publishing in ajp lung 4 21

How to publish your paper in AJP-Lung: “The best place to publish basic,

translational and hypothesis driven clinical research”

Sadis Matalon, PhD, DrSc (Hon)Distinguished ProfessorAlice McNeal Endowed ChairVice Chair & Director, Division of Molecular and Translational BiomedicineDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative MedicineDirector, Pulmonary Injury and Repair CenterThe University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham Alabama

Why is publication so important?• No publication, no project

– Your results must be available for others, or it is as if they don’t exist

• No publication, no promotion– Yardstick of productivity

• No publication, no funding– What have you done for me lately?

• No publication, no job!

Publishing your work is vital for success

Integrating the Life Sciences from Molecule to Organism

Authorship

• Decide on authors, and their order, as early as possible– Preferably before even starting the project– Reassess often: authors and order may need to change as

projects develop. DONOT CHANGE THE ORDER AFTER IT IS SUBMITTED.

• Authors should include only those who have made a substantive intellectual contribution to the project reported, and can defend the data and conclusions publicly


Criteria for Authorship

• Generate at least part of the intellectual content– Conception or design of the work– Data analysis and interpretation

• Draft, critically review, or revise the intellectual content

• Approve the final version to be submitted

All three criteria should be satisfied


Essential Elements of a Manuscript• Concise summary of rationale, results and how the results

advance the field (usually 200-250 words) - Abstract• Based on what was known and unknown, why did you do the

study?– Introduction

• How did you do the study?– Methods (some journals ask you to list methods in a

supplement)• What did you find?

– Results• What does it mean in the context of the existing body of

knowledge?– Discussion


Choosing the Right Journal

• The IMPACT FACTOR: Most authors submit their manuscripts to journals with a high impact factor, even though they know that there is little chance that it will be accepted.

• Import and significance of the findings– Seek input from colleagues. Is it possible for this article to

be considered by a high impact journal (Science, Cell, Nature, JCI etc.?)

• If not, choose your target audience– “Is it lung related?”


• AJP-Lung is the official pulmonary journal of the American Physiological Society

• Review all submitted articles and provide authoritative, helpful and timely review which improve the quality of each paper

• Recognize high quality articles by junior authors by offering a number of awards

• Outstanding Associate Editors who summarize what needs to be done to address reviewers concerns

• No supplements are necessary form methods and no limits to the number of figures; no charge for color figures to APS members

Why should I submit my paperto AJP-Lung?

2010 2011 2012 2013

ARRCCM* 9.09 11.08 11.04 11.986

THORAX* 6.525 6.84 8.376 8.562

ERJ* 5.922 5.895 6.355 7.125

AJRCMB 4.426 5.125 4.148 4.109

AJP-Lung 4.137 3.662 3.523 4.041Resp. Res 3.127 3.336 3.642 3.38

Our Impact Factor is 4.041

Impact Factors of Journals Publishing Lung Research

* Publish mainly clinical articles (basic science article should contain data on human subjects)

• AJP Lung is dedicated to publishing high-quality original and review articles on all aspects of lung physiology, biochemistry and cell biology, as well as, results of hypothesis driven clinical trials

Editorial Philosophy and Policy

Types of Articles Considered for Publication

Rapid Reports Research Articles

Perspectives Innovative Methodology

Editorial Focus Letters to the Editor

Review Articles (including history of pulmonary physiology)

We encourage the submission of unsolicited Review articles and Perspectives

The Editorial Team

Editor-in-ChiefSadis Matalon, PhD, ScDr (Hon)

Deputy EditorY. S. Prakash, MD, PhD

Associate EditorsJames F. Collawn, PhD Lester Kobzik, MDWolfgang M. Kuebler, MDBethany Moore, PhDDolly Mehta, PhDRory E. Morty, PhDRakesh P. Patel, MDIrina Petrache, MD Larissa Akimi Shimoda, PhD Kurt R. Stenmark, PhD

Editorial AssistantAmy McEver

• Major accomplishments and future challengeso Matalon S. A critical review of the American

Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology: 2012-1015. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2014;307(12):L911-6. Epub 2014 Nov 7doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00330.2014. PMID: 25381028

Major Accomplishments2012-2015

• Manuscript submitted to APSo Ms. Trang checks for adherence to APS guidelineso Returned to the authors for corrections or sent to Dr.

Matalon (< 2 days)• Assigned to Associate Editor (AE) with the most

expertise in the area (< 1 day)• The AE choses two reviewers (< 4 days)• Average time to decision = 19 days

Note: we encourage authors to recommend impartial reviewers with significant expertise in the field

The Editorial Process

• 50% acceptance rateo Associate Editors write a concise summary with

reasons for decision and clear instructions for revisionso 95% of accepted manuscripts require revisions

• Rejected manuscripts with sound methodology and results, may be recommended for consideration by Physiological Reports (no additional submission fee or reformatting required).

Acceptance/Rejection

Responding to Reviewers

• Complete additional experiments if needed• Address all comments in a point-by-point fashion

– Resist the temptation to prepare an impassioned response to points with which you disagree

– Stand firm (diplomatically) if that is truly the right thing to do

• Sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for helping you to improve your work– They have invested a lot of time, mostly on a voluntary

basis• Ask a neutral colleague to review your response


• R1 manuscripts are assigned to the same AE and the same reviewers. Average time to reach a decision=15 days.

• Accepted research articles are scrutinized by the APS for image manipulation; review articles are screened for textual similarities with published ones.

• If no problems are identified, articles are published online within five business days; otherwise the Ethics Manager (Dr. Christina Bennett) sends an email to the corresponding author asking them to fix provide additional information).

Submission of a Revised Manuscripts

Ethical Concerns

• The review of any article may be stopped at any time because of ethical concerns raised by the reviewers or the Associate Editor.

In this case, the article referred to Dr. Bennett and the Ethics Committee (headed by the Vice Chair of the APS Publications Committee). The Committee seeks additional information from the authors to clarify the issue.

• The Committee may decide that there is no infraction (in which case the paper will be returned to the review process with no prejudice) or there is an ethics violation. The paper may be rejected on ethical grounds.

Ethical issues in Biomedical Publishing

• Ethical misconduct is increasing among submissions to biomedical journals, including (until recently) those of APS

• While most scientists are entirely ethical, a significant proportion will admit to occasional questionable practices if surveyed anonymously (Martinson et al. Nature 435: 737-738, 2005)

• Several risk factors for violation of ethical policies– Inexperience/lack of mentoring on appropriate standards– Multiple authors– Availability of software tools for figure manipulation– Increased competition for positions and funding


Common Ethical Issues (in order of prevalence at APS)

• Inappropriate but non-fraudulent figure manipulation• Duplication of data• Duplicate publication• Animal welfare concerns• Data fabrication/falsification

– Increasingly, includes inappropriate manipulation of figures• Plagiarism• Human welfare concerns• Authorship disputes• Conflicts of interest• Others (e.g., reviewer bias, submission irregularities)


Plagiarism

• Definition– Taking the work of another– Copying a figure, table, or even wording from a

published or unpublished paper without attribution

– Self-Plagiarism: copying an extensive amount of text from one of your previous manuscripts

• How to avoid– Provide citation to the work of others– Obtain copyright permission if needed– Do not copy exact wording from another source,

even if referenced, unless in quotes


1. How does an Associate Editor chose reviewers?• Reviewers chosen based on published expertise in the area of research• Usually from members of the editorial board or experts in the area.

Authors recommendations are always taken into consideration.

2. What are the major criteria for determining the fate of my paper?

Questions about the Editorial Process

Reviewers are asked to rate each paper using the criteria shown

Novelty of findings and potential impact on the field are the two most important determinants for potential acceptance

Papers with an overall rating Lower than 50% are either rejected or referred to Physiological Reports

3. My paper was rejected; however, I feel that I can address the comments of reviewers.The reviewers felt that the paper was technically sound but the approach lacks originality and the conclusions do not advance the field. Please pay attention to the summary provided by the Associate Editor.

4. I am interested in reviewing papers for AJP-Lung and eventually joining the Editorial Board. How do I do this?Ask a member of the editorial board to recommend you when they are unable to review a paper. If you are invited to review, accept the invitation and provide an informative and helpful review on time. Do not make inflammatory comments in your review and do not ask the authors to quote your papers.

Publish papers in AJP-Lung as a first or senior author. Members of the Editorial Board are expected to publish at least one paper per year in AJP-Lung

Send suggestions to the Editor on how to improve the quality and impact of AJP-Lung to the lung community.

Questions Cont’d

5. I am interested in reviewing papers for AJP-Lung and eventually joining the Editorial Board. How do I do this?

Promote the journal by encouraging your students and colleagues to publish in AJP-Lung. This will come to the attention of the Editor

Ask a senior colleague to read your review prior to submitting it. Remember, your goal is to help the authors improve the quality of their manuscript

Hold yourself to the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research.

6. I am interested in meeting the Editor and Associate Editors and discussing my research with them.The Editor and AEs are active scientists who participate in various national and international meetings. Please approach them and introduce yourself. You can also ask any of them to visit your poster or hear your talk. Send them your ideas of how you can contribute to improving the quality of AJP-Lung.

Questions Cont’d

7. Assuming that I do a good job reviewing and publishing papers, what are my chances of being appointed to the Editorial Board of AJP-Lung?The Associate Editors choose the members of the Editorial Board based on their dependability and visibility. In other words, there is an excellent chance that you will be appointed to the Editorial Board. This is the first step of becoming an Editor!

Questions Cont’d

Physiological Reportswww.physiologicalreports.org

• Open access journal launched March 2013• Partnership with The Physiological Society (UK)

– Published on behalf of the Societies by Wiley Blackwell• Author pays model – “Gold OA”• Two ways to submit

– De novo submission– Cascade from current research journals (Am J Physiol, J Appl Physiol, Physiol

Genomics, J. Neurophysiol; J Physiol; J Exp Physiol)• Papers are accepted solely on the basis of scientific rigor,

adherence to technical and ethical standards, and evidence that the study is sufficiently well-conceived and the data support the conclusions.

• Editors-in Chief– Susan Wray (Phys Soc)– Tom Kleyman (APS)

• Submit at: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/physiologicalreports Integrating the Life Sciences from Molecule to Organism

http://www.physiologicalreports.org/

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/physiologicalreports

Scenario 1• A PI asks a graduate student working in her group to

assist in the peer-review of a manuscript from a competing group of investigators. The manuscript contains details of a method that would greatly accelerate the student’s progress towards completion of his thesis.– Is the PI’s action acceptable? What are the obligations of

the PI in this scenario?– What are the obligations of the student?– Can the student adopt the new method for his own work?

If so, when?

Adapted from a scenario authored by Dale Benos, UAB


Scenario 2• You are completing a post-doctoral fellowship and

submit your last paper with your PI as senior author and two graduate students as co-authors. After you have left the lab, the paper is returned with a request for additional experiments. Your former PI asks another post-doc to complete these, and adds her name to the paper as middle author. You object to this addition and refuse to sign the change of authorship form.– Is your decision the right one?– Who else has rights that must be respected in this

scenario?– How might the PI have handled the situation differently?



The American Physiological Society

Some slides were taken from“Publishing 101:

How to Get Your Work Published and Avoid Ethical Minefields” Presented at the EB 2015 meeting

1. Curt Sigmund, Chair, APS Publications Committee

2. Scheman, APS Director of Publications, Executive Editor

3. Christina Bennett, APS Publications Ethics Manager

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Acknowledgments

4. Lee Ann Riesenberg, RN, MS, PhD, for valuable discussions and editorial assistance

publishing in ajp lung 4 21

Health & Medicine

life sciences

junior authors

high impact factor

high impact journal

high quality articles

official pulmonary journal

right journal

birmingham alabama