Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 03-01
Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage
Preparation, Review, and Dissemination: NEFSC Author's Guide
to
Policy, Process, and Procedure
by J.A. Gibson, T.L. Frady, E.L. Kleindinst, and L.S. Garner
National Marine Fisheries Serv., Woods Hole Lab., 166 Water St.,
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Print
publication date January 2003;
web version posted May 12, 2004
Citation: Gibson JA, Frady TL, Kleindinst EL, Garner LS. 2003. Manuscript/abstract/ webpage preparation, review, and
dissemination: NEFSC author's guide to policy, process, and procedure. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 03-01;
38 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
INTRODUCTION
Dissemination of technical information for managing living marine resources
and their habitats in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean is the basis for the
operation of the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries
Science Center (NEFSC). The policies, processes, and procedures for preparing
and reviewing such information prior to its dissemination ensure that
the information is scientifically sound, is consistent with agency policy,
reaches the right audience, and is understandable and useful. These policies,
processes, and procedures are also constantly evolving to reflect changes
in federal law, agency directives, organizational structure, support
personnel, and available technology and media.
The following document is a revised and updated version of Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 93-12, "NEFSC Manuscript
Review and Scientific Publishing: Author's Guide to Policy, Process,
Procedure," by T.L. Frady and J.A. Gibson. This revised and updated
version provides the current policies, processes, and procedures to
be followed by all NEFSC employees in the preparation, review, and
dissemination of their manuscripts, abstracts, posters, and webpages.
The NEFSC’s support staff contribute to and/or produce administrative
and operational works in a parallel manner to the NEFSC’s scientific
staff contributing to and/or producing scientific and technical works.
Accordingly, a policy and procedures statement has been developed to
recognize the relative and respective contributions of support staff
engaged in such efforts. That policy and procedures statement is contained
in Appendix 1.
DEFINITIONS
Publications: Hereafter, "publications" refer to papers, oral
presentations, or posters which are intended for distribution, delivery,
or display outside of an author's immediate working group. Publications
do not refer to papers, oral presentations, or posters developed or given
strictly for administrative purposes, except those administrative papers
intended for issuance in a NOAA informal monograph series.
Works: Hereafter, "works" refer to the combination of publications
as defined above, and of webpages which are intended for posting on the
Internet.
HOW TO RECEIVE
CLEARANCE TO PUBLISH/PRESENT/POST WORKS
REVIEW
POLICY
By U.S. Department of Commerce regulation (i.e., DAO
219-1), if an author has prepared a work either at the direction
of his/her supervisor, during his/her official work hours, with assistance
of federal employees on official duty, with federal facilities or supplies,
devoted substantially to his/her agency's operations, or with federal
data which have not become public information, then that author must
use his/her legal name and agency affiliation (e.g., NMFS)
in that work's "byline," and must have the work cleared by the agency
head or official designee (e.g., Deputy Center Director) before
public dissemination. Further, NOAA
guidelines and NMFS procedures for
implementing the new federal Data Quality Act mandate that all information
products emanating from NOAA programs, facilities, or personnel be
reviewed in a manner and at a level necessary to ensure their "quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity." Consequently, the NEFSC is responsible
for the content of all works authored by NEFSC staff. The following
NEFSC review process applies to all such works.
A multi-authored work for which the NEFSC author is only a junior author,
and for which the senior author is outside the NEFSC, must nonetheless
enter and clear the NEFSC review process before its public dissemination.
Without such clearance, the NEFSC co-author cannot have his/her name
appear as a co-author of the published work.
All works intended for public issuance, including abstracts or outlines
of oral presentations and posters, as well as webpages, must be approved
by the author's division/staff/office chief and by the Deputy Center
Director before submission to prospective publishers, presentation, display,
or posting. The means for obtaining this approval are fully described
in the sections on "Review Process" and "Review
Procedures," and are manifest in the manuscript/abstract/webpage
review form (both in online and paper versions)
found in "Appendix 2: Forms and Checklists."
There are three categories of documents which are exempt from this
policy: 1) some Stock
Assessment Workshop (SAW) working group papers; 2) some contract
and grant final/completion reports; and 3) some Cooperative
Marine Education and Research (CMER) Program papers. Those SAW working
group papers which are not identified by SAW officials as worthy of issuance
in the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document series
do not go through the review process; those SAW working group papers
which are identified by SAW officials as worthy of issuance in the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Reference Document series, as well as the
SAW public review workshop reports and SAW consensus-summary-of-assessments
reports, do go through the review process. Review of SAW documents involves
the SAW Chairman as the technical clearance official, and the NEFSC's
Resource Evaluation & Assessment Division Chief as the policy clearance
official. Contract and grant final/completion reports which could be
used as the basis of management or policy decisions, or which provide
data and/or information to be disseminated by the NEFSC to the public
(e.g., by issuance in a Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Reference Document) or to be maintained by the NEFSC such that the
public can access them (e.g., by posting as an Internet-accessible database)
do go through the review process; otherwise, contract and grant final/completion
reports do not go through the review process. Those CMER papers authored
either in whole or in part by federal employees do go through the review
process; those CMER papers authored in their entirety by non-federal
employees do not go through the review process. Any SAW, contract, grant,
or CMER work which is exempt from this policy must include on its title
page the phrase, "This work does not necessarily represent the views
of NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, or the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center."
It is the policy of the NEFSC that review of works is an important
part of official duties and that serious attempts should be made to complete
each review step within the deadline of three weeks from receipt. The
NEFSC review process will be "transparent": authors will know the names
of the reviewers of their works; reviewers will know the names of the
authors of the works that they are reviewing.
The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing are a serious
matter. All works submitted for review are expected to adhere -- at a
minimum -- to the ethical guidelines contained in Chapter 1 ("Ethical
Conduct in Authorship and Publication") of the CBE Style Manual,
5th ed. See "Appendix 3: Ethics" for an excerpted
and modified version of that chapter.
Any NEFSC staff member who intends to publish as a private citizen
(i.e., not as part of his/her official duties) is potentially
vulnerable to conflict-of-interest charges, especially if payment for
writing is involved. Before any staff member engages in "outside" writing,
he/she should contact the Research Communications Unit's Editorial
Office or other appropriate agency officials for advice on these
matters.
REVIEW
PROCESS
Summary
The author is responsible for initially selecting the outlet for public
issuance of the work, and for carefully preparing the work to conform
with guidelines provided by the prospective publisher. For general guidelines
on preferred outlets, including NOAA technical publications, see the
section on "Where to Publish/Post Works." For general
information on preparing a work, see the section on "Guidelines
for Preparing Works." All forms and checklists referred to in this
author's guide are found in Appendix 2.
The NEFSC review process has two stages: peer review for scientific/technical
content ("technical review ") and administrative review for statements
or findings with implications for NEFSC or agency policy ("policy review").
The first stage is the responsibility of the sole or senior NEFSC author's
division/staff/office chief. The second is the responsibility of the
Deputy Center Director. Those with review responsibility can delegate
-- either on a temporary or permanent basis -- their responsibility to
anyone on their staff (e.g., a division chief could permanently
delegate his/her responsibility to a branch chief with strong review
skills). In general, each major review step should not take more than
three weeks.
Both technical and policy review are three-point cycles: review, revision,
and approval/rejection. For technical review, the division/staff/office
chief reviews works singlehandedly or designates additional reviewers.
The author addresses all concerns and/or comments of the division/staff/office
chief or his/her designees until such concerns and/or comments are adequately
addressed, and the work is either approved or rejected by the process.
Rejections may be appealed in writing to the Deputy Center Director.
For policy review, the Deputy Center Director typically reviews works
singlehandedly. The author addresses all concerns and/or comments of
the Deputy Center Director until the work is approved or rejected. Any
work that fails to get approval after negotiation with the Deputy Center
Director will be retired from the process. Such works can be resubmitted
as new works with revisions that meet the Deputy Center Director's approval.
Receipt by the Editorial Office of the work and key information on
that work and its author(s) -- supplied either through the online- or
paper-based review process -- is the starting point of the review process.
Each time the work passes a step in the process, it is returned by the
author, reviewer, or clearing official as appropriate to the Editorial
Office which sends the work to the next step. The Editorial Office will
act on works within two working days of receipt unless the author is
otherwise notified. The Editorial Office tracks works through the process,
attempts to keep reviews within deadlines by anticipating scheduling
conflicts among reviewers and by sending reminders as needed, informs
authors of the progress of their works, keeps files on all works from
initial receipt through final public issuance, and produces quarterly
and annual summaries of publication activity for NEFSC management.
The review process can operate as either an online-based, paper-based,
or combination (of paper- and online-based) system. Accordingly, entry
into the system comes through either an online
version or paper version of the review form. Both versions are functionally identical,
and are available through the NEFSC's
Intranet homepage.
A multichotomous operation key to the review process
is found in the next section. The review process is also effectively
summarized on the review form. A list of some key services by NEFSC staff
in support of NEFSC authors, as well as some key research communication
and data management service personnel, are found in "Appendix
4: Support."
Operation
Key
The review process is described using the following multichotomous operation
key. Beginning with Step 1, select the appropriate lettered alternative,
then follow the instructions. The "DCD" is the Deputy Center Director.
The "chief" is the division/staff/office chief. The DCD and chiefs may
-- on either a temporary or permanent basis -- choose a staff member
(e.g., deputy division chief, branch chief, senior scientist)
to act on their behalf as a clearing official.
1. After chief receives work [and accompanying original
review form for paper-based review] and key information on that work
and its author(s) from Editorial Office, he/she begins technical review
in one of three ways:
a. Reviews work by him/herself without additional reviewers. Checks "No
additional review needed" box [and signs and dates "Technical Review
Initiated" section of review form for paper-based review]. (Not applicable
for webpages where additional review is mandatory, and Research Communications
Chief is obligatory reviewer No. 1.) Go to 2.
b. Assigns up to two reviewers from his/her staff, and/or nominates
them from other divisions/staffs/offices or even outside of NEFSC.
Checks "Additional review needed" box [and signs and dates "Technical
Review Initiated" section of review form, and returns package to Editorial
Office for paper-based review]. (Note that for webpages, Research Communications
Chief is obligatory reviewer No. 1.) Go to 9.
c. Decides review is not required. Checks "No additional review needed" box
[and signs and dates "Technical Review Initiated" section of review
form for paper-based review]. Next, checks "Suitable for publication..." and "as
is" boxes [and signs and dates "Technical Review Completed" section
of review form for paper-based review]. (Not applicable for webpages
where additional review is mandatory, and Research Communications Chief
is obligatory reviewer No. 1.) Go to 3.
2. Chief completes review, then checks appropriate box
in "Technical Review Completed" section (i.e., "Not suitable," "Suitable...as
is," "Suitable...with corrections...," or "Suitable...with rewrite...."). Go
to 3.
3. [For paper-based review, chief returns work and original
review form to Editorial Office.] Subsequent action is based on which
box was checked:
a. "Not suitable": Work has been rejected in technical review. Go
to 6.
b. "Suitable...as is": Technical review is complete. Work is ready
for policy review. Go to 14.
c. "Suitable...with corrections...": Editorial Office sends work with
chief's comments to author for minor revision. Go to 5.
d. "Suitable...with rewrite...": Editorial Office sends work with
chief's comments to author for major revision. Go to 5.
4. Chief evaluates revision, then checks appropriate
box. Subsequent action is based on which box was checked:
a. "Rewrite approved": [For paper-based review, chief returns work
and original review form to Editorial Office.] Technical review is
complete. Work is ready for policy review. Go to 14.
b. "Rewrite not approved": Chief provides explanation of rejection
in "Comments" section of review form [and returns work and original
form to Editorial Office for paper-based review]. Work has been rejected
in rewrite phase of technical review. Go to 6.
5. Author revises work and returns revision to Editorial
Office for one of two subsequent actions:
a. If "Suitable...with corrections..." box was checked, then technical
review is complete. Work is ready for policy review. Go
to 14.
b. If "Suitable...with rewrite..." box was checked, then Editorial
Office sends revised work [and original review form for paper-based
review] to chief. Go to 4.
6. Editorial Office sends rejected work [and copy of
review form for paper-based review] along with explanation of rejection
to author. Author can either appeal or not appeal rejection:
a. Appeal: Go to 7.
b. No appeal: Go to 8.
7. Author sends his/her written rebuttal to Editorial
Office. Editorial Office sends appeal package (i.e., work, reviewer's(s')
comments, original review form for paper-based review, and author's rebuttal)
to DCD who can either sustain or overturn appeal:
a. Rejection sustained: DCD completes review form, listing reasons
for rejection in "Comments" section, and returns package to Editorial
Office. Editorial Office sends package to author. Go to
8.
b. Rejection overturned: DCD informs Editorial Office which informs
author and author's chief. DCD keeps package for policy review. Go
to 14.
8. Author either abandons work or significantly revises
it and submits it as new work:
a. Abandon: Author informs Editorial Office of such intent. No further
action required.
b. Revise: Author prepares new significantly revised work and new
review form (i.e., for online submissions, obtains new ID
# for work), then submits such to Editorial Office. Go
to 1.
9. Editorial Office sends review package (i.e.,
cover memo [and copy of review form for paper-based review], author's
work, and manuscript/abstract/webpage reviewer's checklist) to reviewer.
Cover memo asks reviewer to notify Editorial Office immediately if he/she
cannot meet three-week deadline. If no such notification, then reviewer
expected to meet deadline:
a. Can meet deadline: Go to 10.
b. Cannot meet deadline: Go to 11.
10. Reviewer either does or does not complete review
-- and return review package to Editorial Office -- within deadline:
a. Does meet deadline: Editorial Office sends thank-you memo to reviewer
-- and if reviewer is NMFS employee -- sends copy of thank-you memo
to reviewer's supervisor. Go to 12.
b. Does not meet deadline: Editorial Office sends reminder memo to
reviewer with copy to sole/senior NEFSC author -- and if reviewer is
NMFS employee -- sends copy of reminder memo to reviewer's chief. Action
repeats until review is completed. Go to 12.
11. Editorial Office informs chief that reviewer cannot
comment on work within deadline, and asks chief to choose one of three
alternatives:
a. Chief approves extended deadline to meet demands of reviewer's
schedule. Editorial Office informs reviewer of extended deadline. Go
to 10.
b. Chief assigns or nominates new reviewer to replace previous reviewer. Go
to 9.
c. Chief does not replace previous reviewer. Editorial Office informs
author of removal of additional reviewer. Go to 12.
12. When all reviewer comments received by Editorial
Office, that office sends comments to author who revises work and returns
revision [and original reviewer comments for paper-based review] to Editorial
Office. Go to 13.
13. Editorial Office sends revised work [and original
review form for paper-based review] and reviewer comments to chief. Go
to 2.
14. [Note that if chief checked "Suitable...with corrections..." box,
then Editorial Office may require author to prepare clean copy (i.e.,
incorporating all indicated changes) before work is sent to DCD.] Editorial
Office sends work [and original review form for paper-based review] to
DCD. DCD completes policy review and checks appropriate box (i.e., "Not
suitable," "Suitable...as is," "Suitable...with corrections...," or "Suitable...with
rewrite....") in "Policy Review" section, providing comments if necessary. Go
to 15.
15. DCD returns work [and original review form for
paper-based review] to Editorial Office. Subsequent action is based on
which box was checked:
a. "Not suitable": Work has been rejected in policy review. Editorial
Office sends rejected work [and copy of review form for paper-based
review] with explanation of rejection to author. Copy of rejection
memo sent to author's chief. Go to 8.
b. "Suitable...as is": Policy review is complete. Go
to 18.
c. "Suitable...with corrections...": Editorial Office sends work [and
original review form for paper-based review] to author. Author makes
minor revision. Policy review is complete. Go to 18.
d. "Suitable...with rewrite...": Editorial Office sends work [and
copy of review form for paper-based review] to author. Author makes
major revision. Go to 16.
16. Author revises work and returns revision to Editorial
Office. Editorial Office sends revised work [and original review form
for paper-based review] to DCD. Go to 17.
17. DCD evaluates revision, then checks [and initials
and dates for paper-based review] appropriate box. Subsequent action
is based on which box was checked:
a. "Rewrite approved": [For paper-based review, DCD returns work
and original review form to Editorial Office.] Policy review is complete. Go
to 18.
b. "Rewrite not approved": DCD provides explanation of final rejection
in "Comments" section of review form [and returns work and original
review form to Editorial Office for paper-based review]. Work has been
rejected in rewrite phase of policy review. Editorial Office sends
rejected work and DCD's comments [and copy of review form for paper-based
review] to author. Copy of rejection memo sent to author's chief. Go
to 8.
18. Editorial Office sends work [and original completed
review form for paper-based review] to author. Author submits work to
publisher:
a. For manuscripts to be published by NEFSC, see "Specific
Guidance" in section on "Guidelines for Preparing
Works."
b. For manuscripts to be published by others than NEFSC, author must
provide Editorial Office with three reprints of published work.
c. For abstracts, author must provide Editorial Office with one copy
of abstract as distributed at meeting, along with one copy each of
cover and title page of meeting's booklet of abstracts.
d. For webpages, author must contact NEFSC
webmaster to request transfer of webpage from access-restricted
directory to open-access directory.
REVIEW
PROCEDURES
General
Steps
- If possible, submit an electronic copy of the work via the online
review form.
- If it is not possible to submit an electronic copy (e.g.,
some or all of the material is in incompatible file formats, or, is
only available on paper), then submit three paper copies of the manuscript
or webpage, or one paper copy of the abstract (whether for oral presentation
or poster display), along with an author-completed paper
review form, to: Editorial Office, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.
- Works with multiple authorship are submitted to the Editorial Office
by the senior NEFSC author.
- To make a correction in a work that's out for review, or to withdraw
a work from consideration, contact the Editorial
Office.
Editorial Office staff will contact you at various points in the review
process regarding the status of your work, beginning with confirmation
that the work has been received, and with inquiries (if any) about missing
or extraneous items. The Editorial Office will send the work and review
form to the sole/senior author's division/staff/office chief. Courtesy
copies of the abstract (and review form for paper-based review) will
also be sent to all NMFS co-authors, to those in the chains of command
for all NEFSC authors, to the NEFSC technical editor, and to the NEFSC
constituent affairs specialist.
Specific
Additional Steps
- For manuscripts, abstracts, and webpages, be sure to refer to the
corresponding subsections of the section on "Guidelines
for Preparing Works."
- If a manuscript will be submitted on paper, then paginate all pages
for ease of review, print out review copies on 8-1/2" x 11" paper with
text double-spaced and tabular data single-spaced, and include only
photocopies of figures -- no originals.
- For "updating" an existing, cleared webpage, note that the update
does not need to go through the review process unless it is so significant
that it would obviously trigger the need for another review and clearance
on technical, public affairs, and/or policy grounds. Authors are obligated
to use sound professional judgement in making such a determination.
WHERE
TO PUBLISH/POST WORKS
BACKGROUND
The NEFSC encourages its authors to publish their works in the formal
literature whenever possible. This means either in anonymously-peer-reviewed
scientific and technical serials, scholarly books, or contributions to
such books.
There are hundreds of serials that NEFSC authors may consider for publishing
their works. The author's supervisor is generally the best source of
information and guidance for selecting an outlet for public issuance
of a work. In special cases (e.g., the need to publish oversized
color charts), the author and his/her chain of command may be unsure
of the best outlet. In those cases, the NEFSC's librarians,
as well as the NEFSC's technical
editor, are available to advise the author.
When an NEFSC author publishes in a non-federal outlet, the publisher
usually asks the author to sign a form transferring copyright to the
publisher. Since the federal government waives all copyright from the
beginning, the federal author has no copyright to transfer. Most copyright
transfer forms used by non-federal publishers now recognize this situation,
and have a special signature line/block for federal authors. If an NEFSC
author encounters a copyright transfer form without a special signature
line/block, he/she should still sign the form, but add in writing: "While
my work as a federal employee may be copyrighted as part of a larger
non-federal work, the federal government retains its rights in my work
by itself."
The following sections describe: 1) the formal fisheries journals,
formal fisheries monographs, and informal fisheries monographs produced
by NOAA; and 2) the public information newsletters and webpages produced
by the NEFSC.
NOAA
FORMAL JOURNALS
NOAA publishes two professional fisheries journals which are produced
by the NMFS Scientific Publications Office in Seattle, Washington: the Fishery
Bulletin and Marine
Fisheries Review. "Articles published in the Fishery Bulletin describe
original research in marine fishery science, engineering[,] and economics,
and the environmental and ecological sciences, including modeling. Articles
may range from relatively short to extensive."
"The Marine Fisheries Review publishes review articles, original
research reports, significant progress reports, technical notes, and
news articles on fisheries science, engineering, and economics, commercial
and recreational fisheries, marine mammal studies, aquaculture, and U.S.
and foreign fisheries developments. Emphasis, however, is on in-depth
review articles and practical or applied aspects of marine fisheries
rather than pure research. Preferred paper length ranges from 4 to 12
printed pages (about 10-40 manuscript pages), although shorter or longer
papers are sometimes accepted."
NOAA
FORMAL MONOGRAPHS
NOAA publishes one professional fisheries monograph series which is
produced by the NMFS Scientific Publications Office in Seattle: NOAA
Technical Report NMFS. "The NOAA Technical Report NMFS series...carries
peer-reviewed, lengthy original research reports, taxonomic keys, species
synopses, flora and fauna studies, and data-intensive reports on investigations
in fishery science, engineering, and economics."
NOAA
INFORMAL MONOGRAPHS
Technical
Memoranda
NMFS's headquarters, headquarters offices (including the Scientific
Publications Office), regional offices, and fisheries science centers
are authorized by NOAA to publish their own subseries of the NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS series. In the NMFS Northeast Region,
both the Northeast Regional Office and the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center have combined their previous respective subseries (NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/NER and NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC)
into a single subseries: NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE. This subseries typically includes:
data reports of long-term or large-area studies; synthesis reports for
major resources or habitats; analytical reports of environmental conditions
or phenomena; annual reports of assessment or monitoring programs; manuals
describing unprecedented field and lab techniques; literature surveys
of major resource or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers
of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated bibliographies.
Each component of NMFS which publishes a subseries of the NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS series has the option of establishing
-- under NOAA regulations -- its subseries as a "fully editorially
controlled" publication (i.e., under the full control of a
professional editor). The Northeast Region has opted to do so. Issues
in the Northeast Region's subseries are citable, available in major
depositories, and abstracted in several major online databases. They
are not, however, considered formal literature.
The NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE subseries is typically
characterized by small press runs (usually 300-3,000 copies) and specialized
audiences. Authors should not use this subseries as a holding tank for
material they intend to submit to a formal outlet later, unless the material
will be considerably revised with significant new conclusions or interpretations.
Reference
Documents
The Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Reference Document series, which
is classified as one of NOAA's "duplicated document series," is the "grayest" of
scientific literature produced by the NEFSC. This series is a quick-turnaround
outlet which is used to document findings primarily to be passed
on to other agencies and to regulatory bodies, to provide a convenient
way to deal with frequently asked questions, to document interim
results, and to archive NEFSC administrative studies. This series
typically includes: data reports on field and lab observations or
experiments; progress reports on continuing experiments, monitoring,
and assessments; manuals describing routine surveying and sampling
programs; background papers for, and summary reports of, scientific
meetings; and simple bibliographies.
The Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document series
does not receive full editorial control. Issues of this series are typically
characterized by their photocopied/plastic-comb-bound production, limited
distribution of paper copies (usually less than 300 copies), and limited
shelf-life of the information. Authors should not use this series for
draft materials or for information that cannot be cited. Placing manuscripts
in this series does not preclude the subsequent submission of those manuscripts
to a formal outlet.
NEFSC
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEDIA
News Bulletins
The NEFSC has a couple of news-bulletin-type series that help distribute
timely, specialized information outside of the NEFSC: The
Shark Tagger, produced by the NEFSC's Apex Predators Program,
and the Resource
Survey Report (formerly the Fishermen's Report),
produced by the NEFSC's Ecosystem Surveys Branch. The
Shark Tagger is an annual summary of tagging and recapture data
on large pelagic sharks as derived from the NMFS's Cooperative Shark
Tagging Program; it also presents information on the biology (movement,
growth, reproduction, etc.) of these sharks as subsequently derived from
the tagging and recapture data. The Resource Survey Report is
a quick-turnaround report on the distribution and relative abundance
of
commercial fisheries resources as derived from each of the NEFSC's periodic
research vessel surveys of the Northeast's continental shelf.
Both of the aforementioned news bulletins are sent through the review
process.
Internet
Webpages
All NEFSC webpages for public viewing come under the NEFSC's Internet
homepage: www.nefsc.noaa.gov/. So far, the NEFSC's Web presence
has largely been characterized by the repackaging of existing data, information,
and publications to make them more accessible, and thus more useful,
to many of the NEFSC's constituents. As the NEFSC's Web presence matures,
it is likely that more and more original work will be initially, if not
solely, distributed to the public via the Web. All new webpages, and
all significant changes to existing webpages, must go through the review
process.
As its first effort to coordinate webpage development, the NEFSC has
constituted an NEFSC
Web Committee. The committee's charter is to "formulate ideas for
the NEFSC Web presence." Any NEFSC employee who plans to develop a webpage
associated with the NEFSC's Internet homepage should consult the committee
before beginning any work.
HOW TO CREATE
WORKS
Ideally, decisions on authorship should be made even before research
begins, but that ideal is sometimes difficult to achieve. Under virtually
all circumstances, though, such decisions should be made before any writing
begins. Consequently, what follows is first a discussion of guidelines
on authorship, then a discussion of guidelines on writing.
GUIDELINES
FOR DETERMINING AUTHORSHIP OF WORKS
Decisions about authorship are important to all contributors and an
occasional source of disagreement. Although it is difficult to achieve
unanimity of opinion when authorship is in dispute, these guidelines
attempt to standardize the process of making authorship decisions.
Qualification
for Authorship
Anyone who provides substantial original data and ideas on the interpretation
of the data that are important to the work should be considered as a
co-author. Because of the different kinds of works emanating from the
NEFSC, the following standards are recommended:
- Experimental Studies: Authors should include those who actively
contributed to: a) the overall design and/or execution of the experiment,
and b) the analysis and/or interpretation of the data. Authors should
be listed in order of their importance to the experiment.
- Routine Reports (e.g., data reports, survey reports): Authors
should include those who played a major role in: a) the design, collection,
and/or processing of field samples or data; and b) the analysis of
the data.
- Analytical Studies: Authors should include those who played a major
role in: a) the analysis of the data, and b) the writing of the work.
In each case, others who contributed, but to a lesser extent, should
be recognized with acknowledgments only.
It is the responsibility of potential authors of, or contributors to,
a work to attempt to clarify their roles before writing begins, and preferably
even before research begins. It is most important to consider the contributions
and sequences of authors prior to drafting the work, so that authors
are not added as such drafting progresses, and so that all have a clear
understanding of the extent of their participation from the outset.
No person should be included as an author without his/her permission.
All authors should be familiar with the concept(s) on which the work
is based, the implications to the scientific field, the design of the
experiment or approach to a question, the data, and the analysis and
interpretation of the results. Any co-author should be competent to summarize
the content of the work.
It should be unusual for more than five authors to contribute to any
single work.
If technician contributions are significant enough to qualify as authorship,
the principal investigator may include a technician as an author. Student
assistance is generally recognized with acknowledgments only.
First
Authorship
The person who contributed the most in terms of original perception
and definition of the problem, design and conception of the research
required, detailed description of research protocols, analysis and interpretation
of the data, formulation of conclusions, and drafting the work should
emerge as the first author. Factors to be considered include conceptual
input, data acquisition, data analysis, time invested, preparation of
first draft, and final editing.
The first author should lead in concept development, but also participate
in the research, analysis, and writing. The primacy of first authorship
should be fully appreciated, since all co-authors of works with multiple
authors often disappear in text citations as "et al."
Employee
Rights and Procedures
Sometimes employees are asked to collect, collate, archive, or retrieve
data, process samples, type manuscripts, or otherwise complete tasks
that contribute in some way to a work. If such an employee is not sure
how the results of his/her efforts will be used, then he/she should discuss
the matter with the supervisor involved. The supervisor should ensure
that the workforce appraisal plan accurately describes the responsibilities
of that employee for preparing and publishing the work.
If an employee feels that he/she is being excluded from authorship
or included as an author inappropriately, the matter should be discussed
with his/her supervisor. If the matter cannot be resolved through discussion,
that discussion should be documented in a memo for the record, and the
division/staff/office chief asked to the review the situation and suggest
a resolution. If the employee feels that he/she is being excluded from
authorship because of prohibited discrimination practices, then an EEO
counselor may also be consulted.
Acknowledgments
Contributions to works are acknowledged at the discretion of the author(s).
Although this is a subjective decision by the author, he/she should acknowledge
an employee's competent, thorough job in performing his/her duties with
regard to the study and/or publishing process. It is the author's responsibility
to review the contributions of technicians, students, typists, illustrators,
editors, librarians, and others to the overall project, and to ensure
that their contributions are properly recognized. The acknowledgment
should be limited to the work at hand.
Frequently, the concept for a research project originates with a researcher
who may or may not be an NEFSC employee. This individual certainly deserves
some recognition. Furthermore, it is sometimes the forcefulness and drive
of a supervisor that motivate or allow staff to complete and publish
a work. This individual should also be acknowledged, provided he/she
plays a positive role in getting the work out and published.
The author or supervisor may also consider recognizing an employee's
exceptional contributions to a work with an appropriate award, as well
as acknowledgment in the work itself.
Acknowledgments are expected, but can be meager rewards for any substantial
contributions to a work.
Special
Cases
Division/staff/office chiefs should act as final arbiters in disputes
over authorship of all works emanating from their division/staff/office.
If any division/staff/office chief feels that he/she needs to recuse
him/herself from the arbitration, then the Center technical editor is
on call to serve as an impartial arbiter.
In instances where data sets have accumulated, but the investigator
is unwilling to publish, it may be ethical for the supervisor to assign
another scientist to draft the work. The person who developed the data
should appear as co-author, and should be involved in the preparation
of the draft. The decision about whether he/she should be first author
is subjective, and best left to the authors.
The requirement that all authors should be familiar with all aspects
of the work may be modified in special cases. For example, if the work
deals with a new technique or piece of sampling hardware, one author
may do the engineering and another the scientific verification. Another
exception might be in reports of multidisciplinary studies involving
several specialists.
GUIDELINES
FOR PREPARING WORKS
Beginning October 1, 2002, every NEFSC author -- or prospective author
-- must prepare his/her works in accordance with the federal Data Quality
Act implemented on that date. NOAA has issued guidelines and
NMFS has issued procedures to ensure
that all NOAA and NMFS staff members prepare their works accordingly. Every
NEFSC staff member (employee, contractor, visiting scientist, etc,) is
required to read, understand, and hold him/herself accountable to these
guidelines and procedures.
Following are guidelines for preparing: 1) manuscripts, 2) abstracts,
3) posters, and 4) webpages.
Manuscripts
There are two types of guidance for writing manuscripts: 1) specific
guidance provided by the outlet chosen for issuing or publishing the
manuscript (e.g., a journal's "Instructions to Authors"), and
2) general guidance on format and style not covered by the chosen outlet's
specific guidelines. The Editorial
Office is available to answer, or research the answer, to any scientific
writing and publishing question.
General Guidance
There are a number of readily available, good references for preparing
manuscripts. In particular, Day's How to Write and Publish a Scientific
Paper (Philadelphia: ISI Press; 1979) is recommended. For writing
style and usage, Strunk and White's Elements of Style (New York:
MacMillan; 1979) is recommended.
For handling capitalization, punctuation, numbers, formulae, tables,
scientific notation, bibliographic elements, and other matters of copy
editing, refer to (in order of their listing): 1) CBE Style Manual,
5th & 6th eds. (Bethesda, MD: Council of Biology Editors; 1983 & 1994);
2) A Manual of Style, 14th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press; 1993); or 3) United
States Government Printing Office Style Manual, 29th ed. (Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000).
For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes, mollusks, and
decapod crustaceans from the United States and Canada, use Special
Publications No. 20 (fishes), 26 (mollusks), and 17 (decapod crustaceans)
of the American Fisheries Society (Bethesda, MD). For spelling of scientific
and common names of marine mammals of the world, use Special Publication No.
4 of the Society for Marine Mammalogy (Lawrence, KS). For spelling in
general, use the most recent edition of Webster's Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (Springfield, MA:
G.&C. Merriam).
For statistical terms, you should generally follow the ISO [International
Standardization Organization] Standards Handbook 3: Statistical Methods,
2nd ed. (Geneva, Switzerland: ISO: 1981).
For abbreviating serial titles (for use in lists of cited works), use
the most recent issue of BIOSIS Serial Sources (Philadelphia:
Biosciences Information Service).
For preparing the list of keywords associated with the work, be sure
to follow the guidelines for word choice and spelling developed by the
Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA)
online thesaurus.
Specific
Guidance
Format and style for submitting manuscripts vary with the publisher.
Authors should obtain the "Instructions for Authors" from the publisher
before preparing the final draft. NEFSC librarians can help authors find
instructions for most serials.
Instructions for the Fishery
Bulletin, Marine
Fisheries Review, NOAA
Technical Report NMFS, NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE, and Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Reference Document (beginning with
2003 issues) are found on the inside back cover of every issue.
Abstracts
An abstract typically serves as a literature searching tool when it
accompanies a journal article, and as a synoptic permanent record when
it accompanies an oral presentation or poster display. The basic abstract
is the one accompanying journal articles; those abstracts associated
with oral presentations and poster displays are a variation on the theme.
The rest of this section is an excerpted and modified portion of the
fifth chapter in the Council of Biology Editors Style Manual,
3rd ed. (Washington, DC: American Institute of Biological Sciences; 1972),
which provides guidance for preparing an abstract associated with a journal
article.
Most journals specializing in primary publication of research results
prefer, or even insist on, an informative abstract, a condensed
version of the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of that research.
Most journals specializing in review articles prefer an indicative
abstract, a kind of expanded table of contents that contains generalized
statements and directs the reader to the full article for any quantitative
or qualitative data.
If you are reporting original research, and you are writing an informative
abstract, identify in the abstract -- as you did in the title -- the
main topic of your paper. Also, state the basic reason for doing the
research being reported, indicate the methods used, list materials studied,
and briefly summarize the results and conclusions. Do not merely describe
or recite the contents of your article, e.g., "Activity of largemouth
bass at various times of the day is discussed." Instead, tell what
you did and what you found: "Largemouth bass were most active between
the hours of 0900 and 1100."
Make certain that your abstract is of a length permitted by the journal
(usually not more than 250 words) and that it contains no elliptical
or incomplete sentences, as well as no abbreviations or terms that might
confuse readers in disciplines other than your own. It should not contain
illustrations or tables, nor references to them or to the literature.
It is good practice to include with each article about 10 keywords
(also known as index terms or descriptors) suitable for information retrieval
systems. The bottom of the abstract is the preferred location for listing
keywords. Should the abstract ever be used separately from the article,
the keywords will stay with it. In selecting keywords, ask yourself what
words you would look for if you were searching an index for the most
important topics in your article. It is strongly recommended that you
cross-check your list of keywords for word choice and spelling (e.g., "ageing" refers
to the physiological process of getting older; "aging" refers to the
method of determining how old an organism is) with the ASFA online
thesaurus.
Posters
Poster displays are an increasingly important means for NEFSC scientists
to convey their work to colleagues. A good description and explanation
of how to design and lay out the components of a poster display appeared
in an article on "The Scientific Poster: Guidelines
for Effective Visual Communication" which was published in the Third
Quarter 1990 issue of Technical Communication. Both PDF and
paper versions of the article are available upon request to the Editorial
Office.
Webpages
There are U.S. Department of Commerce mandatory
policies and recommended best practices with which every prospective
NEFSC webpage author must be familiar. After becoming familiar with
these policies and best practices, you should contact the NEFSC
Web Committee to seek its guidance on the proposed webpage before
any significant work starts. After you have received guidance from
the Web Committee, you may request an access-restricted directory on
the Intranet webserver from the NEFSC
webmaster. This is the directory where the draft webpage will be
posted to receive the required review by your division/staff/office
chief on technical grounds, by the Research Communications Chief on
public affairs grounds, and by the Deputy Center Director on policy
grounds.
You then prepare your webpage using Netscape Composer -- which is built-in
to Netscape -- or any other HTML or text editor. Note that all new NEFSC
Internet webpages must use the root URL of www.nefsc.noaa.gov.
The following subsections of this section discuss several important aspects
of webpage preparation in the NEFSC.
Handicap Accessibility
According to the federal Rehabilitation Act, Section 508, all federal
webpages must be accessible to people with visual disabilities. For more
information, refer to the NMFS website on Section
508.
Your webpage will need to undergo an online evaluation of its compliance
with Section 508 guidelines. This online evaluation cannot be performed
while your webpage is in an access-restricted directory, but it will
be performed by the NEFSC webmaster prior to the webpage being moved
to an open-access directory. You will be required to make any changes
needed in the webpage to bring it into compliance with Section 508.
HTML or PDF?
Complex documents (i.e., those containing multiple large tables
and/or spreadsheets) are better posted on the Web as PDF files. The use
of PDF will maintain the layout (i.e., appearance) of such complex
documents, and will ensure that those documents display correctly. Ask
the Editorial Office webmanager for
help in converting word processing or spreadsheet files to PDF files.
Be aware that WordPerfect documents do not convert to PDF as smoothly
as Word documents.
You might want to post your document on the Web as both PDF and HTML
files. PDF files generally cannot be searched by search engines, and
HTML files don't always print out correctly.
Essential Components
Every NEFSC Internet webpage must have a unique and descriptive title
located at the top of the webpage. This title should include an HTML
title tag, i.e., the top two lines on every HTML document should
look like:
<html> <head> <title> Document Title </title> </head>
<body bgcolor=white>
The author of the webpage must be listed as such on the webpage. There
must also be sufficient information (i.e., e-mail address, postal
address, or telephone number) listed on the webpage to permit others
to contact the author for additional information.
All subpages of the main page must have a "Return to top page" link
leading back to the main page. On the main page, there must be a link
back to the NEFSC main webpage.
If this is a new webpage, or if this is a significant modification
of an existing webpage, then the posting date (i.e., month day,
year) of the new or modified webpage must be listed on the webpage.
Tables
If you plan to convert a word processor document that contains tables
into an HTML file, then you must use the "table function" of your word
processor to create the tables. Do not us tabs, spaces, or a combination
of tabs and spaces to create the columns in the tables. HTML swallows "whitespace," so
your tabs and spaces will disappear, and your tables will be squashed
into an undecipherable mess.
Directory Structures,
Pathnames, and Filenames
You should create your webpage under a single directory (i.e.,
the working directory) and use only relative pathnames for referencing
files and images. A relative pathname starts in your current directory
and does not start with a slash (/). For example, if you are in your
working directory and you need to reference a file called "mypicture.jpg" which
you have placed in a subdirectory (to your working directory) called "images," then
you should use "images/mypicture.jpg," not "c:|/(workingdirectory)/images/mypicture.jpg" or "/images/mypicture.jpg" for
the referencing.
Actually, it is a good idea to create a subdirectory (under your working
directory) called "images," then move your graphics into it. Additionally,
you can either leave all of your HTML documents in your working directory
itself for a simple webpage, or you can create subdirectories under your
working directory.
If you have used the syntax suggested above for all file and image
referencing, then it should be simple for you to retain your directory
structure when you post your draft webpage to the access-restricted directory.
Likewise, it should be simple for the NEFSC webmaster to retain your
directory structure when posting your final webpage to the NEFSC external
website.
Remember that your webpage will be served from a Unix computer, so
case is important in all filenames. Make sure that the filename is in
the same case in your document as it is named in the directory.
External Links
All links to webpages outside the Federal Governmant should use the format, http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/goto.pl?http://(the
address of the outside webpage), and the associated HTML file should
be made executable (i.e., type "chmod +x file.html" at the Unix
prompt). Contact the NEFSC
webmaster for any guidance or assistance needed on this matter. This
format displays a banner which alerts users that they are leaving the
a government website, and that the NEFSC is not responsible for anything found
beyond that point.
Copyright
If your webpage includes material lifted from another work which has
been copyrighted, then you will need to work with the Editorial Office
to arrange for permission to use that material -- see Appendix
2 for the "NEFSC
Use-of-Copyrighted-Work Permission Form."
Archives
If the webpage replaces an existing webpage, and if the replaced webpage
contains technical information which is potentially citable in a scientific,
management, or legal context, then the replaced webpage must be converted
to a PDF file and moved to an archive specifically created for that purpose.
Check with the NEFSC webmaster for
setting up an appropriate archive for such replaced webpages.
Helpful Software
There are some useful HTML programming references. We suggest that
you consult the Web Design Group's help-file distribution page at http://www.htmlhelp.com/distribution/.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank those individuals who have contributed over the years
to developing an NEFSC manuscript/abstract/webpage review policy, especially:
1) Linda I. Despres of the NEFSC for her drafting of the original NEFSC
guidelines for authorship; 2) Carl J. Sindermann of the NEFSC for his
drafting of the 1985 NEFSC policy document on manuscript review and editorial
control; 3) Jack McCormick of the NMFS Scientific Publications Office,
William Delaney of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,
and other members of the review panel who formally evaluated the NEFSC
scientific publishing program in 1990; 4) Allen E. Peterson and the rest
of the NEFSC executive staff for their guidance in the development of
the 1993 NEFSC policy, process, and procedures document on manuscript
and abstract review; and 5) Eric M. Thunberg (Chairman) and the other
members of the NEFSC Research Council for their 2000 review, evaluation,
and recommendations on the NEFSC's manuscript/abstract/webpage management
system.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. |
Policy and Procedures Statement on Recognizing Support
Staff Contributions to, and Development of, Administrative and Operational
Works |
Appendix 2. |
NEFSC Forms and Checklists |
Appendix 3. |
Ethics |
Appendix 4. |
Support for Authors, Reviewers, and Clearing Officials |
APPENDIX
1: POLICY AND PROCEDURES STATEMENT
ON RECOGNIZING SUPPORT STAFF CONTRIBUTIONS TO,
AND DEVELOPMENT OF, ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL WORKS
The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) has issued
a document, “Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage Preparation, Review, & Dissemination:
NEFSC Author's Guide to Policy, Process, and Procedure,” in its Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Reference Document (CRD) series. That document
provides policy, process, and procedure for the creation of scientific
and technical works by the NEFSC’s scientific staff, including
guidelines for determining authorship of such works. Among other things,
these authorship-determining guidelines provide a means for recognizing
the nature and extent of contributions by scientific staff in the creation
of scientific and technical works.
Parallel to the creation of scientific and technical works by the NEFSC’s
scientific staff is the creation of administrative and operational works
by the NEFSC’s support staff. Those administrative and operational
works -- policy/program/facility analyses, planning/staffing/spending
studies, etc. -- typically require the same set of intellectual abilities
and a different but demanding set of knowledge and skills in order for
those works to be effectively and efficiently created. Accordingly, it
is the policy of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center that there be
recognition of the nature and extent of contributions of support staff
in the creation of administrative and operational works.
The procedure for recognizing such contributions by the support staff
should be in parallel with the procedure for recognizing contributions
by scientific staff, for what are referred to as “routine reports” in
the aforementioned CRD, i.e., those to be recognized are those
who have played a major role in the design of the effort, the collection
and/or processing of pertinent data or information, and in the analysis
of the data or information. When an administrative support supervisor
uses an information product developed through the just-mentioned efforts
of his/her subordinate(s), and when that supervisor contributes only
minor editorial changes to that product, then the supervisor shall cover
the product with a memo that states the relative and respective efforts
of the subordinate(s).
APPENDIX
2: FORMS AND CHECKLISTS
APPENDIX
3: ETHICS
This appendix is an excerpted and modified portion of the first chapter
in the Council of Biology Editors Style Manual, 5th ed. The
Council of Biology Editors -- which has since been renamed the Council
of Science Editors -- is largely driven by medical science editors; thus,
some of the following material (e.g., ethics for experimenting
with human subjects) may not be relevant to the work of a natural resource
agency such as NMFS. Nonetheless, the bulk of the following material
directly applies to our work.
One major difference between the following material and the operations
of our agency is the confidentiality of our work as a consequence of
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Regardless of the status of our
work, including the status of our data (i.e., raw, partially
reduced, fully reduced, or analyzed), virtually all of our work must
be available to others for their use as they see fit. About the only
legal recourse to FOIA requests are some provisions of the National Security
Act and the Privacy Act. If you need guidance, ask the Editorial Office.
ETHICAL
CONDUCT IN AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION
Scientists build their concepts and theories with individual bricks
of scientifically ascertained facts, found by themselves and their predecessors.
Scientists can proceed with confidence only if they can assume that the
previously reported facts on which their work is based are indeed correct.
Thus all scientists have an unwritten contract with their contemporaries
and those whose work will follow to provide observations honestly obtained,
recorded, and published. This ethic is no more than science's application
of the ancient Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you." It is an ethic that should govern everyone in the community
of scientists when they serve as authors, editors, or referees. The second
governing ethical principle is that a scientist's observations and conclusions
are his or her property until the scientist presents them to the scientific
community as a published work.
ETHICS
FOR AUTHORS
This [appendix] cannot concern itself with the conduct of scientists
in their research: whether they record only that which they observe or
measure, whether they treat human or animal subjects in accord with accepted
standards, and whether they adequately communicate with their co-workers.
It must confine itself to ethical standards for the steps in scientific
publication, of which the first is writing the scientific work.
Authorship
Authorship should be decided, if possible, before the work is written,
even if the decision is only tentative. This decision should come from
the scientist who has been most engaged in designing and executing the
research. Any conflicts on authorship or content of the work should be
resolved among the co-workers. The basic requirement for authorship is
that an author should be able to take public responsibility for the work.
An author should be able to indicate why and how the observations were
made, and how the conclusions follow from the observations. An author
should be able to defend criticisms of the work, as, for example, in
a letter-to-the-editor responding to published criticisms. These abilities
should come from having participated in design of the study, in observing
and interpreting the reported findings, and in writing the work.
Claims to authorship may come from persons who have had little to do
with the intellectual content of the work, but who have provided financial
support, routine technical assistance, or research space and equipment.
Such contributions need not be rewarded with authorship but can be acknowledged
in the appropriate section of the work.
Content of a Work
Authors have three main ethical responsibilities in presenting their
research in scientific works. A work must report only observations actually
made by one or more of its authors and must not fail to report evidence
conflicting with the conclusions reached. Authors must relate their study
to previously published relevant work and unpublished observations of
others. A work must indicate how the research was conducted in relation
to generally held ethical standards.
Honest and full reporting, the first responsibility, calls for accurately
and completely representing the observations made and data collected.
At least one of the authors, preferably the principal author, should
have been closely enough involved with conduct of the study to be reasonably
sure that data have not been fabricated or improperly manipulated by
any of the other authors or by technicians. If any data are excluded
from the report, the exclusion should be described and justified. Unpublished
data drawn from other sources should be identified as such and appropriately
credited, with indication that such acknowledgment is with the consent
of the person being credited.
To meet the second responsibility, the authors must honestly relate
their work to that of others so that readers can objectively evaluate
the present report. Conflicting evidence from the work of others should
not be ignored but should be included to help readers judge the soundness
of the conclusions stated in the work.
The third responsibility is met by describing the safeguards used to
meet both formal and informal standards of ethical conduct of research:
approval of a research protocol by an institutional committee, procurement
of informed consent, proper treatment of animals, and maintenance of
confidentiality of personal data on patients.
Authors' Responsibilities
to Their Institutions
Many private and governmental institutions and their departments have
formal or informal requirements ethically or legally binding authors
to obtain approval or clearance of a work before it is submitted to a
journal. There are various reasons for these requirements: to protect
the institution's scientific reputation, to prevent publication of works
conflicting with institutional policies, or to guard against disclosure
of restricted or classified information. Most authors are likely to have
been made aware of such requirements at the time of employment; if not,
they should inquire into their institution's policy on approval or clearance.
Institutional requirements may include specified statements in works
indicating approval or clearance of the work for publication. Such statements
may include disavowal of institutional responsibility for content of
a work and acceptance of all responsibility for the content by the authors.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that such statements are presented
exactly as required by the institution.
Institutional policies on copyright differ. Most academic institutions
allow their authors to retain copyright, which is an author's property
by virtue of creating the work. Some institutions require that authors
in their employ assign copyright to the institution. Works created by
persons as a duty of employment by the United States government belong
to the public domain and cannot be copyrighted.
Submission of Works to
Journals
Editors, responsible to both readers and authors, expect authors to
meet the ethical standards discussed above for the preparation and the
content of works submitted to their journals. They also expect full,
honest disclosure of other facts that may bear on acceptance or rejection
of a work. These facts should be stated in the submission, or covering,
letter that accompanies the work.
Many journals specify in their instructions to authors that works will
be considered for possible publication only with the understanding that
the works have not already been submitted to, accepted by, or published
in, another journal totally or in part. Therefore, authors should inform
editors in submission letters of any possible conflict with these policies.
An editor will be helped in deciding on the extent of overlap of the
submitted work with a previously published work or one submitted to another
journal if a copy of the other work is enclosed with the work being submitted.
Some journals require that the submission letter state that each author
listed on the title page has agreed to authorship. Inclusion of someone's
name as an author without that person's consent is both a violation of
that person's right to be responsible for his or her reputation in the
world of science and, from the editor's point of view, a dishonest act.
ETHICS
FOR EDITORS
The responsibility of the editor in scientific communication is broad,
affecting not only authors but reviewers and readers as well. Therefore,
editors must be especially sensitive to ethical conduct of their duties.
Editors and Authors
The author's work is the author's intellectual property. Some journals
require transfer of copyright from the author to the journal, with such
transfer required usually before final acceptance of the work. From the
ethical point of view, however, copyright does not belong to the journal
until the work is published. Until then, the work must be regarded by
the editor as belonging to the author. This principle requires that the
work be treated as a confidential communication from the author to the
editor at all points up to publication. Its contents must not be divulged
to anyone other than persons involved in reading the work in the editorial
office or reviewing it for the editor, or persons assisting in these
functions, such as secretaries and office clerks. The editor must make
clear to the office staff and to reviewers the confidentiality of works.
Editors can help to ensure that reviewers will treat works as confidential
communications by stating this ethical standard on review forms.
Editors and Reviewers
The editor is obliged to authors to prevent an inappropriate judgment
by a reviewer resulting in rejection of a valid and important work. The
editor is also obliged to readers to publish only valid and important
works. Both of these obligations require that the editor select reviewers
with careful attention to their competence in the subject of the work,
an absence of bias, and honesty. If the author recommends reviewers,
the editor may or may not follow the recommendation. If, on the other
hand, the author asks that certain reviewers not be used, because of
unfavorable bias, that request must be honored unless the editor has
reason to believe the request is intended to eliminate all competent
reviewers from examining the work.
When the judgments of two reviewers on a work differ greatly, the editor
must take responsibility for deciding which judgment is probably the
more reliable or for seeking additional reviews. Should the latter course
result in excessive delay in the review process, the editor should offer
the author the option of withdrawing the work.
Excessive delays in the review process are a disservice to both authors
and readers. Scientific reputations and professional advancement of authors
depend, in part, on prompt publication of their research findings. New
information should be made available to the scientific community without
delay.
ETHICS
FOR REVIEWERS
Reviewers must follow the same ethical standards as authors and editors
and should serve only in their areas of competence. As anonymous judges
of the work of peers, reviewers must avoid bias in making recommendations.
Adverse bias may result if the author is a strong rival, or if the work
undermines the reviewer's scientific position. Favorable bias may result
if the author is a friend and not a rival, or if the work supports the
reviewer's own views.
Reviewers should avoid either kind of bias and make judgments as if
those judgments had to be publicly defended. A reviewer should assist
an editor by informing him or her of any condition that might affect
objective evaluation of the work.
A reviewer may prefer to waive anonymity, but this choice should be
subject to the approval of the editor, who may wish to maintain anonymity
of reviewers. In either case, the responsibility of the editor must be
preserved by preventing direct communication between reviewer and author.
The reviewer, like the editor, must treat the work as a confidential
communication. If on reading the work the reviewer concludes that an
associate would be a better reviewer, he or she should get permission
from the editor to pass the work to that associate for review; the editor
may already have presented this option. An associate who reviews the
work or joins in the review must also honor confidentiality. In honoring
this principle of confidentiality, reviewers must accept the underlying
premise that a work's intellectual content is the property of the author
until the work is formally published; reviewers are not free to use any
of the content for the own purposes.
Reviewers are responsible not only for objective critical analysis
of works, but also for completing their tasks within the time allowed
by the editor. Should illness, vacation, or other events delay the reviewer,
the editor should be notified promptly.
ETHICS
FOR PUBLISHERS
Confidentiality must be maintained not only by editors and reviewers
but also by the publisher. No one should divulge the identity of authors
or the content of works to persons not authorized by authors. Thus, information
must not be given to, for example, the news media or investment firms,
even in response to inquiries from such interests.
A work is accepted by an editor for publication with the implicit understanding
that its content at that point is the content that will be published.
The editor and the copy editor may make redactorial changes in the style
to correct grammatical and typographical errors and unclear details of
prose but must make no change in the substantive content of a work. The
author should accept the redactorial changes, but be alert to possible
changes in meaning that can occur during copy editing for publication.
APPENDIX
4: SUPPORT FOR AUTHORS, REVIEWERS, AND CLEARING OFFICIALS
In addition to administering the review process, NEFSC support staff
assist in the NEFSC's research communication efforts in a number of ancillary
ways, primarily through its editorial, library, and network services
personnel. Following are: 1) a list of key contacts; and 2) a partial
list of services.
CONTACTS
- Teri L. Frady, Chief of Research Communications, Woods Hole Laboratory;
(508) 495-2239; Teri.Frady@noaa.gov
- Jon A. Gibson, Biological Sciences Editor, Woods Hole Laboratory;
(508) 495-2228; Jon.Gibson@noaa.gov
- Laura S. Garner, Editor, Woods Hole Laboratory; (508) 495-2350; Laura.Garner@noaa.gov
- Claire L. Steimle, Biological Sciences Librarian, James J. Howard
Marine Sciences Laboratory; (732) 872-3035; Claire.Steimle@noaa.gov
- Jackie Riley, Woods Hole Librarian, Woods Hole Laboratory; (508)
495-2260; Jacqueline.Riley@noaa.gov
- Judy D. Berrien, Library Technician, James J. Howard Marine Sciences
Laboratory; (732) 872-3034; Judy.Berrien@noaa.gov
- Edgar L. Kleindinst, Network Specialist, Woods Hole Laboratory; (508)
495-2280; Edgar.Kleindinst@noaa.gov
SERVICES
Should you need one of the following services, contact -- in the order
shown -- the individuals indicated by their initials within parentheses:
- providing information and advice on literature searches (CLS for
all except Woods Hole; JR for
Woods Hole)
- conducting specialized/complex literature searches (CLS for
all except Woods Hole; JR for
Woods Hole)
- obtaining copies of published works (CLS or JDB for
all except Woods Hole; JR for
Woods Hole)
- recommending publication outlets for works (JAG; CLS; JR; TLF)
- obtaining copies of journals' "instructions to authors" (CLS or JDB for
all except Woods Hole; JR for
Woods Hole)
- providing information and advice on manuscript, abstract, and poster
preparation (JAG; TLF; LSG)
- providing information and advice on webpage preparation (ELK; LSG)
- assisting in obtaining copyright releases on material taken from
proprietary sources (LSG; JAG)
- checking status of works submitted for review (LSG; JAG)
- assisting in mediating disagreements over authorship and review-revision
issues (JAG; TLF)
- arranging printing and binding of publications (JAG)
- arranging posting of webpages (ELK)
- providing information and advice on distribution of publications
(JAG)
- supplying annual bibliographies of NEFSC publications, reports, and
abstracts (LSG; JAG)
Technical and copy editing by the Research Communications Unit will
routinely be performed for manuscripts submitted to the NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series. Such editing may occasionally
be performed for other manuscripts due to their anticipated significant
scientific and public affairs values, as determined jointly by the submitting
division and the Research Communications Unit.
Information on the status of a work in review is available in an almost-instantaneous
mode. However, such information will be provided only to the author(s)
of that work and to his/her/their chain(s) of command.