These notes are an AI summary of my massive notes from the talk Publishing High-Impact Research: A View from Nature Cities.

Authors & Contact

William Burnside, PhD, Chief Editor Nature Cities

Allison Laskey, PhD, Associate Editor Nature Cities

Main Takeaway: Effective research communication is crucial, demanding clear, concise, and engaging writing. Researchers should carefully craft their story, considering its arc, context, and implications, and select journals based on the story's scope, desired speed, and audience. The editorial process involves rigorous assessment of conceptual advance, evidence, and community interest, with many submissions rejected for being out of scope, too specialized, or lacking clear conclusions. Nature Cities specifically seeks novel, important, and interesting work that profoundly impacts urban understanding and informs future research, requiring authors to articulate broad implications and urban relevance.

Communicating Research & Crafting Your Story

Importance of Communication

• Communicating your research is integral to doing it.
• It is the main symbolic system you will use.

Principles of Effective Writing

• Clarity:

• ◦ "Let every word tell." Implication: Don't overwrite, edit down.
• ◦ Clear writing is clear thinking.

• Engagement: ◦ Tell your story logically, concretely, and simply, but not dryly (let details sell the vision). ◦ Make your story accessible, engaging, and interesting.

• Skill Development:

◦ Everyone needs to work on their writing. ◦ Cultivate the habit of reading for pleasure, not just science. ◦ Writing is an iterative process: "greatest writers, work at first, work at again, work at again..." Developing Your Research Story • Metaphor: Consider your story a "house" or "home." ◦ "from Alice Munro Selected Stories" • Purpose: Are you trying to communicate, share, or enlighten? • Key Elements: ◦ Title: Untitle, retitle to refine. ◦ Arc: Identify how your story rises, where tension builds, and how it resolves. ◦ Core Questions: ‣ What is the context? ‣ What did you do? ‣ What are the implications? ‣ Can you express your work in three such sentences? • Structure: Use an outline like a scaffold, outlining at the paragraph level before revision. II. Choosing a Journal General Considerations • Timing: Write your paper before you know which journal you want to publish in. • Factors to weigh: ◦ What is central to your story? ◦ How big is the story? ◦ How fast do you want to get it out? (e.g., 4-6 months for a research piece). ◦ Is open access important to you? ‣ Note: Open access does not necessarily mean accessible to the "best" or guarantee shareability. ◦ What is your audience? Journal Types/Tiers (as discussed) • Nature: "Most key way of getting across your actual rankings," highest impact, wide variety of functions. • Research (e.g., Major Cities): Next level, potentially more specialized, proposal-like. • Specialized Journals (e.g., Journal last year to report): For good work that doesn't necessarily "push the field forward"; more specialized. III. The Editorial Process A. Initial Submission • Focus: Concentrate on your main message. • Cover Letter: ◦ Succinctly explain the importance of the findings and context. ◦ Show the reader that the topic and your insights are important. ◦ Avoid: ‣ Repeating content from the abstract or introduction. ‣ Introducing yourself or your team. ◦ Explain the degree to which your work enhances the field. • Presubmission Inquiries: Welcomed for review, perspective, opinion pieces, but not for primary research. B. Editor's Assessment Criteria • Conceptual advance • Breadth of interest to their community • Importance of the research questions • Strong evidence, clear conclusion C. Common Reasons for Rejection (Editor-level) • Out of scope • Too specialized • Insufficient advance over previous work • Unclear conclusions or insufficient support for them • Vying for space in a crowded field (journal has too much on that topic at the moment) D. Reviewer Panel • Exclusions: Avoid recent co-authors, PhD supervisors, close colleagues (request exclusions within reason). • Reviewer Report Criteria: ◦ Scientifically robust ◦ Technically correct ◦ Meets community standards E. Common Reasons for Rejection (Reviewer-level) • Insufficient data • Flawed analysis • Limited breadth of interest • Insufficient scientific/technical advance • Observations without interpretations (or vice versa) F. Post-Rejection/Revision • Invited to Revise: Aim to address the major issues before resubmitting. • Transfer Service: An option for papers rejected from one journal within a publisher's portfolio. • Appeals: Consider if you have additional data that directly addresses the concerns raised. • Alternative Submissions: Consider submitting something other than primary research (e.g., a perspective or review) if a full research paper isn't suitable. IV. Publishing with Nature Cities Core Criteria • Novel • Important • Interesting Defining "City" • Think broadly: past, present, and future. • Consider different vantage points and contexts. Impact and Implications • Will the work inform an area for future research? • Ensure an "Implications of the work" section. • "Magic Eye Poster": "How does this change how I think about X?" (Pull back and re-tweak for broad context). • Emphasize broad implications and urban relevance. • Goal: To shape the knowledge of all people and contribute to understanding for cities and major cities; potential to be featured in textbooks. Scope • Covers many different kinds of things, geographies, and conversations around the field and its construction.