getting your article published: the mysteries of peer-review and the decisions of journals howard...
TRANSCRIPT
Getting Your Article Published: The Mysteries of Peer-Review and the Decisions of Journals
Howard Bauchner, MD, FAAP, FRCPCHEditor-in-Chief, ADCProfessor of Pediatrics & Public HealthVice-Chair, Academic AffairsBoston University School of Medicine/Boston Medical Center
ADC
First published in 1926 Official publication of Royal College of
Paediatrics and Child Health Jointly owned by by RCPCH and BMJ
Publishing Group Ltd 2007 Impact Factor - 2.8; F/N - 2.3 Circulation 11,000 Monthly PDF files downloads – 300,000
Copyright ©2006 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
Valman, B Arch Dis Child 2006;91:962-966
Figure 1 A selection of ADC covers 1926-2006.
Helpful hints !!!
Correct journal Instructions Rejection without review Paper reviewed Peer-review Editors Responding to reviews Keys to success
Is it the correct journal?
This is critical issue for ALL journals Can be far more subjective than you
think Beware case-reports Is the topic hot or sexy Most journals can reject without review Is it worth shooting high, but failing
(impact factor)
Impact Factors* - 2007
NEJM – 53 Cell – 30 Nature – 29 Science - 26 Lancet – 26 JAMA – 25 AIM – 16 BMJ – 10 Pediatrics – 4.5 JOP – 4.0 US Archives – 3.7
* No. of citations to 02/03 articles / no. substantive articles published in 02/03 (NEJM – 28696/744 = 38)
Follow the instructions!
Article type – original, review, etc. Cover page – title, word count Length – critical issue (less is more) Abstract – single most important
page Speak with editor(s) first
A good abstract
90% of us read ONLY abstract Structured Concise In English Some data
Not all data Beware which data
Conclusions Best to have outside reader
Structure of an article
Introduction 2-3 paragraphs
Methods 3-5 paragraphs
Results 5 paragraphs
Discussion (structured) Principal findings Strengths and weaknesses Strengths and weaknesses vis a vis other
studies Meaning of study Unanswered questions/future research
References, tables, figures, support, acknowledgements
Rejection without review
Usually editors/sometimes committee US Archives (2005) -
750 submissions per year 20% rejected with out review Acceptance rate about 22%
ADC (2008) - 1700 submissions per year 1100 original research articles submitted
Rejected without review 35% Acceptance rate of original articles 22%
JAMA (2006) – 5354 major manuscripts
Rejected without review 60% Acceptance rate 8%
Reject without review – why?
Wrong journal – journals have biases Not new or novel Poorly written abstract Poorly designed/wrong analysis Sweeping conclusion Case-report Editor having a bad day (this
happens) !!!
Paper accepted for review
Assigned to editor (not EIC) Most editors have areas of expertise Editors may send article out for review
(rejection without review can occur here)
No magic number of reviewers – 1-3 Statistical consultation can be requested
by editor and/or peer-reviewers
Peer-reviewers
You can recommend reviewers to editor (and individuals not to review – plus/minus) Recommended reviewers score paper the same
as others, but more often recommend acceptance
Chosen from “list” of reviewers that journal generally uses
Some subject areas difficult to find reviewers – editors search reference list or OVID
Process takes 1-3 months
Peer-review
Little science – a fair amount of research
Quality varies, best reviewers are 35 to 45
Time – 2-4 hours depends upon manuscript
Not much difference between blinded and unblinded reviews
What do reviewers assess?
Importance Clarity Design and analysis Should review abstract, text, tables, figures,
references, acknowledgements/support Make recommendation to editor Opinions of reviewers are not binding Usually provide comments to authors and
separate comments to editors
Editors
Review paper Review peer-review May request statistical help Make recommendation to auction/editorial
board (judgment day) Accept; accept with revision; reject with
revision; reject; short report; research letter
Discussed vis a vis importance and validity
Responding to reviews
Do not be argumentative, respectfully disagree
Reviewer A says go left; reviewer B says go right – ask editor
You do not have to respond to every issue, but must articulate why not
Follow directions – i.e. number responses, indicate changes in manuscript and where they can be found
Long explanations to editor in cover letter is not the same as modifying the text
Important issues
Ensure it is the correct journal Rejection without review is usually quick
(BMJ occasionally occurs in minutes) Correspond with journal if permitted Suggest reviewers Be patient – 6-8 weeks for review After rejection – speak with responsible
editor Do not just send out paper again, revise