Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

BITC: Publication Class -- 12. Correcting Proofs

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Okay. We're to the point now where our paper has been considered by the journal and you get that letter from the editors saying, 'Accepted.' One of the very final things that you do is read proofs. This is your last opportunity to catch problems. So, you need to deal with this effectively. As soon as you sign off on the proofs, the journal is free to go ahead and publish it. Any errors that are not detected at the proof stage are your fault and they're not the journal's problem. So, you need to check the entire proof in very, very, very careful detail. From experience, I suggest you put careful attention to: equations, tables, literature cited. Anywhere where you have to concentrate. We've already talked about all of these things. For example, your literature cited section is a place where errors will accumulate. Some people even take the proofs and read the whole manuscript backwards from end to beginning. Otherwise, if you're reading forwards, the eye can jump from word-to-word. Reading your paper backwards is time-consuming, but that could be a very good way to do it. We already talked about this mark-up coding. Make sure you're using the right codes for that particular journal. You also need to be very consistent and very, very clear about the mark-ups you do. I'm going to show you some examples. Here are proofs of a book chapter I recently participated in. And, we've got some problems. We're all biologists, and the last thing we want is to see are scientific names that are not italicized. Or, for example, a title that's wrong. <i>Biodiversity informatics: a critical to understand and conserve biodiversity </i> Something's missing. So, these are big problems. We really don't want to see this kind of problem at the proof stage. Here are some more detailed level corrections. In this case, diacritical marks on Mexican authors' names: accents and umlauts. Here we have a verb agreement problem: 'A total were collected...' No. 'A total was collected...' Notice that I'm very careful. I try my best to write clearly. I often put a check mark in the margin so that the person who is making the corrections on the final version knows that there are changes to be made. Sometimes the changes that you want to see on proofs are harder to express. I'll do things like put in a note: <i>split as "endo-parasite" versus "endop-arasite"</i>. But, be very careful that this isn't interpreted as an insertion. Increasingly, proof mark-up is being done electronically. Again, be very clear about what it is that you want corrected. Just be painfully clear at this stage. Be very, very clear at this stage of correcting proofs. For things like this, it may be very difficult to spot the problems. For example, here is a name that looks perfectly reasonable. But guess what? It actually has two <i>n</i>'s. And, only by concentrating and reading very, very clearly can you catch all of these last details.

Video Details

Duration: 4 minutes and 18 seconds
Country:
Language: English
License: Dotsub - Standard License
Genre: None
Views: 1
Posted by: townpeterson on Jul 5, 2016

Publication Class: How to Publish a Scientific Paper

A. Townsend Peterson, University of Kansas
In English

Academic productivity and effective communication of research results depend critically on publishing scientific articles in scholarly journals. This set of 13 video segments aims to provide an overview of the entire publishing process. It is not specific to biodiversity informatics, but rather can be quite general for the natural sciences at least.

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.