Global Research Letters

How to write and publish a paper

David david is a seasoned publisher. I mean he is prolific to say the least and david you were just giving me a real nugget of information. Would you say again what you just said to me. Like 10 seconds ago about like how to predict the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai doing well. Exactly we’ve got a method. I can predict the success of your paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai from the topic that you chose about 90 of the success or failure. You’re gonna have comes down to that fundamental choice right because if people aren’t going to find your paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai they’re not going to read your paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. Is that right and people are searching. I mean people. The days of people like paging through the lawns. That have come and gone. I mean now it’s all about you. Do a search online. You find the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais you look for you. Download them and read them. Is that right absolutely. Um i mean a lot of it’s artificial intelligence. Now that’s even proposing a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai to you and you know the thing. Is that a lot of these paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais. Just aren’t getting picked up. I mean i looked at the data. Uh just came out in web of science which tracks citations and the median number of citations. That’s kind of like right at the average number of citations. An impact a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai has had over the past couple years. Uh can you guess what. The median impact has been. I’m nervous to guess you tell me zero median number of citations and this is for paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais. I even got through. The hurdle got published. Got out there. The median impact zero citations. In other words you could just dig a hole and plop them in there. They’ve done nothing really intellectual landfill we call it and i want everybody watching this to do better. You guys have to at least beat. What um you know one of my old professors at yale called the uh ecological test like is it. Is your paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai worth the tree. That was uh cut down in your journal and journals these days they fill up libraries. And i don’t know who goes there but yeah you have to beat that ecological test and we’re gonna help you do that. I love that i love that now.

David you’ve got a lot of experience writing paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais. Um i’ve i’ve certainly written fewer than you. I’ve been in the publishing game for a while. Now though i’ve been the chief editor of globalization for nearly 20 years now and i remember in the early days of the journal you were in fact one of the authors that submitted and i’ve always remembered the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai that you wrote so it’s interesting that we’ve sort of come around and here we are talking about publishing paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais again. I remember that paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai back when you were editor. It was uh what am i. Yeah it feels like the prehistoric period. Now it was uh it was about russia and the the change from communism to capitalism and the excess mortality. I think you mentioned that. The excess mortality was kind of more than any kind of event outside of conflict. Or something i just i remember it so clearly and this is probably going back 10 15 years. Yeah that’s i mean again. That’s a sign of a good paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai not to toot my own horn here but a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai though. It’s kind of like good art. Good art you you love or you hate but you remember i think sometimes we we forget the art of science and you know when it comes time to publish. There is craftsmanship. There is skill in communicating and there is a reason why some paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais equal science do incredibly well and and others just get buried in intellectual landfill. And yeah i’m excited about this section. Because we’re going to share some of those secret insider tips that that you you’ve learned as an editor and uh the magic juice. Use the secret sauce. The tips and tricks secrets. I’m looking forward to learning from you david. Because i’m i’m keen to publish more so i’m going to learn from the master. Um let me start off with one quick question and then we’ll we’ll get more into because we’ve got a list of questions and of course people watching. This may have questions as well but quick question. David you mentioned that you can. You can tell off the bat like kind of how well a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is going to do.

Just simply you know from the title. How do you choose the subject. Matter that you’re going to write on i mean on the one hand if you’ve done a certain kind of research obviously the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai you’re going to publish will be consistent with that or you know a function of that but i think a lot of people write paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais over and above that they you know they write editorials they do reviews et cetera et cetera. How do you get when you kind of sit down to start writing. What what’s your process just in terms of identifying a topic to dig into. Yeah it’s a really really important question. Uh i think a lot of students uh often just take on a topic because oh well. That’s what my supervisor is working on. And sometimes they even take it on topic because there’s many of topics here. Well we have this data set. Maybe you could look at this. We haven’t looked at this yet. And and i understand why that happens. But uh you know this is part of where the big inequalities in academics come from. There’s something known as a matthew effect in science where kind of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and those of you are blessed with a mentor a supervisor. Who’s right at the center of debate and right at the front forefront of the field. Um they’re probably going to help you move straight to a winning debate straight to winning topic because they’ve done it time and time again right. Brian might not be uh blessed to be. Uh working with the best person in the world on your subject um might end up stumbling around on a topic. That’s derivative and is gonna take you nowhere. Um so you know i i. I’m very passionate about inequalities especially inequalities and health and so i’ve worked to create a system using a convergence method to help students hone in like a laser beam to short-circuit that knowledge and that process hone in on a laser beam to what is a winning topic a winning debate and find a gap that they can address in a reasonable period of time with their work.

Um all right see we got kevin joining us as well. Okay welcome then kevin kevin from nested knowledge is here and he’s going to talk to us about literature review in just a minute. Uh but just to follow that that thought that train of thought. Uh david and and i’m just gonna give a quick plug to work that you do because you mentioned something about the fact that a lot of your success might come from getting good mentorship. I know you are very involved with mentoring. People that are graduate students doing phds that want to kind of. I’m going to use the term fast. Track their academic careers. Uh will you just quickly quickly give us like the 30 seconds. What it is that you do in that space because i think people watching this will be particularly interesting particularly look. I just see a lot of bright students. Uh who aren’t getting support and guidance that they need to really thrive and you’re trying to stay on top of your studies can feel impossible when you got to balance work life uh and other huge responsibilities and that’s why i created the fast track program uh to provide the guidance that i wish i would have had as a grad student to help you. Avoid all the mistakes. The landmines that i had along the way um so you can have a smooth easy ride to maximizing your impact publishing in high impact journals and go on to create the career that you’ve dreamed of having so we do that through. Mentorship step-by-step courses and a very powerful community of practice. If anybody’s interested in learning more we have an application process we have limited numbers of who we can take on and uh only those who are really willing to work hard um so yeah do get do get in touch and join my facebook group fast. Track where we’ve got lots of valuable training support and uh and i’ve put a link in the description of the video so people can just click on the link and go and check it out down there. Um just to welcome in there kevin’s here.

Hi kevin good to have you with us. Um and kevin’s just coming in and he’s getting his stuff set up so we’ll give him a second just to kind of like get all of his bits and bobs in place. Uh so that people know uh david just give us an a quick window in. How many paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais have you published in your career to date. Oh shoot i lost count you know. One of the exercises is every year. I’m in italian universities. And they love to like count everything and score points and uh i have to get my secretary to go put all the applications the the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais. I’ve come out on the cv. Um i know we’re over the last count. I had was over 375 but i can’t tell if we uh you know where the full number i think this year we’ve crossed the 400 threshold so i’ve lost count. Okay so you know in the region of 400 plus paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais so basically what. I’m trying to tell people. Is that when we get advice from someone like yourself. You know what you’re talking about you’ve been around the block. Uh you’re a seasoned operator in this space. We’ve got a list of questions and i’m going to kind of go through them one at a time and as i say if you’re watching this live you might be watching this on linkedin facebook youtube et cetera. Et cetera. You can you can jump in with questions. We’ll try and keep an eye on the questions and bring some of your questions in from the audience. Um as we as we can uh first question uh why publish in the peer-reviewed literature is there. I mean why not. Just stick something in the you know hello magazine for example. Uh is there well. I can think of some benefits but maybe either kevin or david. You want to jump in on this. I mean is there. Is there some professional advantage to having publications in the peer-reviewed literature in academic paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais. Let’s give kevin a shot to jump in here if uh yeah i. I think there’s basically let’s think about the scientific community for a second and sorry to make it a zoomed out. Uh uh answer here but the scientific community communicates by publishing and the entire mechanism for that uh has to have some sort of uh basically some sort of organization and some sort of gate right.

So it’s going to be publishing something. Uh you might ask like. Why can’t i put my scientific evidence in a blog. I i’m not going to claim that peer review is a perfect mechanism for selecting articles. Uh but i think that it’s a check on um on. The quality of art is a mechanism for getting this same information into similar journals. So if you’re engaging in the in the public you’re effectively uh contributing to a set. That is not only curated also organized in some sense. Now i i’d love to go further in uh on this. This live stream into the shortcomings of that process. I think the central reason to do so though is to effectively join the community of sharing. Uh that’s at the scientific knowledge like that’s the that’s the base of all of this. Um obviously uh there’s there’s really specific you know you should also have a very specific reason publishing. It should be that you actually have a scientific um concept with either you know either a uh a set of methods or a set of results that you think everyone should know uh but but really. That’s the system that you should be joining so basically i mean you basically saying if you want to get in front of and you want your ideas to be read by and taken seriously by the scientific community you’ve got to go through the process you’ve got to pay your dues. You’ve got to go through peer review. You’ve got to make sure that you’ve been clear about your methods if you’re being transparent and that you can get through that if you get past that hurdle it sends a signal to the audience. You’re trying to get in front of that. Look this is at least worth taking a look at. It might be worth taking seriously. And it’s that’s not always the case. There’s a lot of junk out there that gets through the filters but at least it is a hurdle of some kind uh whereas if everything was just on a blog you know then it would be a bit of a free-for-all so that’s quite interesting.

I have this is a question from me really and this is and i wonder if this is something. That’s that that might there may be nuances to the answer to this question. But do i need to publish in a high impact journal. So let’s say me. And my team have written a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai and for prestige reasons. I might want to get that into the lancet but given that we’re no longer living in an area where people are paging through the lancet and reading physical journals as much they look. They’re doing a search on pubmed and my paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is as likely to get found on pubmed regardless of where it’s published. Is there any reason why i still should still be aiming at high impact journals um thoughts david over to you just to add. Look for for academics. Publications are like money in the bank. They’re the lifeblood of an academic career and i encourage my students who want to go down on an academic path to aim high because that signal is so powerful often. I encourage them to get a stream of publications plant a flag and say i’m a world leading expert in this and then cash in on it later by applying for grants and funding uh where the funding kind of lubricates uh the flow of funds to you. Because it’s like well you you’re publishing these top journals. You’re the world renowned person on the subject. So that’s how you get invited to conferences. You get on the proverbial fast track that said. It’s not necessary for everyone. I have many students who want to publish. But maybe don’t want to go down on conventional academic track but still see the benefits. Public education could bring some people are really passionate about making a difference and then the choice of the journal and what hurdles to jump through are what they really want to do. Which for many of them is about making a difference so we kind of reverse engineer a publication strategy based on. Uh how it fits into your career goals.

Okay so a related question. Uh let’s say we’ve written a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. I’ve got a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. I’m i’m actually asking you questions that i genuinely have like. These are genuinely questions that i you know if i were sitting in a and i am sitting in a virtual room with you. These are the things that i want to know. We’ve got a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai we think. Oh this is not bad. How do you select a journal to submit to. Let’s say okay. We want to. We want to find a journal. That’s high impact. If we can um and if i understand the process correctly you should be submitting to only one journal at a time. So you don’t want to send the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai to multiple journals. You want to pick a journal send it find out what happens there. How how do you find. Is there a list of journals that you can look at and go through the list and sort of say okay. These are the three that i want or are these things categorized. Can i find a list of public health journals for example that i might consider or is that something. That’s you know quite difficult to find so i can actually hop in on this. I have tons of experience helping with this. David i think obviously has a crazy number of uh uh advisees and paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai through but i’ve helped people select journals a lot and the key to that we started by google searching and we never found that to be very uh because effectively you uh you need to find a journal that is exotic and for us. I uh yeah the google search and some journals of interest but in effect you’re going to need to actually look at these citations in similar articles is really the key to this. Uh it find a similar article to your look at the publications in and look at the citation look at the citations. And that’s where you’re going to find the journals. Okay nice david. Do you agree exactly one of the early steps. I think kevin mentioned as well is. I encourage students to develop a nearest neighbor paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai to actively hunt for the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. That’s most similar to theirs and that’s kind of a reference throughout the publishing process.

Um because you’re gonna need to cite it anyway to establish what the value added of your paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is and and show what the gap was and how you filled it um and absolutely that helps establish. There’s a debate and often if journals have been publishing in that area. They’re going to want to publish yours. Because there’s a lot of discussion that said i agree. Google search isn’t much help but clarov8 does have a list that can give you some inspiration from field specific journals by ranking and i do encourage my students even on submitting to already have a short list of five journals they want to go to because some look inevitably some are going to get rejected. I’ve felt the sting of rejection many times. And just statistically if you’re submitting to the lancet two percent of paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais get published one out of 50 chance you’re going to get in 49 on 50. You’re getting rejected so you’ve got to develop thick skin and um instead of you know you’re going to fit a misery when you get rejected. You got your list blocked loaded ready go on to the next journal okay. A related question. When do you or should you at some point give up right you submitted. It’s been rejected rejected rejected. Is there a i mean is is the publishing world at some point giving you a signal that look this. Despite your best effort you need to cut your losses. Uh this paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is unlikely to be publishable and and you’re now chewing into valuable time that you could be using to be writing your next paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. I mean have you. Have you ever done that. David just kind of just said this paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is not going to get published. I’ve done my best. Uh and move on or do you repurpose you. Kind of like take it back and sort of say. Look this needs to be rejected is there. Do you have a system around that. Yeah um usually and i’ve got some training videos on this um just like for choosing journal uh i usually take any feedback. I get was just going through this with a student.

Got a rejection got feedback. Treat it like a revision and take on board what you can um and you really to make that calculus if no journal is sending your paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai out for a review. Uh then probably everything um yeah. He’s not even getting a ride. But if you are getting sent out for review that means that editors are thinking. Hey there there is some merit here. There is a discussion. There is a debate and again like i said ninety percent of this uh success or failure is going to trace to if you got that original choice of the topic right um so if you got that on point you know. There’s active debate and discussion. Um then you’ve got to assess what what you’re getting if you’re getting good reviews. I say treat them like your vision. Try to incorporate those comments. Because i’m sorry your paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is going to go to those same set of reviewers again. Okay so this. Next question is a slightly loaded question. Because i’m wanting just to take the conversation in a certain direction for a little bit. Uh kevin why is a literature review important. Uh and and and i i know you. Your bread and butter is lit review. You guys. You’re the chief executive of nested knowledge. You you’ve leaned into the space heavily so i i’ve stuck this question in specifically wanting to hear from you on this and just so that people know nested knowledge do sponsor my channel. And i’m grateful for that. I use the platform for for literature review. And i have my team using it and i and i love it. So that’s just my little quick like thumbs up and endorsement but um kevin over to you lit review talk to us. Thanks and i will say we sponsor greg’s channel because he does good scientific research and uh i think he also teaches good scientific research. So that’s really why we’ve done that and let me give a bit of background on me. Because i think that’ll also tell you why i think literature review’s so important um my job before i before i run a software company to help with systematic review.

I actually i just helped physicians write paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais. That was effectively my job i would help them develop protocols study designs how they’re going to gather their data all the way through to an actual publication and not all of those were literature reviews but there was always that first step and we talked about it earlier in the constant text of citation. You should whenever you’re looking to publish any paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai much less a literature review you should be doing research on your topic of interest right. You should find what other people in your field are publishing on and so we were doing that across hundreds of articles a year. And you’re looking at you. Know uh background articles for hundreds of articles a year. That means you’re managing thousands or tens of thousands of citations on topics that you want to save and that you want to be able to refer to and pull data from and we really found no good tool out there to actually help us manage all those citations in a way that actually got us through not just to like. Hey here’s the title. Here’s the author list but also. What are the concepts in that article. How do they relate to the concepts in other articles that are on similar. Uh that are within the same field that are studying the same disease that might contain. You know evidence on an intervention that is that is really positive that you should be you should be referencing in your publication so with all of that background causing that there wasn’t really a good like data infrastructure. If you are just trying to do good uh background research to support your medical uh publishing effort right whether it’s primary or literature review. We built a system to search the literature. Pull back the articles of interest screen those articles down to the ones that you would actually care about. And then build a concept hierarchy to map each of these underlying articles to the concepts that you actually will want to publish about and then only then take the data from them so if you think about that process we are really building a uh a a workflow to go from.

I have a concept. I have a research question to. I have a database with what everyone else has said on this discipline before and so let’s return all the way back to your note. Why is doing that literature review so important. Doing that literature view is important because we need a central source of truth to compare your new results against right. If you’re going to be publishing any new results into the literature what are you. What is the context right. How does it actually affect the scientific consensus. You can’t actually get to that answer unless you gather all that other literature in a place that you can present it transparently and replicably to your audience. So what am i adding. What am i adding to the to the to the the thinking out there or is what i’m saying. In contrast you know which sometimes is fine. Maybe you know maybe you’re out there and you’ve got something really new and different. That’s great but you need to be able to say that you need to say look. This is what we’ve thought until now and i’m adding to that or i’m contradicting that or i’m doing something but i’m putting it into context. That’s exactly right and i think that that can be multiple publications too right so there’s also i think there’s an incentive to do a literature review and show the expert based on collating others as evidence before you go out there and try to say like i’m changing the narrative right. I’m changing i’m putting my uh i’m putting my piece on top of this and saying that i actually think we should. We should change practice compared to everything. That’s come before it’s a really good idea to establish yourself as an expert in the field by actually doing that literature review first and establishing that you understand that baseline before you try to change it. Yeah and i definitely find when i’m reading a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai and i read a lot of paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais because you know i work as a part like part of my life is working as the chief editor of a medical journal.

And i definitely find when i’m reading the introduction and background those first few paragraphs if that is well referenced and i can see that. They’ve made the effort to kind of really understand the background and they this person understands and knows their field and they they’re bringing that across in a way. That is sensible. I’m much more likely to take their results. Section seriously you know and and look more closely at the methods etc and take the whole paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai more. Seriously because they’ve they’ve demonstrated that this is a field that they’re kind of really on the cutting edge of so that’s kind of quite useful. I must tell you um and not to make too much of a song or dance about it but i’m enjoying nested knowledge. I’m enjoying the aspect of it that you can work collaboratively with your team. So i’ve got my whole team is using it and uh everybody kind of logs on and they do their little bit and i can kind of sit in the middle of it and see what everyone’s doing and see what they’ve done and i also love that. How visual it is you know so you can you create this kind of like hierarchy of your different tags and you can sort of see everything i mean. It’s very difficult for me to kind of explain. I’m trying to use my hands here but that’s probably not the right way to do it. I mean i don’t know kevin could you pop it up on the screen just for a couple of seconds and show people what we’re talking about just so that they know. Uh give me a give me a second on that. I’ve actually been working on the background but the live stream plus so i let me work on that and actually do a video presentation. Uh because i agree with you. I really know a way to discuss literature. View without good scientific visuals. And what look while. We’re doing little plugs. Can i just let people on this on this watching this know. Uh if you’re watching this on my youtube channel i read at the end of this live stream.

I’m going to do another live stream with my youtube channel members right so my channel has got members and i do some content that is just for members. So you have to be a member of the channel not just subscribe to it but an actual member and there’ll be a link link below that you can click on to go and get membership and we will be doing a live stream this afternoon at four o’clock my time that looks at how to get a job at the world health organization so that is interesting to you go check it out. Uh become a member and join in that conversation. So now kevin’s disappeared. I think he’s he’s figuring out how to get onto the screen um david. Let’s jump into another question. What have we got here okay. We’ve talked about the journals. Um add on just on the literature review there’s another aspect uh literature reviews foundational. That’s something that everyone’s got to do. Not everyone does it. Well um but one of the spillover benefits from doing it is to ingrain good habits like if you wanted to learn uh and many of you doing literature review for the first time just think of it like learning a new sport all right if you want to learn to do a complicated serve in tennis you want to do a fancy kick serve you need to learn to do a basic good solid serve before getting into spin and all sorts of fancy things and one of the nice things about doing systematic literature review. Is it ingrains. Solid scientific habits the scientific habits of precision and detail that you’re going to need to go on to do even more complex research in your field so i really really like getting everybody as the foundation. I have all my phd. Students do this systematic literature review as their starting point. Yeah yeah i think you’re right actually and you learn from people that have been around the block uh senior authors. That have written a lot of paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais like yourself. You read what they’ve done and you really kind of pick up the good habits and you learn the best practice from them david.

This is something that i’m sure you’ve done a lot of collaborating with other authors. Do you have a process for that. Is there a i mean and and connected to this. I have a second question and i’ll pop it on the screen as well. Uh who gets to be an author in other words often you know people write a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai and then suddenly you see there’s a whole long list of authors and you kind of think like well. Actually what are what are you. What are the criteria for a person being listed as an author of a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai and what are the different roles people play. How do you become an author. And how do groups of people collaborate to write a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. Yeah that’s a lot of questions all bundled into one. There’s two kinds of separate questions i will say when i i’ve uh uh and i still have a big lab of research students. Um because the the mentorship program is something. I do on side to the day job which is all the research the the biggest most toxic disputes. If not men as well. I’ve seen in labs come from uh disputes over authorship and uh i’m fortunate to have the opposite situation. Uh i just got off a call with two students who are arguing like no you be first author. No you be personal and uh so. It’s really important. Uh that the pi sets the tone and the expectations for co-authorship. There’s kind of standard rules and ethics around this. If you have a professor who just does nothing wants to slap a name on the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. You might want to question your relationship with your supervisor because that is is not ethical um on a number of grounds um so i imagine that happens a lot. It happens a lot unfortunately. It’s um all too often um one thing i really encourage students to think about with co-authors is how to get the most value out of them and sometimes students come and say oh well my supervisor’s not responding to me. And sometimes i think as well in some cases it’s like you wouldn’t go to a neurosurgeon and ask him to make him or her to make you a cup of coffee and you really want to leverage co-authors and engage their expertise in the right ways so your co-authors can be you can get value from working with them.

And they can be at all levels of academic hierarchy but they’re going to be happier and contribute more and invest in you if they’re giving you their expertise the right kind of expertise there’s certain points in the chain so some of your top supervisors if they’re very high up in the chain and have experience. They’re great to get their input in choosing your topic and kind of helping frame your manuscript for publication if you only have a couple of points where they can come in but you might not want to get them to do heavy lifting and wordsmithing on parts where you’re having trouble with english as a second language you might want somebody else to help with that um so i really encourage you to take stock of. What are the talents of your co-authors and deploy them wisely to strengthen strengthen your manuscript and uh sometimes i don’t think students have necessarily fully thought that through and uh that that can be to their detriment in the long term. Okay here’s a tricky question and um i see this every now and again working as the editor of the journal. But i’d be interested in your approach. Have you ever been in a situation where you’ve gotten feedback from the referees from the peer review process and i mean this can happen. The paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai went out for review and the person reviewing it actually knows less about the subject matter than you do. And they’ve ended up sending back comments. That really do not apply in other words. They’ve sent back. Rick asks for changes that if you were to make those changes it would weaken your paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. Have you had that i imagine you have. I mean i’ve had all sorts of stuff. My favorites are the one that says this person has clearly not read the work of stucklerd colleagues. Okay but yes um disagreeing uh with referees really.

I like to reframe kind of think like you’re doing a karate move like pairing i block and like re refrain. We’ve got a lot of sports metaphors we’ve got tears. We’re gonna pick something from the squash soon. I know you’re a fellow squash player as well so i have to use tennis anyway. Um so yeah so i like this idea of pairing so oftentimes. The first impulse is when you’re getting criticized i mean you’re pointing your finger at me. It’s to be defensive and kind of get your back up. That’s the opposite of what you want to do. You want to acknowledge the comment. And and oh and basically my principle is go as far as you possibly can to address the comment but do the minimum to to do so so the minimum amount that you need to do to thoroughly address the comment now and you don’t want to seem defensive in in block every comment. It’s really nice when you can write to an editor. Hey i i address. All the reviewer’s helpful comments makes it easier for the editor to accept the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. But if there are some sticking points i often like to ping it back to the editor. Say look we. We disagree with this comment for the following reasons. Um and you know space or happy to include it if the editor wishes for us to do so and that can be a way to respectfully disagree without confronting the reviewers and maybe having them feel like their backs are up the other thing that you can. Kind of parry. Things off with is to say we appreciate that. This point was not really cl. Might not have been clear. So we’ve now added clarification on page x and still not doing their point but kind of uh pairing it a bit and shifting and making what they may be misunderstood clearer in the manuscript. So you’re not trying to make this reviewer feel like you’re making him look bad him or her look bad in the eyes of the editor. We’ve got some tricks of the trade that uh little cheat sheets to help on revisions. That’s a nice trick. I like that i like and i must say i have seen people do that.

You know submit paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais. Uh they get they get comments back from referees and the referees aren’t always necessarily they don’t always know best um and then we’ve had people do exactly what you’ve just described and it works quite. Well they don’t want to make necessarily a substantial change to the content of what they’re saying they kind of really want to stick with their guns. They believe what they’re saying is correct. But in the text they add in a clarification that actually kind of almost strengthens their argument and they leave that with the with the editors and and as the editors they’ll often read that and say okay. Look that makes sense. Uh they’ve addressed that uh that issue and we. We don’t have to revisit that. So that’s that’s not bad. Thanks david this is what i i just want to address. This is also really important. Um getting a revision is a win and i often treat it. It’s yours to lose at this point. And the way you lose this is getting in a fight with reviewers or maybe not addressing things in in the manuscript that that you say you’re going to address. There’s certain things that i mean greg. You probably got experience as an editor. What for you causes people to get rejected revision because revision at least on our side. We’ve got about a 98 success rate from revisions going on to publication. But i know your experience. You probably rejected quite a few paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais at revision. Um where does that happen for you. Yeah so we i mean. I’d say that we’ve rejected paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais even at that stage if it seems to be and i suppose this relates to what we’re talking about right now you know. The referee’s made some sort of comment it hasn’t been addressed properly. It hasn’t been and we might look at that comment a little bit more closely and feel that. The referee is really kind of cottoned on to a fundamental weakness in this paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai and the authors have failed to respond to it. Because they can’t you know there’s an actual flaw in let’s say for example the methodology or.

There’s a flaw in the reasoning. That uh no matter. How much kind of dancing around you do. It doesn’t untangle you from the fundamental fact that there’s something wrong here that the referees have identified and kind of really kind of like stumbled into but it is true that most of the time once you had a stage where referees have looked at it it’s gone back to the authors. They’re making changes. You’re usually on your path. Uh to getting stuff over the line and and uh you know 90 of the time that paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is going to get published. I think that’s right. I’m saying by the way. Uh greg some yeah interesting comments coming coming in. Uh while we’re waiting for do you wanna i. I’m just going into the chat now. I’ve i’ve had my sort of uh my screen on somewhere else is there. Is there a question you want to jump in on um we have quite a few coming through um so uh yeah chris christian has got one. Um this is getting some more specific questions about systematic reviews but christian is saying most of my public health students are struggling while doing systematic reviews at two levels one how to find the best articles relevant to their choice of topics and two how to extract appropriate data from the retrieved paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais. I do appreciate if you could share some practical tips and and let me just answer those briefly. I don’t know if you’ve got the comment. And you can pull it up and good kevin’s come back how to find the best articles. Relevant to your choice of topics really comes to optimizing. And and i know kevin will have some on this. But you’ve got to get your pico right and set very clear exclusion inclusion criteria. And if you’re not able to make a choice of this paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is in or out um in a replicable way so that greg could apply my criteria. Then you don’t have clear enough inclusion execution criteria you need to update them and then extraction uh and it sounds like kevin software probably has something to say with us but we use a series of often predefined templates that make it easy to kind of swoop in the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais get the right details to extract out and there’s a very common format for extracting these data that can apply to 90 of studies with some updates and modifications for the specificities of yours.

Oh there you go there we go okay just go i just i was. I was scrolling through the questions to find it. Yeah we’ve got a bunch coming through which is great. I i really like to see these good questions from from the community here. Yeah okay so it’s a good question. How do i find the best articles relevant to the topic choice. And how to extract appropriately okay. So that’s a good answer. And um i tell you what i struggle with. And and and um and it’s an extension of that question and uh kevin or david you may have. You may have a solution for me but i sometimes do a search and the search produces too much and uh i know it’s a matter of okay you need to refine the search and blah blah blah. But i just kind of find. Sometimes you know you do a search and i remember doing a search and i was being as specific as i could and i was still just getting way. Too many paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais to wade through drove me bonkers. I know a first pass is like whip through you know the titles and abstracts but even that can be absolutely kind of mind-numbingly dull um any advice or maybe. There isn’t an easy way to do that. Maybe like the truth of the matter is like buddy. You just got to do it. Kevin any thoughts kevin’s back back. I think there’s a certain amount of sound. Yeah yeah no thanks so much. I’ve been working on pulling up bills. So yeah all right. I think the greg’s question is actually exactly the same as the viewers question. Because really what we’re really asking is. How can i narrow in on the set of studies that are actually relevant to me. Um and that question really uh. Let’s go deeper into what david brought up which is pico. Uh that’s your patient popular interest the interventions are like the therapies.

You’re about and the outcomes you care about really those are going to be how you activation down and the more specific you can use around your population of interest. The you know the fewer unnecessary you’re going to bring back on that front and same with each of the other things so the more outcomes identified that are exactly the what you want from your underlying paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais the more you’re going to get that search down to only uh articles that report that but that can offer. Let’s say you’re doing a research on diet right. You’re going to get hundreds of thousands of articles back in your first search. No matter how many limitations i think there are actually two methods. I that i’d recommend here. One is general and one is specific to our software. The general recommendation here is to also think about what to uh not just about what you’re looking for what you’re not looking for. Um pretty much engine allows you to include negations on searches. And there’s a huge part of the strategy that is figuring out what to negate in your as well as what to actually search so if you for instance diabetes but you won’t type two. Make sure you’re actually negative one not just searching for only and all the ways down for the dimensions as well. Make sure your negate intervention that you don’t care about if you don’t care analysis negate that don’t just search for the therapy of interest to you because there should be a lot of crossover there and that’s going to help you kick out the studies that are irrelevant to you. Further clever ones along that lines are like make sure you’re kicking out editorials. Make sure you’re picking up. I mean. Make sure you’re kicking out anything. That’s not a scientific article that you care about right. Uh that’s a huge piece of it and i generally find that that can cut my search by like 70 just by using proper negation of concepts. I don’t care about and study types. I don’t care about it and okay. That’s interesting this is a true life confession.

I i’ve done a lot of searches in my time and i don’t think i’ve ever used that negation trick. Which as you say it makes absolutely perfect sense but i. I don’t think i’ve ever done that and like i’m just thinking like oh my god the hours of my life that have been wasted. Um so that’s very that’s very good advice. And and your second strategy kevin so the second strategy is actually built into our software we have we have a a function where you can pre-screen articles effectively. So when you actually do that search the other problem you might have is that. You’re bringing back results that you don’t know how good it’s not just like there are a lot of dislike. You don’t know actually how many of them are going to be relevant or what percentage and so we have a tool where you come in and you do some review of the abstracts that exist and then we also do some ai collation of the topics risk right so we present like hey here are the top. 20 population related topics the top 20 in intervention related topics for for your search. And then you can drill down by either saying i actually just want that topic and clicking on it or by uh just giving an overview of all of them and saying wow this is totally on track like 18 out of the 20 top topics are exactly what i was looking for so that can either redirect you in your search like um the ai is saying that i’m bringing back a bunch of results. That are completely irrelevant to me. I should go back to square one and the other uh thing that can do. Is we tell you you are on track. Allow you to see some of those initial abstracts that that will be uh included in your study and really give you that confidence to move forward and say it’s probably worth screening. These you know 300 or 400 or whatever it is articles because the first 10 are exactly what i’m looking for and and the ai is telling me the rest of them are going to be on track as well because it could be that you did a really good search and there’s just a lot of evidence on your question of interest and that’s always it might just be a lot right if you’re trying to do a systematic literature review then you actually you actually just have to buckle up and work through the volume because that’s that’s the nature of the beast.

Yeah whereas if you’re just doing a review that’s kind of a little bit more light touch and you’re going to you want to find the right articles to reference in your introduction and background. You can be a little less rigorous and you can kind of say look. Let me just make sure that i’m hitting the high notes here. Okay interesting stuff a quick another question. I have uh for both of you and i don’t know what the solution to this is but what about negative results publishing negative results. There’s probably not an easy answer to this because i think the bias here is with the journals journals typically want to be higher impact journals. They know that the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais that they publish are more likely to be read and cited if they’re publishing positive results um so negative results and uh repeated so someone that’s done that’s replicated research which is actually an important part of the scientific process. You know somebody’s done a study. They’ve shown something we need. We need to know that. That’s replicable. Uh journals tend not to be too excited about publishing stuff. That’s already been been been put out there. Is there any. Is there a way around that. Is anybody publishing negative results. Um is there. Do you guys have any thoughts on that david. I’m sure none of your results are ever negative. Well no that’s not true. I’ve got a student who’s about to publish some negative findings. That’s right to the heart of a very active debate and is using a a more convincing. Uh empirical method to establish causality. It’s very hard to prove null findings much harder to prove in all finding in a way than a positive finding so really the the deck is kind of stacked against all the incentives are against publishing these negative findings.

Um i i encourage if you’ve gotten your topic right at the very beginning. Um you’ll be able to publish even a negative finder. I do encourage my students. I steer them away from doing simple replications. Um because you’ve whatever you do it’s going to be hard to get get published. How do you get published again. If you get your topic right at the very beginning you will be able to publish a negative finding and i in those cases i encourage my students to do so. Yeah yeah yeah good okay. Good good to hear that. Um i think kevin i don’t know if you do yeah. Do you want to say something. Also i saw a question. I obviously haven’t done a very good job of describing our background because i saw a question on what’s the name of our software and the name of the software uh is nested knowledge. Go to nested Greg will link it in the in the youtube video. The link in the description go go check out the description look in the description below uh and and my apologies for not being able to present visuals to you guys. I uh of it. My restream is taking up all my bandwidth here. But i’ll describe. Uh my answer here on the negative results. I think there’s actually been a culture change and i really like this culture change um there was a big uh publication in the in the psychology. Uh field uh that tried to replicate a hundred of the best studies um in in psychology that had been published in like top journals and only forty percent of them were applicable. This is brian nozick at all uh published on this and they basically showed that yeah that 60 of the uh the top paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais in psychology were non-replicable and that really caused this sort of you know there’s this moment where all the scientists are looking in the mirror and they’re saying like am. I doing anything well here. If i’m publishing something that has better than half chance. Not even being true and so journals have really shifted their mindsets on positive results because there is that positive result bias through a bias where i do an experiment.

I don’t get the results i want so i never even. I would definitely recommend that you go to the journal and and in your discussion. Section proudly present that it’s a negative result because there has been that culture shift in your journal editors among the scientific community generally where either doing a simple replication study where you get a positive result thus you know proving proving uh the basis of sciences is is replication obviously so helping to prove out that system or giving a negative result. People now care about that because there’s been this recognition that we’ve moved fast in the direction of glitzy uh fancy new findings rather than findings. That are horrible right. We want to have scientific findings that are durable and the only way to actually do stress test of that else in the literature argue. That right right. Don’t just expect our letters to to. Uh uh let you in just because you’re a negative paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai but argue that in your own discussion section. Say that this is an important uh contribution to the literature because it is helping to to uh do that stress test on those positive results that you’re now um that you’re now uh either either arguing against or or that you are presenting sort of tutorial. Uh he has a has a question. That’s along those lines. Somebody put up. An editor returned a negative decision on a manuscript. After spending nine months on peer review and no peer review comments were provided. Uh how do i handle this event. Can i insist on a peer review comment as i waited. Uh so the short answer is it’s very difficult to insist. Uh they they you you might just get ignored. But what’s what’s happened to you and thanks for that question. That’s really unfortunate. It’s bad practice in the publishing world. Um i must confess. There have been times in globalization and health at the journal that i added that the turnaround times have been slow.

And that’s something we’ve really over. The last couple of years spent a lot of time and energy focusing on is making sure that when a person submits a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. There’s uh the the time between and these are the matrix we we actually measure and watch you know we and when where we’re slipping we kind of take actions from the time that a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is submitted to us to the time that a decision is made we we consider that one of our kpis and increasingly. I think journals do now. That’s not going to be the case with all journals but increasingly journals understand the importance of getting back to the authors quickly and and and in effect. There’s more than one reason for that. I mean firstly. Of course you know you don’t want to piss the authors off you want good people to submit again but secondly a lot of what’s being published and submitted and published there’s a time frame around which it’s relevant in other words people are often publishing stuff that’s timely. It’s part of a debate. It’s part of a discussion. That’s happening in the literature at that point in time. And if you leave it for a year you’ve missed the boat and as the editor of a journal. I want the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais that i publish to be relevant so that they get cited so that the journal impact factor goes up so we are incentivized to provide a good service. Uh you know the experience that uh that this gentleman presented is unfortunate. And i’m sorry to hear that you went through that um and i hope it wasn’t my journal. That did that to you i. I’m sure it wasn’t um but yeah that that is that is tremendously difficult. And i feel your pain definitely um open access publishing so just another sort of uh just so that people know i the journal that i added globalization and health is an open access journal. Uh david your thoughts open access publishing. Is it the way forward. Is it the future or definitely definitely the future. But there are some challenges for getting the payment mechanism right whether that should fall on individuals or institutions.

Um so yeah. Unfortunately um we have a patchwork system which we’ve warned about with disadvantaged junior researchers and especially researchers in low and middle income countries who might not have access to grant funds or you know wealthier universities that that or countries that are paying for these full subscriptions yeah. I think there’s still a lot of progress to be made. Uh you know i have a lot of discontent publishing and lining the pockets of elsevier journals. Which is one of the most profitable industries in the world. Um that kind of profits off where you know we pay to publish. We do peer review for free. We’ve done it. Just it’s a very frustrating model. Um yeah at the moment. So uh i mean i’m i’m a co-editor of a few journals myself so this is a torturous process in need of change. Kevin you got some thoughts on that as well absolutely and uh i think open access so so. Let’s just talk about the problem solving right. Because that’s that’s first. You have to make a case that open access exists right. The problem. That open access is trying to address is the user’s question about the nine month review. Time right uh journals are obviously having reviewers work for free to push an article out there and in the end the payment’s only going to come from from your subscriptions and so that’s really been a an incentive system that doesn’t quite aligned with what the author’s looking for which is i think the public interest motive of i want my results out there and i want them out there quickly because they’re part of the scientific discussion and if i have to wait those nine months not only. Is it not going to get out there for that discussion by then but it might be outdated like we might have missed the boat at that point and so open. Action came in and has done a lot to solve that. Uh i do think that uh there are huge problems around around the payment mechanisms and especially just the amounts but i think that’s always how innovation works things start out expensive and then as people work out like a good model to scale up a a business they can move toward you know.

Cheaper options especially cheaper international options and i think bananas is probably moving in that direction. Uh because there has to be pressure right on the journals to to try to attract authors. Who are looking to publish their data and part of that has to be you know price of entry. Uh but i think a lot of it is also just. How much do you want your article out there. And in what form right. That’s really the decision that you have to make as an open access publisher as an author looking to publish open access. Those are really the questions you should be asking yourself. The last thing that i’ll note is if you’re publishing open access. I would make sure that the journal is indexed on pubmed um or index generally um and really uh do a quick check to make sure that you’re not uh publishing a predatory publisher. I think that that issue’s been taken on really effectively in public discourse these days but you still have to be careful yourself you are in the end responsible for where your results end up. So that’s just something to watch. It’s an interesting point just on those two points. The one is that i would very much like to see some of these big funding agencies. Put aside more money that’s made available as a pot of money that can just be tapped into where there’s a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. That’s it’s a good paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. It’s going to get through peer review. It’s going to get a yes answer from the journal. It shouldn’t not get in there because of financial reasons given how much other money gets spent getting the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai to that point in time you know what i mean. If you think about how expensive it is to have done the research to have paid the researchers all of this you know the pipeline from beginning to end to the point where a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is a publishable.

Paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai is very expensive and you know civil society society is paying that because we believe that there’s value in it and for it to not make it over that last hurdle for for the want of what is relatively a small amount of money to me is tragic and in globalization and health. What we do is we do provide waivers for people from poorer countries but it is true that there are poor people or people working in institutions. That don’t have access. They don’t have a lot of resources in rich countries right. So there’s there’s still a lot of people that are that are landing up writing paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais and unable to get them into uh open access journals because they they’re just not part of an institution that can finance that and they certainly shouldn’t be expected to do it themselves. Um what was the other point that i was going to make you were talking about. I’ve i’ve forgotten. It’s gone another point. Sorry sorry sorry david no oh yeah one of the. That’s one of the things i wanted to talk about. Is if you’re looking at an open access journal one of the models you should look for. And this is the model we use in globalization and health is our editorial board is not incentivized to publish more right. So the people that are making the decisions about whether the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai gets published or not. Don’t get any more or less money based on that decision in other words. There’s no there’s no perverse incentives and we just make our decisions based on the quality of the paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais uh and and and what we believe in there are journals out there and i think this is what kevin was alluding to where uh that editorial decision is being made for financial reasons like the more they publish the more money they make. So they’re just kind of going to say yes to everything. Uh because it’s money in the bank and that is worrying so our publishing company biomed central and the editorial board are kept you know kind of kept ins like organization and institutionally apart and and there’s there’s absolutely no exchange of money between them and us and that would incentivize um us as publishing more than we than we would have otherwise.

That’s an important thing to look out for and as kevin kevin alluded to. I mean like you could. You could look at other indications i mean like is is this is this an index journal. Does it have an impact factor is it. You know that sort of thing. Keep an eye open because it is true that there’s there’s a lot of predatory journal journals out there that are doing kind of untoward publications. Um okay look we’re heading towards four o’clock here and uh i want to keep this kind of within an hour because i’m going to go into another live stream with the members of of of my youtube channel but any any final comments thoughts concerns quantifications. Uh david and then kevin david. Yeah i think there was a question about uh if i could come back to it um why do you think researchers. Let me see if i can find this. Uh where is this. Why do you think new. Researchers students generally find it difficult to do a literature review. It’s an important critical mandatory but dreaded part and i think this really comes down to a lot of students. Just don’t have the right support and guidance to really thrive. I’ve so many who come to me. That the they feel like their supervisors are just missing in action. They don’t know who to turn to. It’s only gotten worse through covid where many students have felt isolated and fragmented from communities of practice. So for those of you watching if you do have those feelings of dread which are really compounded. You’re doing something for the first time. You’re gonna have so many micro hurdles along the way you’re gonna get get lost. I mean. Krishna mentioned this about his students who feel lost figuring out which articles to include. Yeah along the way you’re gonna hit a hurdle and so you need to have a support structure in place and that that should be from your university. Um too often i see students are just not getting that value so i really do encourage you if you find yourself in that position.

It’s easy to blame yourself and think well i’m just not good enough. I can’t figure this out everybody else can. Um but the truth is and greg kevin you can probably relate to this. You had a lot of support and and mentorship and guidance along the way i know i certainly did. Yeah i just wanted to if if you want to write and publish a paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennai. Uh it’s important that you’re working with somebody who has that track record of writing and publishing paper falcon publishing, e publishing companies chennais that can be a mentor and be a guide and help you get to where you want to go and has a track record of helping others to get where you think if you do not have said mentor. I encourage you go and check out fast track grad uh i i don’t know of a better mentor for the sort of thing than david and that’s i’m just i’m like that is genuinely. Uh he’s got a track record he’s also genuinely cares about the students that he’s working with so it’s it’s great to see and and definitely go check it out um any final words thoughts. Uh kevin yeah and i actually want to follow up on what david said about hurdles in your publishing experience because we got a comment just now saying uh. I’ve noticed you know i. I’ve done a lot of systematic reviews but i didn’t publish much simply because i didn’t find all of them to be scientifically robust after i’d done all of the work and i’ve really noticed you know that when i’ve done that work i i get to that point. I’m like this actually isn’t scientifically robust robust enough to go out there. So what are some tips that you can have in the systemic review process with or without meta-analysis for bringing a a high quality review into practice without you know having to put all that effort in to start and that is a wonderful question. That is exactly on topic with what i i’m passionate about which i think is good study design so having uh let me let me go through the tips in order of when you should execute them number one concrete simple study designs.

You should know at the beginning and i’m talking as simply as possible one disease state you know two or three interventions three or four data elements like the simpler. You can make your question and the more concretely you can say if you know x ends up determining why then then i have i. I have something to add to the literature. The more uh effectively you can make that concrete and simple the better. The second is. Make sure you’re actually reading those articles early in the process and for us. We actually do this in our process of screening and then tagging articles. We’re actually like flagging content that might be of interest and so we get to sort of have a heuristic along the way of like. Okay is this. Is this going to be enough evidence on this topic in order to publish but really the second tip is read the articles early in that process. I’d say the third one is make sure you’re actually comparing across the articles if this is a clinical review as opposed to like a pre-clinical narrative review. Make sure that you are actually uh comparing and making sure those articles are going to be similar enough. Otherwise you’re you’re effectively going to be trying to pull apples and oranges into the same basket and that’s going to be tough to publish on so so that’ll get you to the stage of i’m actually turning around and i’m either data gathering actually writing up those findings so at that point if you’re gathering data and you’re actually finding like really low uh quality data there. I actually think that there’s a win-win for you as a reviewer. And that is this if there’s really really low data quality or really or just like not even that many publications on your topic you can actually do a review and uh you can do with our software. It’s called a common data elements review. This is where you actually go into that literature. Say here are the outcomes that i would report if i uh if they were actually reported by the underlying uh scientists enough that would that would create a review that is of the quality that i want it to be and set a uh set the stage for further research on the topic right so instead of saying here is the end-all be-all i.

I’ve answered all the questions in this discipline. You can actually help researchers structure. What are the data points that we would need to gather in order to do a systematic review. That’s robust in the future. So you get that when when you had a a systematic review. That was not robust enough. Then i you actually can go out there and tell the community to contribute to it toward your ends and you get a publication out of it as well nice and then my last comment will be if you are in that situation. You should website you should. I uh you should sign up and get on the support channel. We have a great support team that can help to refine with respect to any of the four above right so whether you need help for finding your search whether you need help figuring out if your research question’s concrete enough or if you want to figure out if you want to find out more about how to actually do a common data elements review and call for better data quality in your discipline hop onto right talk to us. We love supporting researchers who have interesting and just need assistance with the technical details. So please i sign up. Your first review is free and i. I’m personally always excited when people come in with good questions that just need that help to find either a concrete research question or a way to get to a publication um in discipline where the underlying literature is a little light. Uh all of that is something that we’ve encountered many times ourselves and we’re really passionate about getting good study designs good structured evidence out into the literature. So we’d love to work with you and uh uh thanks so much. Thanks very much. Kevin namaste. I’ve i’ve tapped into that support structure and i can.

I can attest uh very responsive absolutely amazing. Okay kevin david. Thanks so much for for connecting in with me. This has been amazing. I’ve learned a lot. Uh this i mean let’s do it again. Um and with that farewell. Everybody don’t do drugs. Always do your best. Don’t ever change. Speak to you soon take care.

Where to find great research papers?

Various great research journals such as Global Research Letters are a great option and way to help you look up impactful research papers with a great format. Here, you will find a number of various research papers that are provided and made available to you in the journal, which will help you write your own paper.

You can very easily find papers on a variety of topics at Global Research Letters, which will help you with your own research work and understanding of writing and publishing research papers properly. With access to so many amazing research papers, you can practice and learn the process of writing research papers and their importance.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *