Secrets of the Journal Revealed: an Analysis of Editorial Decisions
from the Editors of Veterinary Pathology
Jeff L. Caswell, Department of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of
Guelph
Andrea Gröne, Department of Pathobiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht
University
Jyoji Yamate, Laboratory of Veterinary Pathology, Life and Environmental Sciences,
Osaka Prefecture University
Pathologists who submit their work to scientific journals have invested much effort and
cost by the time the manuscript arrives in the editorial office. The peer review model of
publishing scientific papers has strong support, yet authors may perceive the process in
a more complex way: hypercritical, painful, combative, and quibbling, yet necessary,
valuable, revealing, insightful, thought-provoking and important for quality assurance.
And it is shrouded in secrecy: the confidentiality accorded to authors and reviewers can
sometimes obscure the very nature of the editorial process. What happens to my
manuscript when it enters this monstrous editorial machine?
This seminar begins by demystifying the process by which decisions are made by the
editorial staff of Veterinary Pathology. Editorial decisions are based on the quality and
novelty of the work, the potential value for readers, appropriateness of the work to the
scope of the journal, insights and analysis provided by peer reviewers and by the
editorial staff, and authors’ responses to these criticisms. We suggest approaches to
creating a rebuttal letter that appropriately address the critical comments of reviewers
and editors.
Included is an informal analysis of the most recent 200 submissions to the journal, as an
attempt to illustrate the editorial process, the reasons that manuscripts are accepted or
rejected, and how they are modified along the way. Analysis of accepted manuscripts
reflects the defined scope of the journal, as well as an expectation that manuscripts
must (1) have significant importance to animal and/or human health, 2) address disease
mechanisms/pathogenesis and/or clinico-pathologic correlations and/or descriptions of
important new or emerging diseases, 3) include new knowledge supported by valid
data, and 4) be of sufficiently broad interest to be relevant to veterinary pathologists.
Conversely, there is often more than one reason when manuscripts are rejected, and
we categorize these relative to the scope of the journal, the novelty and value of the
findings, whether the findings advance knowledge, the magnitude of the study and
sufficiency of the data, considerations of methodology and study design, specific
requirements for Case Reports, and quality of presentation of the work.
The intent of the seminar is constructive, for participants to apply this information in a
critical analysis of their own work. From the earliest inception of the study to the final
approval of manuscript proofs, authors make important decisions about study objectives
or hypotheses, methods and experimental design, validation of results, follow-up or
confirmatory investigations, interpretation of findings, organization of the findings,
modes of presentation, clarity of writing, revision and more revision, quality of images,
and responses to criticisms. We will provide insights on our experiences with
manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Pathology, with the hope that participants may find
this information of value in successfully conducting and publishing their own
investigations and research.