There was a very interesting session with the editors of two
journals describing how to get your work published in a
journal that seeks to be read and archived by an exclusive
audience at the interface of biology, biostatistics, robotics,
engineering, bioanalytical chemistry and diagnostics,
emerging technology, microfluids and nanomedicine.
REALISTIC ABOUT JOURNAL SIGNIFICANCE
The editors have the goal of not having a large readership impact
factor (the commercial journals) rather be the resource of an
exclusive field in complex intersection of a number of fields.
In short, a specialty field.
1. Describe the topic that you wish to write on to the editor in
chief. Have the central message in 2-5 sentences providing the key
points. The topic should be targeted to the interest of the journal
readership. Negative results of an especially prevalent widely held
error is encouraged and can be published. It needs to be artfully
done extending or improving the concept and logically and
persuasively providing an alternative.
2. Send a cover letter and paper manuscript to the editor in chief
offering in the cover letter the gist of the article, possible reviewers
and people who for one reason or another should not be reviewers.
List who the corresponding author is.
3. It is important to read the author guidelines for detailed and
specific instructions about each one of the sections included
and provided as addenda electronically. There are generally word
count guidelines and sometimes that can be met by using archived
4. Six sections of a journal article included in a published full
paper were carefully described.
Results material and Method
References or citations and acknowledgements
5. Logical message sequences, like cause and effect, flow nicely
especially when composed by the authors and following the
order of the manuscript. Avoid not writing, concluding or
referring to data not described in the paper. Stay within
the page guidelines and only interpret conclusions guided
by the data presented.
6. Citations are critical to a good scientific paper and something
that all reviewers are quite mindful of.
8. Figures tables and legends
In my experience, this was the second time I met and spoke
with an editor about journal article writing. I did jointly
write and have published an article but. it is no longer
The editor did bring up the discussion of digital publication in
the vein of augmenting rather than replacing hard copy based
on publication counts.
Just could not pass up the opportunity to attend an early morning
session of a “special interest group” at a technical conference.
Group: Women professionals in science and technology
Topic: Big things happen in small groups
Discussions focused on three areas– leadership gap
(assertiveness commitment and ambition), career planning and
goal setting (fears and barriers) and doing it all (work-life
balance and perfectionism).
Our group pursued the third topic and while we all know it is not
possible to do everything to perfection, our behaviors fall back on
our habits both at home and in our career environments. Our
behaviors seem to have a divide where more serious thought is
given to our career environments, where we plan to cross train
and make it so everyone can take a vacation and have a workflow
that is less than 100% utilization. Home and personal life is not
managed in the same fashion– imperfection is allowed, couples
divide duties, some things just don’t get done. Work always enters
our home lives.
Some good thoughts came from Amy who identified with me, as
we were the two outliers in the group (single, unattached mid career
woman and lone wolf guy). Amy pointed out we need to realize
forming and building trustworthy, sharing relationships was key.
She came to me afterwards and thanked me for making a difference
by not trying to attract the spotlight but by shining light on an
unassuming team member (listening and supporting her comments).
Supporting the relationship building is the need to have an “off-button”
for distractors that can interrupt the important relationships in our
Some decisions like starting a family or leaving temporarily or
permanently can never seem to have a “right time”. That is because
we believe it should be thought out logically, when, in fact, it
is an emotional sensation that we support using facts and data.
(and even, after the fact.)
An engineering faculty member at Berkeley and I had a
conversation that women professionals commonly get…
wow, you are an engineering professor at Berkeley you must be
incredibly smart. How did you do it? What was your secret?
I could never do it?
How do you respond, she asked?
We thought together for a while and concluded it was important to
perform an audience analysis to assess if an emotional response would
be effective or an information loaded response would be.
For someone who could not easily relate to the complexities,
telling a story about who was a model or mentor for you and
provided a boost of confidence that you could do it. Then,
relate it to that person rewarding their curiosity in asking.
If it was an audience who could relate to the complexity, we
can be more factual and list that if it were highly structured
situation knowing the rules and being efficient in following
them made a difference. If the situation was complex, we
realize that luck is totally unpredictable and that persistence
and trying many alternatives and learning from failure gets
us to where we are and we probably could have not predicted