“Pearls” For Getting Published In A Peer Reviewed Journal Hillard M. Lazarus, MD The George & Edith Richman Professor and Distinguished Scientist in Cancer Research Director of Novel Cell Therapy University Hospitals Case Medical Center Case Western Reserve University

PUBLISHING “PEARLS” Approach Identify target journal: be realistic but “aim higher” rejections often improve quality strongly consider reviewer comments (but not always) Format verify guidelines; journals differ errors upset many reviewers examine manuscripts published in that journal Avoid common errors!

PUBLISHING “PEARLS” Approach (con’t) Abstract: usually too long (250 words optimal) “Prose” versus sub-headings; do not overstate findings when possible, provide specifics, not generalities Introduction: usually too long: optimal 1 – 1 ½ pages set the stage; end with “tantalizing” phrase “tell them what you are going to tell them” Methods/Patients: often poorly organized and superficial logical listing include institutions, years, IRB & consent, reagents, etc Be careful with statistical section; involve experts

PUBLISHING “PEARLS” Approach (con’t) Results: frequently too short too many tables: redundant with text; combine tables Discussion Begin with most important finding(s) Avoid “this is the first…”; use “this is one of the first…” Follow with literature review but how your data differ NEVER use “we confirmed”; avoid “me, too” NEVER use “… trended to significance” (p=0.08) Just as easily trended away than towards significance

PUBLISHING “PEARLS” Approach (con’t) Counsel seek out expert counsel: “unofficial review” intra-institutional, i.e. your center or neighboring center friends, colleagues, national experts request less formal feedback to ease “burden” “Partner”: do not be afraid to add authors who help

PUBLISHING “PEARLS” BEST OF LUCK WITH YOUR SUBMISSIONS