Transcript The College of Medicine
Anatomy of a submission
• Compose a title page – Title – determine authors and their affiliations – determine corresponding author and address (email, phone, fax) – Conflicts of interest
• Double space • Each section on a separate page • Use subheadings (in methods, results) • Page numbers (bottom..or top) • Make sure font size and type consistent • • Format the documents 1 to 1.5 inch form the top, bottom, sides Follow instructions to authors Requirements.
. Consult Uniform
Revisions
• Number pages and use spell check and grammar check features of your software • Make revisions by hand on a double-spaced, hard copy in red ink or use “track changes” • Plan on a minimum of 6 to 8 revisions for your first few papers • Look for internal consistency and other problems and address them in the paper
Feedback
• Ask your co-authors to read the manuscript critically • Give the paper to informed colleagues (1or 2 max) to read • Read your own paper as if you were a reviewer, with the figures in front of you as you read it
Final Preparations for Submission
• Proof-read, proof-read, proof-read!
• Make sets of figures for submission but also keep a set of original figures for your files • Make copies of the submitted manuscript, including the figures, for every author • Write a cover letter, short and direct, addressed to the editor • Make a list of suggested reviewers, if this is requested by the journal
Submission Letter
• Identify the paper • Reason for choosing journal • Repetitive publication and duplicate submission • Conflict of interest • Corresponding author • Suggest reviewers
August 20, 2005
The Editor, THE LANCET 32 Jamestown Road London, NW1 7BY UK
Dear Dr. Horton,
(1) Enclosed please find the manuscript entitled “Quantitative Analysis of Medical Research Publication in Iran” which we would like to be considered for publication in The Lancet. (2) Following the call for “research papers to inform debate on how real progress can be made to improve the health and well-being of all people” in the Middle East, we felt appropriate to submit the enclosed manuscript, which describes the trends in medical research publication in Iran. (3) The authors hereby affirm that the manuscript is original, that all statements asserted as facts are based on authors’ careful investigation and accuracy. part elsewhere, (5) The authors have full power authority to enter into this copyright assignment and to make the grants herein contained, declare that they had no conflicts of interest. Dr Etemadi will deal with the prepublication queries.
(6) (4) This work has been presented at the 1st Meeting of Medical Journal Editors of WHO-EMRO, and an abstract has been published in Saudi Medical Journal Jan 2004 Supplement as the Conference Proceedings, under the title “Trends of publication in Medical Journals in Iran in the 1990s”. Otherwise, it has not been published and has not been submitted or considered for publication in total, or in and they
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Michael Holtzman,
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology,
Editorial Office American Thoracic Society 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019-4374 Tel 212-315-6440 Fax 212-315-6456 Dear Dr. Holtzman, Please find enclosed an original manuscript entitled, “……………………...” by [authors]. The material presented in this paper is original and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere. No part of the research presented in this manuscript has been funded by tobacco industry sources. We verify that all the authors have read the manuscript and approve its submission. To aid the review process, may we suggest the reviewers listed on the following page.
We hope that you will find our manuscript acceptable for publication in the
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely …….
…….
Corresponding author
Dr. Michael Holtzman,
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology,
Editorial Office American Thoracic Society 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019-4374 Tel 212-315-6440 Fax 212-315-6456 Dear Dr. Holtzman, Please find enclosed an original manuscript entitled, “……………………...” by [authors]. The material presented in this paper is original and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere. No part of the research presented in this manuscript has been funded by tobacco industry sources.
We verify that all the authors have read the manuscript and approve its submission.
To aid the review process, may we suggest the reviewers listed on the following page.
We hope that you will find our manuscript acceptable for publication in the
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely …….
…….
Corresponding author
List of Potential Reviewers
1) Dr. Joe Smith Duke University Medical Center Cell Biology 438 Nanaline Duke/Box 3709 Durham, NC 27710 Phone: 919-684-8040 Fax: 919-684-8106 e-mail: [email protected]
2)Dr. Virginia Jones Vanderbilt University Pathology 1310 24 e-mail: th Ave S.
Nashville, TN 37212-2637 Phone: 615-327-4751 X 5499 Fax: 615-321-6305 [email protected]
3)Dr. Tony D. Soprano Southampton General Hospital Child Health Level G (803) Center Block Tremona Rd.
Southampton, SO16 6YD United Kingdom Phone: 44-23 8079 6161 Fax: 44-23 8079 6378 e-mail: adp@soton .ac.uk
4) Dr. David Mitchell Department of Pediatrics Milton S. Hershey Medical Center H085 Hospital Hershey, PA 17033 Phone: 717-531-5925 Fax: 717-531-8985 e-mail: [email protected]
5)Dr. Arnold Smith University of Missouri-Columbia Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology M616 Medical Sciences Building DC 04400 Columbia, MO 65212 Phone: 573-882-8989 Fax: 573-882-4287 e-mail: [email protected]
Submitting the Paper
• Frequently done on-line via PDF files • If required, send the number of hard copies of the manuscript and figures required by the journal • Send a disk with files for the manuscript and figures, if required • Get the copyright form used by the journal signed by all authors, if required • Send all of this material by a reliable method, so that your precious manuscript is not lost in the mail!!
Peer review
• Articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals (manuscripts) are reviewed by experts who advise the editor on whether they should be published and what changes are necessary.
The usual practice
Editorial decision submission Receipt of reviews Internal review (up to 50% rejection) External reviewer (2-3) Email or post to reviewer
Peer Review - Functions To Protect i) The author from publishing & ii) The subscriber from reading Material of insufficient quality
Study by Peters and Ceci
• Resubmitted 12 articles to psychology journals that had already published them • Changed – title/abstract/ introduction – author’s names – Institution from prestigious to unprestigious • Results – 3 recognised as resubmissions, 1 accepted – 8 rejected, none because of lack of originality
Study by Godlee et al.
• Modified a paper already been accepted by the BMJ, introduced 8 significant errors • Sent it to BMJ reviewers knowledgeable in the subject area • Of 221 reviewers who responded – 16% failed to identify any weakness – Only 10% identified more than 4 – Average was 2 out of the possible 8
Problems with peer review
• Slow • Expensive • A lottery • Ineffective • Biased • Easily abused • Can’t detect fraud • Works for improving studies not selecting which to publish • Can’t detect fraud
BUT…
• Any better solution?
Dealing with the Journal’s Response
•
Absolute Rejection
– Don’t take it personal – Don’t write or call the editors (unless you know them well !) – exception: appeals – Editorial rejection: send it out the next day to another journal – Reviewers comments: • Fix the easy ones • Fix the glaring ones • Unlikely to get much better sitting on your desk • Send it out the next day
Dealing with the Journal’s Response
•
Conditional acceptance
– It is yours to lose – First cool down (24-48 hours) – Within 1-2 weeks decide on responses – Make real changes, say you have done great changes (describe, highlight,etc) – Look for clues from the editor as to the extent of the revision needed.
– Avoid arguments – Thank sincerely, but avoid being obsequious
Responding to reviews
• Swallow your pride!
• You don’t have to accept all, but don’t over reject • Ask editor about conflicting comments • However unreasonable the reviewers may seem: be polite!
• Distinguish conditional acceptance from offer to reconsider (and from rejection of course!) • Appeals (for rejection)
Resubmission Letter
Dr. Brian F. McCabe Editor, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA 52242 Dear Dr. McCabe, Please find enclosed a revised manuscript entitled, "Surfactant protein A in rabbit sinus and middle ear mucosa" by………. We have addressed the comments of the reviewers as detailed below: 1)We have changed the title of the paper as suggested by the reviewer.
2)We have expanded the description of the animals used in the study (page 4, paragraph 1). All the animals except the pathogen-free, were naturally infected with
Pasteurella multocida
. The antibiotic treated animals were chosen randomly. The infections were observed postmortem and pathogen was identified by culture by the Animal Care Unit.
3)The lengths of the micron bars in Figures 5-8 have been added to the legends. A magnification bar has been added to Figure 10.
We hope that you will now find our manuscript suitable for publication in the Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. Thank you very much for your prompt review.
Sincerely,
Prof. Ezio Ghigo
May 9, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, c/o Kurtis Editrice Via Luigi Zoja, 30 I-20153 Milano – MI Italy Dear Prof. Ghigo
Enclosed please find three copies of the revised version of the manuscript entitled
“Serum paraoxonase enzyme activity is decreased in thyroid dysfunction”
form.
(Manuscript Number: 4286/265/01), along with the revised disk version and completed “Declaration of Originality and Transfer of Copyright” All the comments made by your esteemed reviewers have been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made. A list of the comments and how they have been answered is included. I hope these alterations and explanations will suffice, however please let me know if any further amendments are needed.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding your final decision.
Yours sincerely,