Submission Process

Overview Preparing for submission The submission process The review process

Preparing for Submission All aspects must be done ethically Your ethics and integrity are priceless assets Do not plagiarize Have the advance approval for the manuscript from all co-authors

Possible Plan for Preparing a Manuscript Decide where to submit Put your figures into final form Write legends; material and methods Introduction; cite references Results Discussion Abstract & Title Revise Cover letter & submit

Decide Where to Submit Best to have a clear plan of where you will submit before you start writing Match focus of your studies with those of the journal Failing to select the “best fit” could slow publication and result in reformatting

Improper Journal Consequences No review - immediate return Reviewed - rejected as inappropriate Poor or slow review; inappropriate revision requested Manuscript published, but no one else ever reads it

Considerations Are your findings very specialized? Are your findings of broad scientific interest? Do you describe a break though? Is it an incremental advance? Research the scope of prospective journals

Journal Selected Read instructions to the author carefully Know how to format the manuscript

The Submission Package Use journal’s web site for formal submission Submission process may be time consuming Plan for at least minutes, even if everything is organized Figures – Correct file format and resolution Have s and other contact information for all authors Assemble all pieces according to instructions

Cover Letter Very important! Spend time writing the letter Opportunity to address the editor and reviewers directly Explain on a more personal level why your work is of great importance and merits publication

Cover Letter Can be addressed to the editor in chief Explain why your manuscript is appropriate for this journal Highlight the articles main points Don’t reuse previous cover letters Suggest editors and reviewers

Cover Letter Include a statement that manuscript is currently not submitted to another journal Indicate the manuscript has been approved for publication by all authors State there has been no previous publication of the data (meeting abstract)

Editors and Reviewers Managing editor Copy editor Editor-in-Chief Editor Editorial Board ad hoc reviewers

Editors: Manuscript Receipt Format of manuscript assessed Assigned to a corresponding editor Letter (now often an ) of receipt sent to corresponding author Editor reviews for appropriateness Reviewers selected Manuscript sent to reviewers

The Review Process Run completely by volunteers Usually two or three anonymous reviewers Length of time depends on the journal Two week minimum 20 day average after 45 days - contact the editor

Review Process “The system of peer review, wherein anonymous reviewers funnel comments about your typescript back to you through the editor, is rarely a wholly pleasant one no matter how common it is.” – R. A. Day

Reviewer Guidelines Adopt viewpoint of author’s ally Separate comments for Editor and author(s) Focus on science not style Unpublished manuscript is confidential Do not discuss manuscript with authors Provide review within time specified by editor

Review Format First section - summarize content and provide overall evaluation Substantiate major criticisms, especially with respect to novelty Second section - numbered list of specific points Recommend accept/reject/modify only in confidential comments to the editor

Review Criteria How significant is the research question? To what extent is the work novel and original? Appropriate experimental design? Adequate experimental technique? Data properly interpreted? Conclusions supported by data? Relevant discussion? Adequate references?

Review Criteria - Format Appropriate figures and tables? Appropriate overall length? Appropriate nomenclature? References accounted for and in proper form? Style is adequate? Appropriate statistics?

Editorial Decision Guided by the reviews Solely that of the editor Three basic responses 1. Accept 2. Modify 3. Reject

What’s next?