Oh dear! Looking back over the last few posts to this blog I detect a rather negative vibe being emitted. Put it down to the weather (the coldest British spring for 60 years, is now transforming into damp and only the occasional blue sky of summer) and an intensive period of marking examination papers. My … Continue reading Rise above the gloom!
In common with the majority of journals which publish high quality research, JHND receives many more articles than we could reasonably expect to publish and indeed, the ability to review all manuscripts received is limited. Like most of our competitors we find our team rejects a proportion of our papers without sending them for peer … Continue reading Rejection without review- the Editor’s side of the story
Often I receive emails from authors about rejected papers, arguing that they could easily address referee comments if only they were given the chance. Remember though that, decisions are generally based on a number of factors, including the fit with the journal, how exciting the paper would be to the readership, and referee comments. It … Continue reading More on rejection
Prospective authors and students take note. Not significant means not significant, no matter how much you wish it otherwise.
What to do if your p-value is just over the arbitrary threshold for ‘significance’ of p=0.05?
You don’t need to play the significance testing game – there are better methods, like quoting the effect size with a confidence interval – but if you do, the rules are simple: the result is either significant or it isn’t.
So if your p-value remains stubbornly higher than 0.05, you should call it ‘non-significant’ and write it up as such. The problem for many authors is that this just isn’t the answer they were looking for: publishing so-called ‘negative results’ is harder than ‘positive results’.
The solution is to apply the time-honoured tactic of circumlocution to disguise the non-significant result as something more interesting. The following list is culled from peer-reviewed journal articles in which (a) the authors set themselves the threshold of 0.05 for significance, (b) failed to achieve that threshold value for…
View original post 2,779 more words
Or rather, it needs your best manuscript submissions! The Journal of Human Nutrition publishes papers in the principal areas of: Clinical Nutrition Public Health Nutrition and Epidemiology Nutritional Science Dietetic Professional Practice JHND publishes review articles and original research papers (including Short Reports) in these areas. We particularly welcome systematic reviews and meta-analyses in these … Continue reading Our Journal Needs You!
Some interesting thoughts on why papers get rejected, from the University of Nottingham, School of Education
I’ve written about rejections several times, and most of this is scattered throughout the blog, so I thought it might be helpful to amalgamate the most important points together. All in one place.
There are some very common reasons why journal papers get rejected:
(1) They are overcrowded with ideas. They lack focus. Most journal papers have one point to make, they work with one idea, one angle.
(2) They don’t reassure the reader that the research is trustworthy, in other words, that it has been thorough and that it fits within a recognizable tradition of work. Different disciplines require different levels of detail about how the research was conducted, with whom or what, where, how often, how many … The vast majority of journals require something that is methodological and/or about methods.
(3) They don’t fit the journal. It’s very important to check out the specific journal…
View original post 400 more words
Things that make me go mmm... #1The use of the internet in all areas of life is beginning to have a clear impact upon the way in which dietary assessment is carried out. JHND is currently publishing a number of validation studies for web-based tools. My personal interest in this is mounting as recent undergraduate … Continue reading Things that make me go mmm… #1