16/01/2018

Metadata 2020 is a collaborative project that supports richer, connected, and reusable metadata for scholarly and research pursuits.

24/11/2016

25/02/2016

Choosing a right fit for your manuscript

Selecting a target journal to publish your first paper is like walking into an apparel shop and losing your way by looking at the variety around you. First, you start looking for items of well-known brands, then you check their price tags, and considering the size of your wallet you then quietly move on to the next item. The most logical decision is to select a not too expensive item with a durable material. Well, the process of deciding a journal for a young scientist is a lot similar!
For established researchers choosing a journal out of their “pre-selected” journals, that is, some set journals where they have published papers for years, is the least concerned task. Being a young researcher, you are torn between being under the pressure to publish at least one paper annually or during your PhD and your (far-fetched) dream of publishing your papers only in prestigious journals. The most prestigious journals in your field (for example, Cell, Science, or Nature) are like those expensive, luxury clothing brands, which demand novelty research and require abundant data. By contrast, easily available (with lowest impact factors) or newly launched (without any impact factor) journal will question the quality of your research.
Therefore, depending on your data quality (the size of your wallet), the most logical option is to short list journals with a considerable impact factor (a debatable but sadly the most accepted criterion), which offer a peer review service and charge reasonable article processing fee.
Available options
As mentioned earlier, an established scientist already has a list of trustworthy journals; therefore, let your supervisor judge your work, and depending on the research topic and data quality let him/her suggest some journals.
Because reputed journal demand for the highest quality data and offer closed-access to published materials, a market of open access publishing has emerged recently (for example, PLoS ONE and eLife), which charge a relatively affordable article processing fee and offer open access to all published material.
Market of fakers
The ongoing trend of publish or perish in academia exerts tremendous pressure on young scientists that they cut corners out of desperation, which has given rise to a market of fake journals (and fake conferences), an updated list of “predatory open-access journals” can be found here. To emphasize the ugly truth of the current academic scenario, I would like you to refer to my another post on “Who’s afraid of peer review?” as a continuation of this topic.
In conclusion, first, be a critic of your own work. Second, this probably will be the final topic of research during your , but do some research and list out the best possible journals fit for your work by going through their open-access papers. Analyze whether your theme and the journal’s research theme are compatible, read reviews related to the journal on forums, try to find out the peer review service of that journal, and make a final decision.

23/02/2016

The changing world of publishing and science

(Isaac Newton’s paper on New Theory about Light and Colors in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the first scientific journal in English) or tried to track down few articles published in the first five years since your research topic gained recognition in the world of science? Here are more examples, the first paper published in Nature and few more in the first issue of Nature. Try to go through these ancient looking papers once in your free time and compare them with the most recent published papers related to your subject. You not only will notice how different publishing used to be
I remember my supervisor telling me that when he was a PhD student some 30 years ago, even the smallest scientific discovery held a great value because he was a graduate student in the phase of “discovery.” So how is science now? What I saw and felt in my graduate years, which is not a long ago, that science today is not about “discovery” but it is about “presenting a new observation” and polishing a stale idea by using new tools. By that statement, I did not mean to hurt anyone’s feeling or meant that science is dying, but what I want to point out is how much the mindset of “publish or perish” is putting pressure on scientists and changing science today.
Scientists are required to keep a steady publication record every year to save their career, which leads to submitting poor quality data, and the “business” model of the academic publishing is fueling this problem.
one study. Surviving under the pressure of continual publishing and emerging scientific #
However, universities following strict regulations to maintain a high standard research quality and the concept of “journal’s impact factor,” although debatable, regulate and validate the research quality at a certain level. As long as the pressure of “publish or perish” exists and publishing business does not undergo a reform, maintaining a high standard research quality is difficult.

10/02/2016

Peer reviewing gone wrong

Do you want to know the three moments when your heart will be in mouth during your PhD?
First, three seconds before going up on a stage to give a presentation either at a conference or at your thesis defense in front of a hall full of audience just waiting for you.
Second, when you see a reply email from the Editor-in-Chief of the journal where you submitted your manuscript.
Still don’t feel uneasy? Wait for the third one.
Opening the attachment in that reply email of the Editor-in-Chief and glancing through, or more precisely counting the number of suggested major and minor revisions for them to accept your manuscript for publishing.
The third one has to be it, partially out of the excitement because your manuscript is more or less publishable only if you obey those suggested revisions, which you would definitely do. You think you would but sometimes it can happen that reviewers might ask for changing the language in your manuscript, re-evaluating most of the data, or a series of new experiments. In addition, most journals give a fixed time period to submit your revised manuscript.
What to do now?
Go through all remarks and suggested revisions thoroughly. Have a proper discussion with your supervisor and see whether his/her thoughts match with reviewer’s ideas or you both think that one or some of the remarks are just wrong. At this point, discussing with your postdocs in your lab or your collaborator’s lab is also a good choice because these guys also have a fair experience of dealing with reviewer remarks and getting their work published. And the advantage is verifying whether you are thinking straight before objecting reviewer remarks and deciding whether to go ahead with the current journal for publication.
Solving conflicts
Once you are confident that some of the suggested revisions or remarks are wrong or can be avoided, and you have proper justifications for that, then write down all the details point-by-point and send an email to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. After discussing and resolving the matter properly with the Editor-in-Chief, inform him/her whether you will be going forward with the revision and whether you think that the time given for submitting the revised version is sufficient
Remember that the Editor-in-Chief of the journal has the final word whether he/she would like to go ahead with publishing your work. Before, he/she takes that decision you will require to make your clear all conflicts, preferably in a polite manner. Therefore, justifying your objections, what you agree with, and what you disagree with will be the crucial part. Usually, such issues are resolved without much hassle but there are always exceptions.
In worst cases, if the doubts and conflicts still remain, you can always opt out to continue with that journal and look for other journals.