5 Tips for how to publish a research paper 2023

Every research professional aspires to rack up a number of high-profile research paper publications by the time they retire. This helps cement their legacy as a top-notch researcher and academician who made significant contributions to his/her field. 

Publications are the primary means for scientists to publicise their work, and ultimately it is by their papers that they will be judged.

The most basic ingredient of a top-class research paper is world-class research work. Researchers should always strive to work with the best scientists they possibly can in the best lab they can find. They will learn the most to do excellent science if they are surrounded by it during their training. Then, they should make sure that the issues they are investigating are important and of interest to others in the field. Most editors of top SCOPUS indexed journals attest to the fact that the most successful articles are often those that present innovative research. But the best newspapers also present their story in a clear and logical way. The thought behind the paper is succinct, so the writing is clear. Writing research papers with all of these attributes can take a bit of strategic thinking, practice, and know-how.

• Tip #1

Conceptualizing & Developing A World-Class Research Topic

• Identifying Your Target Audience
  • These are some questions a researcher should ask themself – 
    • Are they experts in their specific field or scientists from other disciplines? 
    • Is it the reading public or the decision-makers? 
  • Each of these audiences will bring different assumptions or background knowledge to their article, so how they write for each will be different. 
  • Researchers should also ask themselves the questions their audience might be asking – 
    • What are the reasons for reading this research article? 
    • Is reading this article a productive utilisation of time? 
    • Why dedicate time to reading this article instead of doing something else entirely?
  • Attending these upcoming 2023 international conferences will help greatly in getting advice on this topic from veteran research authors.

• Not Underestimating This Target Audience  
  • Researchers shouldn’t make their target audiences work to understand what they’re trying to say or how their story is structured. 
  • The people who submit their manuscripts are also busy people, especially reviewers and journal editors. 
  • If their manuscript is difficult to read and follow, it will result in making their task of scrutinising their manuscript harder than it should be – increasing the likelihood that their work will be poorly rated or rejected if considered for publication.

• Succinctly Describing Concepts
  • Researchers should use this step to establish the order of their ideas, identifying the main points and supporting points of their articles. 
  • The description doesn’t need to be tidy and linear if that doesn’t work for them. 
  • Using sticky notes, the mind map technique or writing on a blackboard are all techniques that researchers can use to ensure their ideas form a cohesive structure.

• Taking It Step By Step – Concept To Research Conclusion
  • Academic writing shouldn’t be like a detective story that only reveals the outcome at the end. 
  • Effective science stories start with a clear purpose, work through a clear support structure, and bring the story to completion. 
  • The organization and sequence of ideas should be clear throughout. 
  • If researchers find themselves backtracking or repeating details, it likely means that the structure of their work needs to be revised.

• Less Is More – Simplicity Is Underrated
  • Just because the subject is complex doesn’t mean the writing has to be. 
  • Simple, direct sentences are better than long, convoluted sentences. 
  • Precise and clear words are better than vague words. 
  • Researchers shouldn’t use jargon or acronyms – especially when submitting to international multidisciplinary journals. 
  • They should make sure that every word plays a role in presenting their case and that they know the meaning of any unusual words they use.
  • If a researcher is looking to publish a research paper in a language that requires heavy translation on their part, they should seek help from their advisor, colleagues, academic writing centers, and professional writing services to improve their article.

• Tip #2

Getting Research Writing Right, Down To The Tee

• Practice Is Paramount
  • This may sound like a cliched point, but it’s absolutely key to keep at it. 
  • Researchers should write regularly and practice it as a discipline in its own right. 
  • Writing a high-quality, publishable article necessitates confidence in one’s ideas, as well as practice and skills that take time to learn.
  • Researchers can learn to write well, but they also need to increase the time they spend writing. 
  • It doesn’t have to be at their desk or in front of a computer, though.
  • Researchers can make good use of the time spent walking, waiting for the bus, or travelling on the train to think about how they can improve what they are currently writing.

• Distinguishing Between High-Quality Writing & Otherwise
  • Research authors should think about which academic writers are producing work that interests them and which don’t. 
  • They should also contemplate questions such like – 
    • What is the difference in how these authors present their arguments? 
    • What’s the difference in how they use words and put sentences together? 
  • Thinking carefully about the writing of others is a step towards improving one’s own.
  • Get a list of upcoming conferences in 2023 to find a conference that addresses this specific topic. 

• Saving Editing For The End
  • Some researchers are able to compose and edit at the same time, but if one is not able to do so, they should do them separately. 
  • The first draft of one’s research might be horrible, and they might not want to show anything to anyone else. 
  • The best thing to do is to work on it every day to learn more until one’s story or argument is complete and wait until later to change it.

• Taking Some Time Off From Writing & Reviewing Helps Freshen The Mind & Refuels The Think Tank
  • This is the time a researcher’s manuscript spends in the dark of their filing cabinet or unopened on their hard drive. 
  • This is one of the most crucial tasks a researcher can carry out when writing because it allows them to become a better editor of their own work. 
  • Letting their manuscript sit for a while means that when they come to review it, they should be able to identify any issues with it.

• Keeping At It, Day In & Day Out
  • It is without a doubt a fact that it is more crucial than ever for students and early career professionals to inculcate good writing abilities and a thorough knowledge of the journal publishing process. 
  • However, developing these skills and putting them into practice takes time, so research authors shouldn’t be discouraged. 
  • Everybody has to start somewhere.

• Tip #3 

Pick, Prepare, & Submit To A World-Class SCOPUS Indexed Journal

• Know When It’s Time To Submit
  • Researchers who already have an oversized amount of knowledge but are still experimenting should consider whether or not their analysis will be split into two separate stories. 
  • This approach may allow earlier studies to be published more quickly, even before subsequent ones are completed.

• Getting A Mock Review Done Goes A Long Way
  • Using a service like IFERP, which provides reviews prior to journal submission, will further increase publishing speed. 
  • They’ll also be able to simply get feedback from their colleagues on the strength of their manuscript by simply asking for their help. 
  • With these comments in hand before submitting, researchers will be able to avoid a number of objections from journal reviewers.

• Picking The Most Ideal SCOPUS Journal
  • To increase the likelihood of paper acceptance, researchers should try to choose a journal whose scope might be a smart fit with their analytical goal. 
  • By talking to their colleagues, reviewing their own list of references, and browsing journal websites and up-to-date tables of contents, they can quicken this process. 
  • They’ll also need to consider journals and publishers that favour a quick extra time between submission and decision making.
  • Submission to open-access journals or those journals known for accelerating publication of peer-reviewed science, which tend to specialise in scientific validity rather than novelty and significance, could still make it easier to speed up the release.

• Getting In Touch With The Journal’s Editorial Team
  • A pre-submission survey is a letter written to a journal to determine their interest in one’s manuscript. 
  • This survey could help researchers check whether or not their article would be an honest-to-goodness journal without the need for going through the whole submission and review process. 
  • Completely different journals might have different needs for the content of these requests; for example, some journals require submission of one’s manuscript abstract alongside their letter.
  • Researchers should note that in related cases, a pre-submission investigation might, indeed, be required.

• Abiding By All Ethical, Formatting, & Other Journal Guidelines
  • Carefully following the target journal’s rules for the quilt letter, main text, references, figures and tables, and any supplemental information will help researchers avoid unnecessary delays in publication. Checking out the journal’s website helps immensely in this regard.

• Cover Letters Help Immensely
  • The cover letter that accompanies a researcher’s submission provides an opportunity to highlight the connection between their work and the journal and present their main findings. 
  • An effective letter sent to a relevant journal will undoubtedly prompt the editor to immediately send their manuscript for review. 
  • Attend a virtual conference in 2023 to learn more about how to write an ace cover letter. 

• Post-Submission Follow-Ups 
  • If a researcher has submitted their manuscript to a journal but still hasn’t had a choice, they should consider checking with the publisher about the quality of their submission. 
  • The total time from submission to final publishing process usually varies between journals and fields, so researchers will need to see colleagues or check the journal’s website to determine if they have waited longer than usual.

• Tip #4

Deal With The Review Process Like A Pro

• Understanding The Reviewing Process Of The Chosen SCOPUS Journal
  • Journals can be led by professional editorial staff or by academics who are bestowed on the roles of editors. 
  • Both types of editors send papers to peer reviewers – working scientists who rate a research author’s paper for –
    • precision, 
    • reasoning, and 
    • scientific piquancy. 
  • Some journals have a preliminary screening stage where articles unlikely to pass the review process are screened out. 
  • Scientific editors make these initial selection decisions with guidance from the Board of Reviewing Editors, a group of more than a hundred practising scientists.

• The Typical Peer Review Process
  • Peer-reviewers are chosen by the editor on the basis of their expertise in particular disciplines, often using extensive databases compiled by the journal and the editor’s knowledge of the field. 
  • Some scientists are better reviewers than others – they are more critical and thorough, a fact that is quickly becoming more apparent to editors. 
  • The review process can last anywhere between a few days to several weeks. 
  • After the review process, the editor makes a decision on publication, taking into account all the feedback it has received. 
  • The editorial goals of the journals – sometimes journals decide that certain areas are of particular forthcoming or diminishing interest – are factored into the decision, as is the knowledge of the reviewers themselves and the context of their thoughts.

• Ensuring That The Cover Letter Is Nothing Short Of Exemplary
  • Researchers can help the review process go smoothly by providing a cover letter that includes, in very plain language, a concise version of the entire logic of the document that clarifies its importance and context. 
  • If there are any distinct considerations for the editor and reviewers to take into account, researchers should include them in the cover letter.
  • These may include information about their own availability, related work being reviewed in other journals (from their lab or other labs), or the names of other scientists who are working on the same problem and who would therefore have a conflict of interest when reviewing their article. 
  • Researchers should keep this list short; otherwise, the editors will be forced to ignore their listing or get an uninformed review. 
  • If it is necessary to request that some people be excluded from the examination, it is best to explain why.

• Data Visibility
  • All related data not included in the main body of the document should be clearly accessible to reviewers, either as an appendix or via a publicly available database.

• Ensuring Professional Responses To Reviewers’ Comments
  • Only on rare occasions do reviewers recommend that a research author’s paper be accepted without review. 
  • Scientific editors also often give authors detailed advice on how to revise their articles. 
  • Authors should remember that the editor and reviewers are interested in their articles. 
  • They only want to see the quality of the research paper enhanced and published successfully. 
  • Research authors increase the chances of their articles being accepted if they assume that reviewers offer their suggestions in the form of constructive criticism. 
  • Researchers should make every attempt possible to comply with their requests, including performing additional experiments, even if they believe they are unnecessary. 
  • Of course, examiners’ claims are sometimes wrong or based on faulty reasoning. 
  • In these cases, particularly if a researcher has agreed to respond to other reviewers’ comments, the editor may be receptive to considering a reasonably made argument that the request need not be met for acceptance of their article.
  • When a research author returns their revised article to the journal, they should include a detailed, point-by-point explanation of how they responded to each of the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. 
  • They should remember that the editor may send their responses to reviewers, so if they decline to respond to any of the referees’ comments, they must craft their argument carefully to be clear but not offensive.
  • Researchers should always treat reviewers’ comments and motivations with respect. 
  • It’s not good to engage in personal attacks or comment on critics or critics. 
  • Researchers should also be polite to their editor. 
  • The editor will be most willing to work with them when it’s not unpleasant to do so.

• Taking Rejection In One’s Stride
  • Despite one’s best efforts, one may receive a rejection letter from the journal of their choice. 
  • It doesn’t mean their paper isn’t good. In fact, a lot of SCOPUS indexed journals reject the overwhelming majority of the articles submitted to them.
  • Rejection can be upsetting, and it’s often a good idea to allow at least twenty-four hours to pass before thinking about one’s next steps.
  • Sending an angry email to the editor explaining why the review process was unfair and biassed is not recommended. 
  • If, after careful contemplation, one is still of the belief that there has been a misunderstanding or error, some journals will welcome a plea for reconsideration, usually in the form of a clear letter or message explaining their point of view. 
  • Some editors may be willing to have a telephonic conversation.
  • In most cases, the best and quickest way is to – 
    • quickly reassess one’s choice of journal, 
    • correct any errors that may have been pointed out during the review process, 
    • reformat the article for their second-choice journal, and 
    • submit it. 
  • More than half of all papers rejected by high-profile SCOPUS indexed journals are eventually published elsewhere. 
  • Those whose submissions end up in rejection have an opportunity to hone their writing and editing skills, perhaps even publish their research paper in an international conference.

• Tip #5

Structuring & Formatting The Research Paper To Perfection

• Once one is working in their new lab and churning out data at full speed, they have to judge when they have enough data to write a paper. 
• Researchers who begin writing too early risk wasting their time, and those who wait too long risk getting caught. 
• So researchers should ideally stop and write when there is enough data to tell a complete and logical story. 
• The key for researchers is to constantly keep the paper in mind as they perform the experiments. 

• They should think about the numbers that may already be in the diary and what sort of info they will contain. 
• The reader should be able to come to the same conclusions as the researcher based solely on their results. 
• So researchers should ask themselves if, after grasping the results presented in their figures, the reader will be led to the right overall conclusion that they arrived at, in addition to questions such as – 
  • If any compelling experience has been left out? 
  • Are any alternative explanations viable? 
  • If so, what data will they need to collect to rule out this possibility? 
• Before performing a new experiment, researchers should always ask themselves how it will contribute to the logic of the post.
• As researchers are immersed in the details of their work, it can be difficult to stay objective and see the holes. 
• Researchers should test their reasoning on colleagues by asking them if they told a logical and convincing story after giving a lecture from their assembled characters, for example.

• Understanding The Different Formats & Choosing The Right One

• Comprehensive Research Articles 
  • Such articles contain an in-depth investigation of the topic and are considered the standard format. 
  • It utilizes the ‘IMRAD’ format – 
    • Introduction, 
    • Methods, 
    • Results, and 
    • Discussion. 

• Short/Brief Communications
  • While not as comprehensive as full research papers, these research papers also make a significant contribution to the literature. 
  • Their length will be fixed by the journal but is generally three thousand five hundred words or less and will contain up to two tables and figures.
  • Unlike full papers, methods, results, and discussions can be integrated into a single section.

• Rapid Communications
  • These articles disseminate particularly notable findings quickly, typically in a brief communication format. 
  • Articles that have immediate repercussions for public health would be appropriate for such a format, as would findings in a highly competitive and rapidly changing field.

The tips offered in this article aren’t exhaustive, but they are not difficult to implement either. These recommendations require careful attention, planning, and implementation. However, following these tips could help research authors improve the likelihood of having their work published, which is essential to having a productive, exciting, and rewarding academic career. Attend educational conferences 2023 to learn more crucial SCOPUS publishing tips.