Getting Published in the Australian and New Zealand

Journal of Statistics: An Editor’s PerspectiveMichael Martin

Theory and Methods Editor, ANZJS

About the journal• Started as the Australian Journal of Statistics

in 1959• Became the Australian and New Zealand

Journal of Statistics in 1998, as a joint publication of the Statistical Society of Australia and the New Zealand Statistical Association

• Published by Wiley-Blackwell

Impact Factor

Four issues per year

2012 Impact Factor = 0.529

Five-year Impact Factor = 0.807

ISI JCR Ranking: 91 / 117 (Statistics and Probability)

Editor-in-Chief: Professor Alan Welsh (ANU)

Applications Editor: Professor James Curran (Auckland)

Theory and Methods Editors: Professor Martin Hazelton (Massey)and Professor Michael Martin (ANU)

Book Reviews Editor: Dr Petra Graham (Macquarie)

Technical Editors: Dr Neville Bartlett, Dr Rolf Turner

What we do• The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics publishes original articles in the following

categories:

• Applications: Papers demonstrate the application of statistical methods to problems faced by users of statistics. A particular focus is the application of newly developed statistical methodology to real data and the demonstration of better use of established statistical methodology in an area of application.

• Theory & Methods: Papers make a substantive and original contribution to the theory and methodology of statistics, econometrics or probability. A special focus is given to papers motivated by, and illustrated with, real data.

• Reviews: Papers give an overview of a current area of statistical research which consolidate and reconcile existing knowledge and make judgements about the most promising directions for future work.

• Historical and General Interest: Papers discuss the history of statistics in Australia and New Zealand, the role of statistical organisations in private and government institutions and the analysis of datasets of general interest.

Then…1959

Now…2014

Submission

So, what are the odds?*

• About 150-200 submissions per year• About two-thirds Theory & Methods and one-

third Applications• Acceptance Rate about 10% to 15%• Up to half of papers are rejected without

review – either because of standard or fit• Another ~25% of papers are rejected after

review, and ~10% after revision

* Not a random process…

But all hope is not lost…• Einstein once famously chided the Editor of

Physical Reviews for rejecting his paper with Rosen because he had sent the work for publication not for review (the work was later published elsewhere – but serious errors pointed out by the original reviewer had been corrected!)

• The moral of the story: referees can help you improve your paper

MUST DO’S

• Ask yourself “Why am I choosing ANZJS?”– Do they publish the sort of thing you are working on?– Applications paper or Theory & Methods paper?– Do you use real data?

• Read and follow the Instructions for authors– Basic formatting (font size, margins, spacing)– Structure (introduction, sections, formatting of equations, etc.)– Other matters (references, appendices, supplementary material)

Why papers get rejected - I

Topic is not interesting or important✘Onus on author to convince it is!

Topic in not appropriate for journal✘ If your paper is about rocket science, send it to a rocket

science journal

Work is not original✘Too close to something previous or too derivative

Work is wrong, or has serious errors

Why papers get rejected - II

Work is badly organised and hard to followWork is badly written or the English is poor✘Get help from colleagues with good English✘Use English editing service (but $$$)

Work suffers from errors and typos✘Read, re-read, repeat

Work is not motivated✘Sure, you are interested in your work*, but why should

readers be?

*not necessarily

Why papers get rejected - IIIUnclear or muddled arguments✘ Present your work as a seminar, ask colleagues to read and critique (tell them to be

brutal)

Bad Statistics✘ It’s a statistics journal – you cannot afford to have poor design, ignored biases, no

standard errors, no controls, poor graphical displays, other crimes against statistics✘ Have colleagues read and critique your work

Conclusions are weak, misleading, unjustified✘ Don’t over-reach, inform optimism with realism

References to other work are old, too self-focused, or important references are missing✘ Know the literature, keep current✘ remember you are probably not the only one to think about this (and if you are, that may

be a BAD thing)

Start… at the beginning

Title and AbstractThese are the most important parts of the paper to get right!!

☞ May be the only thing that gets read☞ Choose words carefully to optimise Google

searches☞ Cute and clever sounds fun – but what if nobody

can work out what your paper is about?☞ Abstract has to tell the story briefly but with

enough detail☞ Makes good first impression on Editors, Associate

Editors and Referees

Making Introductions• Motivate, motivate, motivate! Tell me why I

should care• Brief but informative• Where does your work sit within the

literature? Hint: it does not stand alone…• Acknowledge and cite the work of others• What is your unique contribution? Say why it

is novel, useful, important• Summarise main question

The Main Course• Ensure all notation is stated and clear• Tell the story – be brief but clear• Make clear what is new

Clarity is critical

• Give enough detail that the work can be reproduced, but not too much!

• Very technical details should be moved to an Appendix or left as Supplementary material to be downloaded

Illustrate

• Whenever appropriate*, illustrate with real data

• Use Figures and Tables judiciously– Don’t go overboard – readers get lost in forests of tables

and figures – make them count!– Figures should be able to stand alone and make sense– A picture‡ paints a thousand words†…

• In Tables, don’t forget standard errors (if appropriate) – remember, we’re statisticians!

*usually ‡ graphic † numbers

Discuss & Conclude

• BRIEFLY re-state main results (BRIEFLY!!)– Focus on what is new and interesting

• Provide any useful interpretations or remarks– Practical or theoretical

• Include caveats or limitations – don’t overstate• What are the implications of the work?– Where to from here?

Before you hit SUBMITT…

• Don’t submit the paper the moment you’ve finished the work – FIRST:– Get colleagues/mentors to read and advise– Workshop the paper in presentations– LISTEN to criticism – make changes!– Read, re-read, re-write, re-read!!

• BRACE yourself (Brief, Relevant, Accurate, Clear, Evocative)

English Matters

• Sentence structure (e.g. include a verb…)• Brevity with Clarity• Punctuate properly!• Poor English makes your paper hard to read,

hard to understand, hard to review, hard to like – but easy to reject…

Expect it – it happens to EVERYONE some timeEditors do not enjoy rejecting papers

Use critical comments to improveDon’t just ignore sensible comments and submit

elsewhere – take on board

Revisions• Be patient – if you are waiting a

while, your paper is being reviewed!• If you enquire, be polite!• Respond thoroughly and quickly• You don’t have to make ALL

suggested changes – but you do have to explain why not

• Include a letter detailing and explaining ALL the changes you made

• Trivial, Minor, Major• DO, DO, THINK

• It’s not quite over – Technical Editing– Cooperate, be prompt, listen, do

• Submit all forms promptly– Copyright transfer, declarations

• Copyright, Open Access, DOI• Celebrate!!

Be a Referee