|
WHAT'S THIS?
|
Home
About us
Email sign up
Basics
Commentary
Viewpoints
Press releases
Resources
Directory
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a freely accessible online resource for everyone involved in publication planning. Help us build the site into a valuable resource for, amongst others, medical writers and communications professionals, pharmaceutical industry managers, medical journal editors and publishers.
Please send your ideas, contributions and comments about the articles to the Editor of The Publication Plan, Mary Greenacre.
If you have any other comments about the service, the web site, or questions about advertising and sponsorship, please contact the Publisher, Peter Llewellyn.
|
|
|
Related Sites
|
|
BASICS << 6 Basic tips on how to cope with the submission & peer-review process
|
6 Basic tips on how to cope with the submission & peer-review process
Published 8 August 2008, written by Rosanna Diogini and Jonathan Tulip
1. Familiarize yourself with the content of the journals
So, you have done your research and have selected your target journals realistically for the type of content you are trying to publish. How can you make sure that your manuscripts don’t ‘get stuck’ in the engine that is the peer review process?
Before you submit, look at the type of content that your shortlisted titles will accept. Navigate to their online table of content. You’ll quickly be able to see if the journal publishes articles similar to yours.
You might also want to pay particular attention to how many articles covering the same topic as that of your manuscript have been published by the journal in the previous 4 to 6 months, as it might save you a rejection on the basis that the topic has been covered extensively in recent issues.
2. Can you speak with the journal pre-submission?
If there's an option for you to communicate with a journal before submission, directly or via the publisher, use it! It should be clear from the journal's website if pre-submission queries are welcome.
The publisher will likely offer good, relevant advice and help you update the journal’s metrics. Following the appointment of a new Editor or a switch in publishers, journals can change scope, direction, frequency and so on. Look for the contact details of an Editorial Assistant, Managing Editor or Publication Manager.
Pre-submission communication is a great way of finding out if the journal is at all interested in the content/format of your manuscript, when the next upcoming deadlines for print/online publications are, how long the review process takes on average, or if there is another journal by the same publisher that might be more suitable for your article.
At this point it would also be useful to find out if you can suggest referees, or if a journal is affiliated to a society, and to be transparent about funding and collaborations. You can also find out at this point if the journal encourages communication from non-authors. It could help speed up the process when it comes to gathering materials like copyright forms, etc.
3. Are you up to date with guidelines?
Always check that you're using the correct version of the journal's author guidelines—they may have changed since your last submission.
Often most of the information you need is on the journal’s website! Develop your manuscript with the guidelines in mind, as it will really speed up the proofing process. Note suggested article length, style of references adopted, and any other requests specific to the journal.
Don’t hold off submitting your paper if you can’t tick every box on the CONSORT, or other, checklists. Do the best you can and provide an explanation for the missing information. To find out more about CONSORT and related quality-improvement initiatives, check the all new www.equator-network.org.
4. How can you make the most of your article?
Publishing is a great way to draw attention to your content. At pre-submission stage, check what extra options the journal offers.
Check if you can publish supplementary material along-side your article. For example, you might want to add a slideshow to accompany your article, or take advantage of the various online opportunities the publisher offers (email broadcasts, webinars, podcasts, etc)
OpenAccess publication: the journal that you have selected might not be OpenAccess, but you should check if it offers the opportunity of making individual articles free to all for downloading.
5. The review process
Reviewers are not just there to make your life more difficult! Ask yourself: what are the reviewers looking for when reading a manuscript?
For example, a reviewer will consider whether a research question is clearly stated, if it is interesting and important, original and not flawed, supported by valid data, well presented, ethical and within the scope of the journal.
When you're preparing a revised manuscript after peer review, always use “Track Changes” (or a similar method; purple text would do the job) to identify the changes you've made. When you're submitting a revised manuscript, always make sure that you explain how each of the reviewers' comments has been addressed.
An author is generally entitled to question the comments of the reviewers, but you should do so in a polite manner and following the procedure suggested by the journal. In most cases the Editor must acknowledge the appeal, consider it and contact the original reviewers with the author’s comments. If the reviewers disagree with the author’s appeal, most likely the journal will seek an additional review. To find out more about this topic, take a look at the Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics1.
Respect the deadlines! If a journal gives you a deadline for resubmission that you can't make, let the journal know and ask for an extension.
6. Found a mistake after print?
Unfortunately once the article is in the public domain, whether in print or online, most publishers will be unable to make changes.
The only option in most cases will be to follow the formal route, whereby the authors will need to ask the journal to publish a correction or erratum. Journals will normally act quickly, but they can only move as fast as their normal workflow allows. The best advice here is to avoid making mistakes, and adopt a slower pace prior to publication if necessary.
Note: The ideas in this article are based on ‘Best Practice Corner’ articles from the International Society of Medical Publication Professionals members’ newsletter, The Map, with permission from the author.
About the authors:
Rosanna Diogini (rosanna.diogini@wiley.com) is a Managing Editor and Jonathan Tulip (jtulip@wiley.com) is a Clinical Communication Manager at Wiley-Blackwell publishers.
1Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: A Publisher's Perspective is reproduced with permission from International Journal of Clinical Practice
Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A et al. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61 (s152):126.
|
Feedback: Do you have any comments about this article? Contact the Editor, Mary Greenacre.
|
|
|
