dr. wenceslao medina espinoza2

7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2

1/18

22/09/2013

1

CURSO

METODOLOGA DE LA INVESTIGACIN CIENTFICA CON ENFOQUE DE ARTCULO CIENTFICO

tica en la publicacin de artculoscientficos

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL JORGE BASADRE GROHMANN

Setiembre2013

Tacna Per

WenceslaoT.MedinaEspinoza

ESCUELA DE POSGRADO

Objetivo de la presentacin

Indicar los aspectos ticos a considerar en la preparacinpublicacin de artculos cientficos.

2


2/18

22/09/2013

2

Nosoloescribir,tambinpublicar Comorequisitodegraduacin.

Comorequisitodepromocin

laboral.

Paraobtenerpremiosydinero.

Paraserreconocido.

Paradiseminar

el

conocimiento.

3

Journal

Authors Reviewer

Scientific Publication is a Team Effort

ACS Journals:http://pubs.acs.org/about.html4


3/18

22/09/2013

3

Author Responsibilities 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 withcontent and support submission

Agree that the manuscript can be examined by anonymousreviewers.

Provide copies of related work submitted or published elsewhere Obtain copyright permission if figures/tables need to be

reproduced

Include proper affiliation

5

What is publishable.

Journalsliketopublishpapersthataregoingtobewidelyreadandusefultothereaders

Papersthatreportoriginalandsignificantfindings thatarelikelytobeofinterest

to

abroad

spectrum

of

its

readers

Papersthatarewellorganizedandwellwritten,withclearstatementsregardinghowthefindingsrelatetoandadvancetheunderstanding/developmentofthesubject

Papersthatareconciseandyetcomplete intheirpresentationofthefindings

6


4/18

22/09/2013

4

To publish original, high quality, and important findings ina specific scientific area with peer- review

Example: The purpose ofJournal of Food Science is topublish 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 theJournal of Food Science.

Mission of Scientific Journals

7

Scientific Editor decides the publication fate of manuscriptsbased on the opinions of other scientists who judge thequality of submitted papers - peer review process.

Scientific Editor is the guardian of scholarly record, withthe duty to ensure that published papers are scientificallyof high quality and free from errors.

Roles of the Scientific Editor

8


5/18

22/09/2013

5

Originality

Novel or creative research methodology

New and important research findings

Criteria for Acceptance

9

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

CriteriaforAcceptance

10


6/18

22/09/2013

6

Clarity of Presentation

Organization of presentation

Readability, clarity of writing, and grammar

Paper is much more likely to be rejected basedon inadequate analysis than lack of originality


11

Importance to the Scientific Field and theReadership

Usefulness of findings to scientists andresearchers.


12


7/18

22/09/2013

7

Two Essential Ingredients for successful paper

Good organization

Appropriate language within the organization

13

The subject matter is of insufficient interest to thereadership 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 experimentaldesign and methodology

Improper conclusion

Suspected misconduct - fabrication and plagiarism

Immediate Rejection Criteria

14


8/18

22/09/2013

8

Cmo tomar las revisiones? Dejar la rabia al lado (patear una puerta!)

Lo que dicen los revisores sirve para mejorar la calidad de lainvestigacin.

A veces los revisores son las nicas personas (en calidad deexpertos) 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 elrechazo. Esto es muy duro y a veces uno no se lo espera.

Sin embargo, el rechazo constructivo debe ser tomado comouna ayuda en la formacin del investigador.

Es necesario considerarlo, es una crtica muy valiosa, unodebe aprender de la evaluacin.

Decidir si el artculo es mejorable para volver a enviarlo a lamisma revista, o a una de menor impacto o bien se archiva.

16


9/18

22/09/2013

9

CRITERIOSPARALAREDACCINDEPAPERS17

Provide the readers with sufficient backgroundinformation 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

Introduction

12


10/18

22/09/2013

10

Extensive review of the literature is not needed

Explain the importance of your research

What new or important scientific information is needed to advanceknowledge in the subject area?

State clearly why the research is needed and worth doing

State the objectives of your work

Introduction

13

Providesufficientanalyticalinformationsothatworkcanberepeated.

Useappropriateexperimentaldesigntoanswertheresearchquestion.

Citeandusetheacceptedandcurrentmethodology.

Ifapublishedmethodismodified,suchmodificationsmustbedescribedindetail.

Describenewmethodsindetail.

Describestatisticalanalysisofdataifappropriate.

Usesubheadingsasneededforclarity.

Materials and Methods

14


11/18

22/09/2013

11

Present research data concisely and interpretthe data scientifically.

Short and sweet with no excess verbiage.

Work consistent with the objectives stated in the

Introduction.

Results

21

Reproducibilityandsensitivityofanalyticalmethods

Reportrepresentativedataratherthanendless

repetitivedata

Numericaldatawiththecorrectnumberofsignificantdigits

22

Results


12/18

22/09/2013

12

Results Present results concisely using tables and figures as needed.

Table and figure legends should be accompanied with sufficientinformation to make the main point so that minimal text isneeded.

Do not present the same information in both tables, figures, andthe text.

All tables and figures must be numbered in the order in whichthey are mentioned in the text.

23

Show the relationships among observed facts.

Point out any exceptions or lack of correlations, and define anyunsettled points.

Discuss the discrepancies between new results and previouslyreported results in similar studies.

Discuss the research limitations and identify future research.

Discuss the theoretical implications and possible practicalapplications of your research.

Discussion

24


13/18

22/09/2013

13

Identify key findings and application to food scienceand technology

Conclusion should not be a summary of the workdone or a virtual duplication of the abstract.

Conclusions should be justified by the experimentaldesign, methods, and results.

Conclusion

25

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 appropriatewithout a complete historical bibliography

References

26


14/18

22/09/2013

14

CONSIDERACIONESTICAS27

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 applicationthey are not always as black and white as this distinction would makeit seem.

28


15/18

22/09/2013

15

Consideraciones ticas Scientific progress depends upon trust trust in the

personal honesty of other scientists and trust in thehonesty of their data.

Simply settle for nothing less than careful research, use ofscientific reasoning, an open mind, clear and accuratecommunication, 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


16/18

22/09/2013

16

Useful Definitions:

Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism,or other practices that seriously deviate from those that arecommonly accepted within the scientific community forproposing, 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 reportsand that do not appreciably advance fundamentalunderstanding or knowledge in the area

Incremental / fragmentary reports of research results

Verbose, poorly organized, papers cluttered withunnecessary or poor quality illustrations

Violations of ethical guidelines, including plagiarism ofany type or degree (of others or of oneself)

32


17/18

22/09/2013

17

Useful Definitions:

Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism

Plagiarism: using the ideas or words of another personwithout giving appropriate credit (Nat. Acad. Press document)

Self-Plagiarism: The verbatim copying or reuse of ones ownresearch (IEEE Policy statement)

Both types of plagiarism are considered to beunacceptable 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 theauthor has under consideration or in press

Unrevealed conflicts of interest that could affect theinterpretation of the findings

Misrepresentation of research findings - use of selectiveor fraudulent data to support a hypothesis or claim

34


18/18

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,

Ethicsand

Impact.

35

CURSO

METODOLOGA DE LA INVESTIGACIN CIENTFICA CON ENFOQUE DE ARTCULO CIENTFICO

tica en la publicacin de artculoscientficos

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL JORGE BASADRE GROHMANN

Setiembre2013

Tacna Per

WenceslaoT.MedinaEspinoza

DoctorenCienciasdelaIngeniera

[email protected]

ESCUELA DE POSGRADO

dr. wenceslao medina espinoza2

Documents