SUCCESS IN STM PUBLISHING
(HOW TO GET PUBLISHED)
a. Manuscript preparation and submission
b. Most common reasons for rejection
c. Handling reviewer comments
a. Manuscript
Preparation
and submission
a. SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PROCESS
Completion of research
Preparation of manuscript
Submission of manuscript
Assignment and review
Decision
Rejection
Revision
Resubmission
(adapted from .ppt
presentation of Adair TH, 2006)
Acceptance
Re-review
decision
PUBLICATION
a. FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS

What do you have to say?

Is it worth saying?

What is the right format?

What is the audience?

What is the right journal?
a. BEFORE YOU START





Define study team and roles
Think about eventual authorship situation
Search the literature thoroughly
Talk to a statistician about study design
and subsequent analysis
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) should
be registered and follow a checklist
like CONSORT
a. AUTHORSHIP





Omission – major contributors left out
Ghost – a company ghost writes the
paper – exposes a conflict of interest
Guest – important name
Gift - sycophantic invitation
Non-consultation – some authors not
shown final version
All of above can cause BIG conflicts!
AUTHORSHIP QUALIFICATIONS
1
2
3
Substantial contributions to conception and
design, acquisition of data, or analysis and
interpretation of data
Drafting the article or revising it critically for
important intellectual content
Final approval of the version to be published
Authors should meet all conditions 1, 2 and 3
*http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES
a. SEARCH ENGINES OVERVIEW
FREE SEARCH TOOLS

PubMed (http://www.pubmed.gov)

Google (http://www.google.com)

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com)

HighWire Portal (http://highwire.stanford.edu)
SPECIALISED PORTALS:

CTSNet portal (http://www.ctsnet.org)
SUBSCRIPTION BASED:

ISI Web of Science (http://apps.isiknowledge.com)

Scopus (http://www.scopus.com)

Journals@Ovid (http://www.ovid.com)

MD Consult (http://www.mdconsult.com)
a. RIGHT JOURNAL
- MAIN CONSIDERATIONS






PubMed/MedLine/Current Contents listing
SCI Impact factor - average number of times published
papers are cited up to two years after publication.
Print circulation and on-line usage
Do your peers/assessors read it?
History/prestige/society affiliation
Review/publication speed
Articles cited in your reference list lead you to
the right choice of journal
a. TARGETING JOURNALS
- SIGNIFICANCE OF WORK

Global – go for big international multidisciplinary journal like:
Nature, Science, PNAS, Lancet, NEJM

Discipline (global) – go for international speciality journal like:
Circulation, Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Brain Research,
Cancer Letters

Regional - go for regional speciality journal like: Asian
Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals

Local – go for national level journal – like Italian Journal of
Pediatrics, Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Confirmation or Repeat study (me too) – go for high acceptance
rate journal – often author-pays – like PLoSONE, Nature
Communications, SpringerPlus
a. JOURNAL SELECTION



Search SCI journals listing: http://ipscience.thomsonreuters.com/cgibin/jrnlst/jloptions.cgi?PC=D
Check-out the aims and scope of your target journal
Revise your manuscript to suit any specific
journal requirements
SPECIFY SIGNIFICANCE

State clearly in the‘Introduction’ the significance of your
work: international, discipline, regional, local or confirmation

Specify exactly how you set-up the literature search (PubMed
etc. search set-up)

In China studies often include very large patient groups – much
larger than USA and European equivalents. Provide details in
the cover letter and upload additional patient group
information as supplemental files – improves credibility
The reviewer has to either accept or disprove your assertions!
a. WHAT TYPE OF PAPER?

Description: of new event/process/technique/case hopefully not
resembling anything known or used (can be novel but not important) –
e.g. Case report, How-to-do-it, Technical note

Analysis: testing a hypothesis - determining the fundamental processes
involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural
phenomenon – e.g. Original article, Research paper

Compilation: state-of-the–art overview of how things are but does not
test how things work – hypotheses are not tested – e.g. Literature
review (Systematic review, Best evidence topic, Meta-analysis),
Editorial

Correspondence: commentary on any of above – e.g. Letter to the
Editor, Editorial comment
a. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS USE MODELS

Read carefully the
Instructions for
authors

Look in free content
for typical article
elements (e.g. for
case report)
a. MAIN ON-LINE SUBMISSION SYSTEMS
They are all similar in their requirements
a. TIPS FOR USING ON-LINE
SUBMISSION SYSTEMS

Compile all metadata, cover letter, manuscript
incl. tables, supplemental files, artwork files
(separate) before you start

If its your first time with the system - get help

Register an account – don’t duplicate accounts

Don’t duplicate submissions
b. Most common
reasons for
rejection
b. TEN COMMON REASONS
FOR REJECTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Unoriginal work
Unsound work
Incorrect journal
Incorrect format
Incorrect type allocation
Previous rejection
Slicing & Duplication
Plagiarism (= copying)
Unready work
English so bad it’s ambiguous
b. UNORIGINAL WORK:

Doesn’t expand knowledge
(even at local level)

Information of low or little interest
BUT some new journals like PloSONE
and Nature Communications seem to
be less concerned about this
b2. UNSOUND WORK:

Experimental set-up flawed

Statistical analysis flawed: inadequate
controls, hypothesis not adequately tested

Evidence/suggestion of scientific fraud or
data manipulation!

Retrospective studies are limited in terms of
their experimental set-up – i.e. no
randomisation or control group etc. –
therefore rarely make it into top journals
b3. INCORRECT JOURNAL E.G.:




Case report submitted to a journal that
doesn’t publish them
Local confirmation (me too) submitted
to an international journal
Subject area ‘outside’ scope of
target journal
Highly experimental/theoretical study
submitted to a clinical journal
b. INCORRECT FORMAT:


Too many: authors, figures, tables, words,
references etc.
Style (e.g. references) corresponds to another
journal = giveaway rejection
At EJCTS 2/3 of submissions were formally
incorrect and needed to be returned at least
once. Repeated non-conforming submissions
can lead to author watchlisting
b5. INCORRECT TYPE ALLOCATION:




Case Report submitted as Letter to the Editor
Case Report and Literature Review
– a contradiction in terms
Original Article with only 3 cases!
Meta-Analysis to be submitted as Original
Article or Literature Review? (check journal)
b6. PREVIOUS REJECTION:


Previous rejections often resubmitted to
same journal – detected by duplicate
search
Previous rejections from other journals
often badly disguised – cover letter,
wrong (other journal) format
Both of above bad psychology
b7. SLICING & DUPLICATION:

Over-slicing (salami slicing) your work is
attempting to squeeze too many
publications out of the same study material
– often backfires

Duplicate or redundant publication is
attempting to publish the same material in
different places
Both above are risky strategies
DEFINITION OF DUPLICATE OR
REDUNDANT PUBLICATION:
1
2
3
4
5
6
The hypothesis is similar
The numbers or sample sizes are similar
The methodology is identical or nearly so
The results are similar
At least one author is common to both reports
No or little new information is made available
Normally all of above should apply but policy varies
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES
b8. PLAGIARISM (= COPYING):





5 types: Direct, Template, Mosaic, Paraphrase,
Insufficient acknowledgement (declining level
of severity)
Theft of intellectual property
Easy to do – cut and paste
Easy to detect – i-Thenticate
Easy to avoid – turnitin, WriteCheck (Google)
Very serious implications! = bans and
high profile dismissals
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES
b9. UNREADY WORK:




Work submitted too early
Draft manuscript submitted
before all authors consulted
Artwork incomplete or low quality
Parts missing
b10. ENGLISH SO BAD IT’S AMBIGUOUS




If the English is so poor that the meaning is
ambiguous, it is impossible to review or
indeed publish
Submitted English must be ‘at least’ unambiguous
Use excellent translators and verify meaning at
all stages
English polishing and pre-submission editing by
International Science Editing strongly recommended
b. HANDLING REJECTIONS

Don’t recommend contesting or appealing
rejections

Never resubmit a previously rejected paper to
the same journal

Take the reviewer’s comments and benefit
from them

Submit your revised paper to a different journal
Only appeal if feel you have received biased
review – possible reviewer conflict of interest!
c. Handling
reviewer
comments
c. YOU RECEIVE GREAT NEWS! – BUT

You receive notification from the Editor that
your paper can be revised for reconsideration
by Journal A

This is a great opportunity

But needs to be handled correctly/carefully!

Don’t respond immediately – sleep on it and
discuss with co-authors! Only then proceed
c. RESPONDING TO REVIEWERS

Prepare your responses carefully

Reviewer can be wrong!

Be tactful and enthusiastic – thank
the reviewers

Do not respond to reviewers while upset

Get help from other authors

Get help from a statistician (if required)

Never telephone the editor
c. POINT-BY-POINT APPROACH

If not already the case, convert
reviewer/editor’s comments into a series of
clear points and questions

Answer/respond to each item directly below it

In doing this do not edit out unwanted
comments or questions
c. EXAMPLE - POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSE
1
2
3
The authors should give more detail of the
methodology. Two sentences were added
to clarify the process (para 2 on p. 3).
Figures 2&3 legends are transposed.
The legends for Figures 2&3 have
been corrected.
Units should be SI and in a standard format
throughout. Units standardized SI
eg. mg s-1 throughout.
c. HIGHLIGHTED VERSION OF
REVISED MANUSCRIPT
Make life as easy as possible for the
(very busy) reviewers and editors!
Remember that editors and
reviewers are almost never paid
for their journal work!
c. RESUBMISSION OF REVISED
MANUSCRIPT (GENERIC)

Provide cover letter

Provide response to reviewers and editors (statistician)

Provide an unmarked version of your revised paper

Provide a marked version of your revised paper –
highlighting changes

Provide all source files for artwork (e.g.: high resolution
images) - saves time

Reread the specific journal instructions to authors
and revision letter
c. LOGISTICS

Respond as quickly as possible – you then
help the Editor to shorten average
publication times (= everybody happy)

If you need more time (new experiments
needed etc.) ask for it in advance to avoid
timing-out
c. STRATEGY

Respond quickly, clearly, fully and politely

Respond tardily, unclearly, incompletely
and rudely
Most journals do reserve the right to
reject revised papers
c. REMEMBER

Every journal policy is (slightly) different

Manuscript revision is a sensitive and
delicate game

Play the game well and you will succeed!
A bit of psychology goes a long, long way!
FURTHER INFORMATION
Day RA, Gastel B. How to write and publish a scientific paper.
7th edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008
ISI Impact factor: http://scientific.thomson.com/tutorials/jcr4/
PubMed/MedLine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
International Science Editing:
http://www.internationalscienceediting.cn
ExcelSTM (authorship workshops): www.excelstm.com