Scientific PublishingScientific Publishing

Joseph Coyle, M.D.

Eben S. Draper Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience

Harvard Medical School

McLean Hospital

Editor:

Archives of General Psychiatry

Peer-reviewed scientific publications are the most important product of a scientist

NIH now only considers these in bench-marking progress on a grant

Book chapters are increasingly invisible as they are not covered by PubMed

All other good deeds (IRG, academic committees, teaching) are secondary to publications

Writing the scientific manuscript1. Use simple, declarative sentences; avoid the passive voice2. Follow directions!!3. The Introduction should provide the context for the

hypothesis. Cite primary sources (they will probably be your reviewer!)

4. Methods should be sufficiently detailed so that the study can be replicated but prior methods if the same can be cited.

5. Results should be presented succinctly. Figures and tables should only be used if they add clarity to the presentation. Avoid redundancy (i.e., bar graphs of results presented in a table).

6. The Discussion should not simply repeat the results. It should place the results in context, discuss limitations and point to future directions.

7. Have someone else read the manuscript

Choose the right journal

1. Does it publish papers on the same topic?

2. What are its turn-around times? First decision?

3. Rejection rate?

4. Decision to publication? ePub?

5. How many reviewers? Appeals process?

6. Availability on line?

7. Citation impact?

What do I do with the reviews of my manuscript?

1. If the reviews are negative, place in drawer for 2 days and then learn from them

2. Carefully respond to each criticism/suggestion by modifying the manuscript

3. If feasible, do the extra experiments. Editors don’t like “cosmetic” changes when the deficits are real

4. Don’t waste time with flat-out rejects5. When returning the revised manuscript, write a

cover letter that provides a point by point response, showing the changes that have been made. DON’T BE ARGUMENTATIVE!

The “don’ts” of scientific publishing

1. Don’t salami slice; avoid LPUs. 1 J Neurosci article is worth more than 3-4 brief communications

2. Don’t plagiarize. Editors have access to search engines that can identify 7 consecutive shared words.

3. Don’t double publish, even if it is in a new language

4. Be careful of the expanding data base5. Hazard of post-hoc multiple comparisons6. Don’t manipulate digital images to “optimize”

them. This could be viewed as scientific fabrication.

How do I get on an editorial board?

1. Ask senior faculty members to help out on journal article reviews in your area of expertise

2. Try to focus on a few journals that are in your area

3. Write constructive, polite, balanced and informed reviews

4. Do not editorialize (“Best paper ever”)…..That is the editor’s role

5. Return review in a timely fashion6. After you have done a number of reviews,

introduce yourself to the editor/deputy editor