RULE OF THE WEEK
CRediT Author Contributions: Assigning the 14 Roles Without a Lab Dispute.
The CRediT taxonomy names 14 contributor roles. Here is what each one covers, who usually claims it, and how to write a statement your co-authors will sign.
Blog.
Page 4 of 5
DESK REJECT FILES
How to Avoid Desk Rejection: Read Your Paper the Way an Editor Does.
A first-read simulation for your own manuscript: title, abstract, structure, formatting, and declarations, checked in the order an editor meets them, with PLOS ONE rules as the worked example.
JOURNAL SELECTION
Predatory journal red flags: a checklist you can run in 15 minutes.
Flattering invitation emails, fees that appear only after acceptance, unverifiable metrics, and a ghost editorial board: how to check any journal before you trust it with your paper.
RULE OF THE WEEK
The et al. cutoff: six authors is a journal rule, not a style default.
Six authors, then et al., at both PLOS ONE and Frontiers in Neurology. The number comes from each journal's reference spec, not from Vancouver or APA, and a reference manager set once formats for the wrong journal.
REVIEWER RESPONSE
How to Disagree With a Reviewer Politely (and Still Get Accepted).
Refusing a reviewer's suggestion will not sink your paper. A defensive tone will. The structure that works: concede the observation, contest the prescription, cite evidence.
DESK REJECT FILES
The most common reasons for desk rejection, ranked.
Four causes account for most desk rejections. Here they are ranked, each anchored to a journal rule that trips it, from scope mismatch to recycled references.
SUBMISSION KIT
ORCID for first-time authors: what it is and why journals require it.
Three spellings of one name means three scattered publication records. A free identifier ends the scatter, and setup takes about ten minutes before your first submission.
JOURNAL SELECTION
How to Read a Journal's Aims and Scope Before You Submit.
Scope mismatches start with skimming. Read the aims and scope page as instructions from an editor, then check its claims against what the journal has published in the last two years.
SUBMISSION KIT
The first submission checklist: every file, statement, and field.
First submissions bounce for missing pieces, not weak science. Here is every file, statement, and field a submission system will ask for, from the title page to the data availability statement.
REVIEWER RESPONSE
The Point-by-Point Response Format Editors Expect, With a Template.
Editors triage revisions by scanning the response document, not by rereading the paper. The four-part response unit, numbering for multiple reviewers, and a reusable template.
WRITING IN ENGLISH
The English needs improvement: turning a vague comment into a fix list.
Reviewers compress every language problem into one sentence. What that sentence usually points at, how to triage your own manuscript, and what PLOS ONE and Frontiers actually require of the English.
DESK REJECT FILES
Desk reject vs reject after review: two different diagnoses.
One decision comes from an editor's skim, the other from expert reports. Each rejection asks for a different repair, and confusing the two costs months.