Some Suggestions to Make Publishing in Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy (JNIRS) Easier

This article was developed from a Poster presented by Graeme Batten (Editor-in-Chief of JNIRS) at a number of NIR meetings. Hopefully, it will provide some useful guidance for authors (especially new authors or those starting out) considering publication in JNIRS. We put the view here that peer-review publishing can be, and should be, a pleasant experience for all concerned—the author, the Editor, the reviewers, the publisher and the readers.

Our wish is that the peer-review publication process be more efficient and more enjoyable.

Why are some papers rejected?

• No new knowledge is demonstrated
• The work has been reported previously
• It repeats a study of similar samples
• Referees refuse to struggle with poor English
• Too few samples are reported
• No information to understand differences between NIR spectra
• Strong inter-correlation effects are not discounted
• There are serious doubts about the laboratory techniques (very high SEL or SEC)

Why do some papers require major revision?

• The abstract fails to summarise the value of the work
• A lack of direction
• Insufficient details in the experiment section for someone to repeat the work
• English requires changes or improving
• Additional chemometrics requested
• More discussion on the results required
• Key references omitted
• Inter-correlation effects not discounted
• Excessively long papers
• Excessive numbers of figures

Suggestions for authors

• Refer to the web site www.impublications.com/jnirs. If anything is not clear please email me at thebattens@bigpond.com
• Make full use of the in-house review process. If there is no in-house procedure ask friends or peers to review your paper before sending it to the journal
• State clearly the background to the study and what is already known. As Tomas Hirschfeld quipped “References are valuable if very old or very new”
• State clearly the hypothesis which you set out to test. This gives the paper, the referees and the reader direction and focus
• A scientific paper must contain enough information for someone else to be able to repeat the study and confirm or reject the hypothesis
• Referees are busy people who can be forgiven for enjoying a well presented paper but detesting a poorly presented paper
• When revising a paper use track changes or a different colour/font and explain to the Editor the changes you have made or not made in the revised manuscript. “I have made the changes” is not adequate

Suggestions for reviewers

• As many as eight potential referees may be approached before two agree to review a paper. This takes time so the Editor appreciates a rapid response to a request to review a paper—especially if the answer is “sorry not convenient”.
• When reviewing a paper, say it as you see it. For many papers the views and recommendations of the referees conflict, especially when two experienced scientists are the reviewers. The Editor is accustomed to this situation, in fact it may reflect the strengths or interests of the reviewers (deliberately) chosen for their diverse skills.

Final word

Authors, reviewers, the Editor and readers all gain from the peer-review process.

JNIRS publishes a range of articles, including reviews, short communications, regular scientific papers, letters to the Editor and book reviews.

Let us all enjoy the process.