How to Review a Paper
How to Get your Work Published
Professor Laurence J Egan
Associate Editor, Gut
Things I will cover
• How to start out doing good research
• When and how to prepare your work for publication
• The review process
• Some specific tips
HOW TO START OUT DOING
GOOD RESEARCH
Getting Started
• The 3 most important things in developing a career in
biomedical investigation
– Choose the right mentor
– Choose the right mentor
– Choose the right mentor
Why is the mentor important?
• Scientific creativity has to be learned
• Networking
• Access to funds
• Interest in developing people
Attributes of a good mentor
• Track record of steady productivity
• Every student/post doc in group publishes first author papers
• Every student/post doc in group publishes middle author
papers
• Upward trajectory
• Interested in you as a person
Do good science
• Definition of good research:
– The ability to ask and unambiguously answer an important
scientific question
– NF La Russo
– Former editor in chief, Gastroenterology
Develop a reputation in a field
• Systematically develop a line of investigation
• Become known as topic expert
• Collaborate well
Picking scientific ideas to follow
• Most interesting in your field (citations!)
• Opportunities for collaboration
• Innovative not Derivative
• Clear thinking
• Clear story telling
WHEN AND HOW TO PREPARE
YOUR WORK FOR
PUBLICATION
When to publish a story
Numbers
Impact
Time
Advice of mentor is key
Writing your paper
• Start early
– Time to get feedback
– Time to revise
– Get new ideas when writing
• Think in figures and tables
– Key results
– Finish strong
Writing your paper
• Writing
– Clear
– Succinct
– No repetition
– English
– Find a good scientific author and emulate their style
Writing your paper
• Introduction
– Take the reader by the hand
– Introduce the key players
– Expose the knowledge gaps
Writing your paper
• Results
– Think in figures/tables
– Progression
– Key data last
Writing your paper
• Discussion
– Start with most important findings
– Interpret in light of prior knowledge
– Balance
Figures
• Immaculate layout
• Clear labels
• No 3D histograms!
• Grouped in logical sections to make key points
Submitting your paper
• Choose a journal
– Scan recent issues
– Fit?
– Clinical vs pre-clinical vs basic
– Physiology vs pathophysiology
– General vs subspecialty
– Impact
– Time to first decision
Gut aims to publish original articles describing novel mechanisms of
disease and new management strategies, both diagnostic and
therapeutic, likely to impact on clinical practice within the
foreseeable future.
Clinical
Not good:
Descriptive data
Pure physiology
Some human data
Editorial policy
Articles illustrating basic mechanisms and their application to clinical
material will be welcomed. We aim to cover all areas of Gastroenterology
and Hepatology and through a system of commentaries and Recent
Advances articles to make clear the relevance of scientific advances to
clinical practice. The priorities are originality and excellence. We aim to
ensure a fair and independent peer review system and to publish articles
which follow the highest ethical standards concerning research conduct.
Add Citation Potential: importance, general applicability
Acceptance rate
8% for original research
submitted in 2011
Time from submission to first
decision
16 days for reviewed original
articles
Time from acceptance to
publication
28 days (online)
5 months (print)
Frequency
Monthly
Impact factor
10.614
Submitting your paper
• Adhere to rules of journal
– Length, figures & tables, references, order of sections etc
– Consort, STARD, subject flow etc
• Website eg ScholarOne
– Can seem difficult but work through it
• Suggest reviewers
– Friends?? – beware
• Non-preferred reviewers – avoid unless essential
Peer Review: the key process that determines if
your article will be published
• Subjecting scholarly work to the scrutiny of others who are
experts in the same field.
• Encourages authors to meet acceptable standards.
• Ensures validity.
• Assesses significance and importance of findings.
Reasons for External Peer Review
• Done by recruited reviewers.
• Editors lack time and expertise.
• Need for diversity of opinion.
• Reviewers are anonymous and independent.
• Reviewers must lack conflict of interest.
Weaknesses of Peer Review
• Slow
• Subject to bias
• Favours pre-existing ideas
• May suppress dissent and inhibit scientific revolutions.
• Fails when invalid results are published.
How Biomedical Journals Work: Gut
• Owned by the British Medical Journal Publishing Group.
• Governed by the British Society of Gastroenterology.
• Editor in Chief selected by representatives of BMJ Publishing
Group and the British Society of Gastroenterology.
• Pressures on Biomedical Journals include:
• Declining paper subscriptions and increasing online access.
• Increasing competition with higher numbers of journals.
• Need to increase impact factor.
• Copy flow
Types of Journal Articles
• Original Research.
• Reviews
• Commissioned or non-commissioned.
• Recent Advances
• Letters – best ones comment on previous Gut articles
• Commentary / Editorial
– Always commissioned
Personal
Reject 50%
6 x Reviewers
Search
Associate Editor
2 x Reviews
Editor-in-Chief
Associate Editor
Life cycle of a manuscript
Editorial Office
Corresponding
Author
Reject
10%
Editorial Meeting
Reject 20%
More Work
Revise 15%
Corresponding author
Give Up!
Accept with
minor revisions 5%
Accept <1%
How Editors Pick Reviewers
• Expertise
• Independence
• Record
• Lack of conflict of interest
• Authors suggestions
• Search
What Good Reviewers Do
• Read the abstract
• Know the Journal?
• Know the topic?
• Or are prepared to study it?
• Can complete it in two weeks
• Have no conflict of interest
– Positive
– Negative
Step 1 in peer review
• Read the article
• Ask the big questions.
• Novel
• Valid
• Interesting
• Significance
• Presentation of data
• Interpretation of results
Step 2: Attention to Detail
• Figures
• Clear
• Well labelled
• Not Misleading
• Statistics Appropriate
• Tables.
• Grammar and Writing.
Stew Over It
• No rash decisions.
• Write down initial impressions.
• Read pertinent articles in the field in question if necessary.
• Assess for similar publications.
• Do not discuss.
Step 3: Write the Review
• What questions do the Editors want answered?
• Decision
• Major and minor comments to the Editor “confidential”
• Comments to the author
What Does the Editor Want to Know?
• Scores
• Brief summary of the main findings of the article.
• Are the findings
• Novel
• Valid
• Interesting
• Is the presentation adequate?
• Is the interpretation reasonable?
• Main reasons why you are making your decision.
What does the Author Want to Know
• Strengths
• Weaknesses
• Suggestions for Improvements
• Do not tell the author what decision you are recommending.
Comments to Editor
Good
Bad
• Specific reasons for
recommendation
• Vague
• Context relative to
specialist field
• Too short
• Significance (citability)
• Subjective
• Personal/Vindictive
Comments to authors
Good
• Praise
• Strengths
• Weaknesses and specific
recommendations
• Main points
• Lesser points
• Detailed
•
•
•
•
•
Bad
Personal/vindictive
Unhelpful
Superficial
Didn’t read the ms
thoroughly
Give away your
recommendation
A good review
Comments to author: This study uses a well-established NEC model to examine the
induction of a wide array of innate immune responses. The paper generates several
hypotheses but these are not discussed and it is not clear to reader what the next step
of this study should be. Although a thorough analysis, it is not surprising to the reader
that NEC leads to induction of a broad inflammatory response at the tissue level.
While the down-regulation of TLR5 and TGF-beta in NEC is interesting and novel,
the demonstrated role of TLR4, IL-12, and IL-18 in NEC are not new.
…………………
Comments to editor: A descriptive paper that generates several interesting hypotheses.
Unfortunately the authors do not follow-up by asking interesting questions or by
providing possible answers. The manuscript would benefit greatly from adding data
from suggested additional experiments (especially time-course). At the current stage
we would not recommend publication in Gut but will be happy to re-review once the
suggested changes / experiments have been performed.
A bad review
Comments to authors: Present study by ………. et al, evaluated the inhibitory
effect of anti-IL23R mAbs on a T-cell independent IBD mouse model and
compared this effect with anti-IL23 mAbs' effect. Moreover they identified some
efficacy biomarkers - S100A8, S100A9, REG3 , REG3 , LCN2 - for anti- IL23
therapy in CD. Besides they confirmed the target biomarkers by using a T-cell
dependent colitis model. This study also showed in vitro IL23/Th17 pathway
upregulated the expression of same biomarkers in human colonic epithelial cells.
Finally, authors demonstrated that both serum levels and tissue expression levels
of same biomarkers were increased in active Crohn's disease patients whereas
decreased in patients who were in remission. Furthermore, they found two novel
CD-associated serum biomarkers: LCN2 and CCL20.
Comments to editor: none
How Reviewers Comments Interact
With the Editorial Board
• Advisory role of reviewers
• Independence of Reviewers
• When reviewers disagree
• Easy or soft reviewers versus hypercritical reviewers
How Editorial Decisions Are Made
• Reviewers Comments and Recommendations.
• Suitability (should be addressed early by editor)
• Priority and competition
• Likelihood of high citation
• Need for accompanying editorial or commentary
How Editorial Decisions Are Made
• Reject
– Methodological or Analytical Weakness
• Clinical work – hard to overcome
• Lab work – easier to overcome
– Priority
• Low novelty
• Low significance
• Low impact (citation potential)
– Unsuitability for journal
How Editorial Decisions Are Made
• Revision
– Major means new work needed
• Experiments
• Subjects
• Deep analysis
– Minor means writing changes usually
• Interpretation
• Minor analytical issues
What to do with reviewers comments
• If accepted without revision you have submitted to the wrong
journal!
• Scan quickly for the word “However”……….
• Major revision with work needed
– Is it fair or unreasonable?
– Can you do it or a co-worker?
– Would it negatively impact subsequent publications
(number versus impact)
– Can some of the reviewers comments be rebutted?
Preparing your manuscript for re-submission
• Follow journal rules!!
• Respond point by point to every comment
– Additional data
– Revised writing
– Rebuttal
SOME TIPS OF THE TRADE!
Float a boat
• Exciting data but results not well developed
– Submit to high impact journal
– If reviewed and even if rejected you have reviewers
comments
• Do what they suggest
• Resubmit
Revisions: some room for rebuttal
• At Gut a revise editorial decision usually leads to acceptance
• Reviewers and editors have pointed out several key
weaknesses
• Address key ones with additional data
• Room to rebut some less important ones
– Especially if beyond scope of current project
Recruit a key collaborator to strengthen
borderline weak papers
• Well known scientist in related field
• Cutting edge analytical approach
• Subject/sample numbers
• Other diseases
Write a recent advances article
• Contact editor in chief with an abstract of your review
• In cover letter explain why your topic is deserving of a major
review article
– Significant recent advances
– Impact
• Clinical
• Pathophysiology
• Significance
– Topical/controversial
laurence.egan@nuigalway.ie