Publication Strategies Vivian Siegel, PhD Director, Center for Science Communication Departments of Medicine (Genetic Medicine) and Cell and Developmental Biology

Strategic Issues Deciding what constitutes a paper Writing the best possible paper –Manuscript architecture –Prereview Anticipating the needs of editors and reviewers

Why do you publish? To claim priority for a discovery To share what you have learned and how you have learned it, so that others can build on that knowledge

How do you publish? Through peer-reviewed journals of the highest possible “stature”

Priority and stature Sometimes competition means you need to publish fast High profile journals generally require “big stories”

“What’s new and why should I care?” What is the question you have answered with your data? How sophisticated do you have to be to appreciate the importance of that question? How much work would it take to answer a “bigger” question - one that you don’t need to be quite so sophisticated to appreciate?

Writing the best possible paper

There are two very distinct audiences for your paper The Scientist in Your Field –Methods –Data (figures, tables, etc.) –Legends The Outsider (scientists, editors, others) –The “body” of the paper (introduction, results, discussion) Each piece needs individually to tell your story in a way that is best suited to the appropriate audience.

IntroductionDiscussionResults Title Summary Figures/TablesMethods

medschool.mc.vanderbilt.edu/editors_club/

Writing Studio

Anticipate what editors and reviewers need and do Editors need to know “what’s new and why it’s important” Reviewers need to believe your conclusions Reviewers will always ask for more If Reviewers ask for more, Editors ask for more

Ironically, it takes longer than ever to get a paper published 26 papers in JCB –June 1985 –June 1997 –June 2008 Time from Submission to Acceptance Scatter plot, red line is the Median

Overall P= (Kruskal-Wallis) Dunn’s Multiple Comparison Test June 1985 vs. June 1997: P>0.05 June 1985 vs. June 2008: P<0.05 June 1997 vs. June 2008: P< 0.01

It has become painful to publish

What can you do? Take every opportunity (cover letter, introduction, etc.) to express clearly why the question being answered by the paper is worth answering - this helps the editor Provide enough experimental detail for reviewers to judge the technical quality of the work Be honest (don’t hide work that undermines your conclusions, or oversell the paper, just to get past the editor) Be strategic - manage expectations; write the paper so the reviewer asks for what you can provide Be respectful in your response to the decision

Randy Schekman: The Role of an Editor: A Delicate Balancing Act Vivian Siegel and Zena Werb: How to Read and Respond to a Journal Rejection Letter William Wells: Me Write Pretty One Day: How to Write a Good Scientific Paper Liana Holmberg: What Happened to My Figures?!

Thank you.