Manuscript Submission,
Revision and Galley Proof
講員：教 學 研 究 部
華 瑜 研究員
Manuscript Submission
Before preparing the manuscript
- Which journal to submit to
- Pay attention to instructions to authors
- Read recently published articles in journals
that you intend to submit manuscript to
http://apps.isiknowledge.com
Manuscript Submission
Before preparing the manuscript
- Which journal to submit to
- Pay attention to instructions to authors
- Read recently published articles in journals
that you intend to submit manuscript to
Manuscript Submission
Before preparing the manuscript
- Which journal to submit to
- Pay attention to instructions to authors
- Read recently published articles in journals
that you intend to submit manuscript to
During manuscript preparation
- Pay close attention to journal regulations
- Make sure that the manuscript has
all the required elements
Organization of the Manuscript
1. Formatted for 8.5 x 11 inch paper
2. Single spacing throughout
3. Two column page format including Summary through Discussion sections.?Title section as well as
references, footnotes, figure legends and tables at the end of the manuscript are in single column
format. Click here to see an example.
4. One-inch left and right margins and 0.25 inch spacing between columns.
5. Text typed in Times New Roman, 11 point
6. Manuscript is to be arranged in the following order:
(a) title, author(s), and complete name(s) of institution(s) and running title
(b) summary
(c) introduction
(d) experimental procedures
(e) results
(f) discussion
(g) references
(h) footnotes
(i) figure legends
(j) tables
(k) figures
(l) supplemental data ( if applicable )
7. Number all pages including figures. Please note: Any paper submitted without page numbers will be
deleted and you will be asked to resubmit with pages numbers using the online submission system.
Manuscript Submission
Cover Letter
- Identify title and authors of the manuscript
- Identify the novelty of your work (optional)
- Identify the category of submission
- Mandatory statements
Cover Letter
Dr. James T. Willerson
Editor, Circulation
St Luke's Episcopal Hospital/Texas Heart Institute
6720 Berner Avenue
Houston, TX 77030-2697
USA
Dear Dr. Willerson:
Enclosed please find the original typescript, with one set of original figures,
for the manuscript entitled, ‘Title' by authors, for your consideration
to be published in Circulation as a Category (Basic Science Reports, Case
Report, Review, etc.).
Mandatory statements
I declare that all authors have read and
approved submission of the manuscript, and
that material in the manuscript has not been
published and is not being considered for
publication elsewhere in whole or in part in any
language except as an abstract.
Manuscript Submission
Related Materials
Key Word List
Journal Subject Heads
Authorship Responsibility and Copyright Transfer Agreement
Authors Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Acknowledgment Permission
Manuscript Submission
Suggested or Excluded Reviewers
Editorial board or reviewers can only
be recommend
Only the editor decides
Manuscript Submission
- For hard copy submission be sure to mail all
the materials that required
- For online submission be sure to
upload all the requirements
Manuscript Submission
Acknowledgement of Receipt
Within 1 - 5 days (electronic submission)
Within 2 - 4 weeks (submission by mail)
Subject is suitable to the journal
Sufficient priority
Evaluating the manuscript
From a reviewer’s or an editor’s point of view
1. Novelty of the study?
2. Is the manuscript suitable for general readers of the journal?
3. Is the title accurate, succinct and effective?
4. Does the abstract properly represent the main body of the
manuscript?
5. Does the Introduction adequately set the stage leading to the
main question or hypothesis?
Similar articles published: 88364
Evaluating the manuscript
From a reviewer’s or an editor’s point of view
1. Novelty of the study?
2. Is the manuscript suitable for general readers of the journal?
3. Is the title accurate, succinct and effective?
4. Does the abstract properly represent the main body of the
manuscript?
5. Does the Introduction adequately set the stage leading to the
main question or hypothesis?
Evaluating the manuscript
6. Completion and suitability of experimental designs
7. Validity and significance of the results.
8. Clarity and quality of the illustrations.
9. Is the discussion provides sufficient information?
10. Do the results support the conclusion?
11. Do all elements of the manuscript are in the right sequence?
12. Does the manuscript prepare in correct format?
13. Is the reference citation correct?
Reviewer Recommendation Term: Revisions
Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 80
Rate Reviewer: (Select 1-100)
Comments to Editor:
Review Sheet: General Judgement
============================================================
1. Is JBS the proper place for publication? ___#___ Yes ______ No
2. Is manuscript:
_____ A. Acceptable in its present form or with minor revisions as noted under comments
__#__ B. Acceptable, if revisions as noted under Comments are made
_____ C. May become acceptable, if suggested experiments are supplemented and/or extensive
revisions are made
_____ D. Unacceptable (poor/no originality). Please include reasons under Comments
Specific Assessment (Please check appropriate boxes) Yes/No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Is the title clear and precise?
_#_ Yes __ No
Is the Abstract descriptive of contents?
_#_ Yes __ No
Are enough details presented in the Methods section?
_#_ Yes __ No
Are adequate statistical evaluations of data provided?
_#_ Yes __ No
Are the Figures and Tables of suitable clarity and quality? _#_ Yes __ No
Is the Discussion section pertinent to the main theme of the article? _#_ Yes __ No
Manuscript no. MS06-379
Authors: Golden et al.
Title: Transduced Schwann cells promote axon growth and
myelination after spinal cord injury
Comments to the Author:
This manuscript by Golden et al. describes experiments aimed to improve axonal
growth and myelination in the contused spinal cord by implantation of Schwann
cells (SC) transduced with adenoviral (AdV) or lentiviral (LV) vectors encoding a
modified human NT-3 gene, D15A. The authors performed both in vitro and in vivo
experiments to demonstrate that AdV/GFP/D15A or LV/GFP/D15A SC implants
cause the increases in NT-3 secretion, SC number, myelinated axon counts,
myelinated to unmyelinated axon ratios, and the length of the 5-HT-, DH- or CGRPcontaining fibers in the contusion sits.
Confidential statement to the editor
I think this study has inherent problems. In addition, as a
premier journal, Circulation should publish results arising
from primary aims, rather than one of the secondary aims
of any study.
The Editorial Decision
Outright acceptance
- Congratulate yourself
- Only about 3 - 5% of the manuscripts submitted to
a good journal are accepted with minor
corrections in style, e.g. grammar, spelling
The Editorial Decision
Outright rejection
- You are not alone. Most good journals reject
about 60-80% or more of the submitted manuscripts
- Usually “unacceptable”, “low-priority score”
The Editorial Decision
Outright rejection
Total rejection: Final decision. No negotiation
Reasons: some useful data, but with major flaw in
experimental design or interpretation, data provided
do not support the conclusion
The Editorial Decision
Revision (“Acceptable”)
- Be very happy that you get a revision
- You are still in the game
- Minor or major revision
- de novo submission
de novo submission
Owing to the amount of work required to address the
concerns of the reviewers and the editors, we do not
wish to encourage revision. However, if you feel that
you can satisfactorily construct a new manuscript that
addresses the comments of the referees, we would be
willing to process that manuscript as a de novo
submission. We have found that the vast majority of
such manuscripts are not accepted, and only 10% of all
manuscripts are ultimately published.
How To Deal with the Situation
Total rejection
- Do not submit the manuscript anywhere to ruin your
reputation
- Read the critiques carefully. Salvage usable data, add
more experiments before you consider to the next
submission
How To Deal with the Situation
Minor revision
- Go ahead and do it
- Resubmit the revised manuscript
as soon as possible
How To Deal with the Situation
Major Revision
Should I submit the revision to the same journal?
- Chance of acceptance is not good if you
re-submit to the same journal
- Unless you can document that the reviewers have
seriously misjudged your manuscript, or you have
undertaken a major overhaul
How To Deal with the Situation
Major Revision
- Use the comments for improvement
- Add extra experiments
- Submit to another journal
Major revision (reviewers are correct)
- Follow their suggestions
- Re-write
- Re-make figures
- Add experiments
Major revision (reviewers are wrong or unfair)
- Use the comments to improve the manuscript
- Submit to another journal
Major revision (reviewers are wrong or unfair)
- Re-submit with a very polite point-by-point rebuttal
- Never be antagonistic
- Use scientific merits as your weapon
The reviewers can be wrong,
but the editor is never wrong!
Major revision (some valid comments, some not)
- Revise those points that you feel acceptable
- Write a rebuttal on those you disagree
- Use scientific evidence to document your arguments
There is no need to accept everything the
reviewers suggest
Responses to reviewer’s comments
(Rebuttal letter)
Dear Dr. Hall:
Ref. Manuscript number 135
Enclosed please find the original and three copies of the manuscript, together with five
sets of figures (two original and three photocopies), for the revised manuscript entitled,
"Augmented up-regulation by c-fos of angiotensin subtype 1 receptor in NTS of SHR" by
Julie Y.H. Chan, Ling-Lin Wang, Hsien-Yang Lee and Samuel H.H. Chan, re-submitted for
your consideration to be published in Hypertension.
We have incorporated into the revised manuscript a majority of the suggestions by the
reviewers, and all comments in the Style Checklist. A point-by-point response is enclosed
on separate sheets.
We appreciate very much the opportunity to improve on our manuscript, and wish that the
present revised form would now meet with your approval for publication in Hypertension.
Please communicate with me either by Fax: +886-7-5255801 or e-mail:
schan@mail.nsysu.edu.tw.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie Y.H. Chan
Senior Principal Investigator
Responses to reviewer’s comments
(Rebuttal letter)
We have incorporated into our revision (highlighted in blue) all the
suggestions by the Editors and the two reviewers. Our point-by-point
responses are listed below for your reference.
Responses to the Editors
We wish to respectfully submit that in addition to being an experimental
marker for neuronal activation, our group has demonstrated that c-fos
plays a functional role in long-term central cardiovascular regulation.
Responses to reviewer’s comments
(Rebuttal letter)
Responses to Reviewer #1
(1) Q: Changes in p38MAPK, ERK1/2 or c-fos expression in the RVLM following ICV
infusion of Ang II for 7 days.
A: As suggested, we have introduced a new Figure 7 to demonstrate activation
of
p38 MAPK, ERK1/2 and CREB (Figure 7A), along with c-fos induction (Figure
7B)
in ventrolateral medulla 7 days after i.c.v. infusion of Ang II. We also showed
that
parallel to blunting the pressor response to Ang II infusion (Figure 6A,B),
treatment
with ERK1/2 or CREB ASON, but not p38 MAPK ASON, significantly blunted the
augmented c-fos gene expression (Figure 7B). Finally, together with data from
Figure 6C, we demonstrated that upregulation of AT1R gene after c-fos
induction
(Figure 7C) underlies the long-term pressor response to Ang II in the RVLM.
The relevant narration appears on P. 6, Para. 2, Lines 5-9; P. 6, Para. 3,
heading and Lines 3-5; P. 10, Para. 2; and P. 11, Para. 1, Lines 4-5.
Responses to reviewer’s comments
(Rebuttal letter)
(2) Q: Comment on why PKC inhibits ERK1/2 but not c-fos.
A: We wish to respectfully point out that PKC ASON indeed
blunted c-fos expression. P. 8, Para. 1, Lines 3-4 in our
original submission reads, “However, only pretreatment
with PKC ASON (100 pmol) significantly antagonized the
Ang II-induced c-fos mRNA expression (Figure 3B).
” In fact, it is because of this finding that “PKC” is
specified in the title of this article. This information now
appears on P. 11, Para. 2, Lines 7-15.
Manuscript Submission and Revision
The Upward Game
Your revision is an improved manuscript
Always consider submitting to a better journal
after being rejected
Galley Proofs
The manuscript bears your name –
mistakes are your mistakes
1. It is your responsibility to make corrections
on the printer’s galleys
2. Correct only the printing errors
3. Not a place to rewrite
4. Notes in proof
5. “Read” – to find missing words
“Study” – to find spelling mistakes
6. Learn the standard symbols and conventions for
marking galleys
7. Mark errors twice, one in where the error occurs
and the other at the margin
8. Check illustrations. Note whether they are
reproduced effectively: size of reduction, fidelity
9. Answer the queries and/or remarks
Journey of Scientific Research
Play the game according to the roles!
Be a professional!
If I had to do it,
I might as well enjoy doing it!