In this editorial piece the editors in chief of SBB explain to what authors should pay attention before submitting papers in general, and to SBB in particular.

1. Introduction

  • papers are for the readers, not the authors (which in fact is not true): do readers gain novel insights and new knowledge?

Checklist

  • journal’s target audience
  • methods and analyses support interpretations and conclusions
  • conclusions well-grounded in the data and conclusive
  • speculation is clearly identified as such
  • clear writing

2. SBB’s criteria are based on our aims and scope

Soil Biology & Biochemistry publishes scientific research articles of international significance which describe and explain fundamental biological and biochemical features and processes occurring in soil systems.

  1. Audience
    • what does the reader already know: leave it out and take it for granted
  2. Questions
    • no case studies, only broadly relevant questions
  3. Focus and scale
    • drivers of processes of soil biochemistry, not just soil as a “brown box”
  4. Novelty and importance
    • well-studied processes in new circumstances or with new methods
    • incremental science: larger synthesis, new insights, deeper understanding
    • show why and how the work is novel
  5. Language
    • English: AE tends to shorter sentences (laconic authors such as Mark Twain and Ernest Hemmingway), BE tends to longer and more elaborate prose (Jane Austen and Thomas Hardy)

3. An Editor’s approach: How we apply these standards when we get a manuscript

  • first check for: international relevance, fundemantality, soil systems
  • language check: title, highlights, opening paragraphs
  • first impressions matter
  • first check happens in short blocks of free time, if there are problems the paper is put on the backburner

Common issues that lead to a “Desk Reject”

  1. Telling the wrong story
    • message must meet the journal’s scope
    • opening paragraph defines a problem to solve
    • conclusions will come back to this problem
    • opening problem defines target audience
    • for SBB: be general here!
  2. No real question or hypothesis
    • define specific objectives at end of introduction: What question will you answer?
    • identify a knowledge gap
    • be as precise as possible
  3. Poor presentation
    • read the *Guide to Authors**
    • use little color, good palettes, large font sizes, line numbers
  4. Weak conclusions
    • show what the work has contributed and has it has advanced understanding
    • avoid “more research is needed…”: point out what you have done, not what you have not done
    • discuss limitations earlier
    • be precise, what are the exact implications?
    • “Show, don’t tell”.
    • first and last words are most powerful

4. Conclusions

  • check journal’s scope
  • read as an editor/reviewer/reader
  • ironically, typo “concecus” in last words of the paper