Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
-
Upload
ludkant-galindo -
Category
Documents
-
view
243 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
Criteria for Acceptance
11
Importance to the Scientific Field and theReadership
Usefulness of findings to scientists andresearchers.
Criteria for Acceptance
12
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
-
7/22/2019 Dr. Wenceslao Medina Espinoza2
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
ESCUELA DE POSGRADO