how to review a paper how to get your work published

How to Review a PaperHow to Get your Work Published

Professor Laurence J EganAssociate Editor, Gut

Things I will cover

• How to start out doing good research• When and how to prepare your work for publication• The review process• Some specific tips

HOW TO START OUT DOING GOOD RESEARCH

Getting Started

• The 3 most important things in developing a career in biomedical investigation– Choose the right mentor– Choose the right mentor– Choose the right mentor

Why is the mentor important?

• Scientific creativity has to be learned• Networking• Access to funds• Interest in developing people

Attributes of a good mentor

• Track record of steady productivity• Every student/post doc in group publishes first author papers• Every student/post doc in group publishes middle author

papers• Upward trajectory• Interested in you as a person

Do good science

• Definition of good research:– The ability to ask and unambiguously answer an important

scientific question– NF La Russo– Former editor in chief, Gastroenterology

Develop a reputation in a field

• Systematically develop a line of investigation• Become known as topic expert• Collaborate well

Picking scientific ideas to follow

• Most interesting in your field (citations!)• Opportunities for collaboration• Innovative not Derivative• Clear thinking• Clear story telling

WHEN AND HOW TO PREPARE YOUR WORK FOR PUBLICATION

When to publish a story

Numbers Impact

Time

Advice of mentor is key

Writing your paper

• Start early– Time to get feedback– Time to revise– Get new ideas when writing

• Think in figures and tables– Key results– Finish strong

Writing your paper

• Writing– Clear– Succinct– No repetition– English– Find a good scientific author and emulate their style

Writing your paper

• Introduction– Take the reader by the hand– Introduce the key players– Expose the knowledge gaps

Writing your paper

• Results– Think in figures/tables– Progression– Key data last

Writing your paper

• Discussion– Start with most important findings– Interpret in light of prior knowledge– Balance

Figures

• Immaculate layout• Clear labels• No 3D histograms!• Grouped in logical sections to make key points

Submitting your paper

• Choose a journal– Scan recent issues– Fit?– Clinical vs pre-clinical vs basic– Physiology vs pathophysiology– General vs subspecialty– Impact– Time to first decision

Gut aims to publish original articles describing novel mechanisms of disease and new management strategies, both diagnostic and therapeutic, likely to impact on clinical practice within the foreseeable future.

Not good: Descriptive dataPure physiology

ClinicalSome human data

Editorial policy Articles illustrating basic mechanisms and their application to clinical material will be welcomed. We aim to cover all areas of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and through a system of commentaries and Recent Advances articles to make clear the relevance of scientific advances to clinical practice. The priorities are originality and excellence. We aim to ensure a fair and independent peer review system and to publish articles which follow the highest ethical standards concerning research conduct.

Add Citation Potential: importance, general applicability

Acceptance rate 8% for original research submitted in 2011

Time from submission to first decision

16 days for reviewed original articles

Time from acceptance to publication

28 days (online)5 months (print)

Frequency Monthly Impact factor 10.614

Submitting your paper

• Adhere to rules of journal– Length, figures & tables, references, order of sections etc– Consort, STARD, subject flow etc

• Website eg ScholarOne– Can seem difficult but work through it

• Suggest reviewers– Friends?? – beware

• Non-preferred reviewers – avoid unless essential

Peer Review: the key process that determines if your article will be published

• Subjecting scholarly work to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.

• Encourages authors to meet acceptable standards.• Ensures validity.• Assesses significance and importance of findings.

Reasons for External Peer Review

• Done by recruited reviewers.• Editors lack time and expertise.• Need for diversity of opinion.• Reviewers are anonymous and independent.• Reviewers must lack conflict of interest.

Weaknesses of Peer Review

• Slow• Subject to bias• Favours pre-existing ideas• May suppress dissent and inhibit scientific revolutions.• Fails when invalid results are published.

How Biomedical Journals Work: Gut

• Owned by the British Medical Journal Publishing Group.• Governed by the British Society of Gastroenterology.• Editor in Chief selected by representatives of BMJ Publishing

Group and the British Society of Gastroenterology.• Pressures on Biomedical Journals include:

• Declining paper subscriptions and increasing online access.• Increasing competition with higher numbers of journals.• Need to increase impact factor.• Copy flow

Types of Journal Articles

• Original Research.• Reviews

• Commissioned or non-commissioned. • Recent Advances

• Letters – best ones comment on previous Gut articles• Commentary / Editorial

– Always commissioned

Reject 50%

Associate Editor

6 x Reviewers

Personal

Search

2 x Reviews

Associate Editor

Reject

10%

Editorial Meeting

Revise 15%

Reject 20%

Accept <1%

Corresponding author Accept with

minor revisions 5%Give Up!

More Work

Editorial Office

Corresponding Author

Editor-in-Chief

Life cycle of a manuscript

How Editors Pick Reviewers

• Expertise• Independence• Record• Lack of conflict of interest• Authors suggestions• Search

What Good Reviewers Do

• Read the abstract• Know the Journal?• Know the topic?

• Or are prepared to study it?• Can complete it in two weeks• Have no conflict of interest

– Positive– Negative

Step 1 in peer review

• Read the article• Ask the big questions.

• Novel• Valid• Interesting• Significance• Presentation of data• Interpretation of results

Step 2: Attention to Detail

• Figures• Clear • Well labelled• Not Misleading• Statistics Appropriate

• Tables.• Grammar and Writing.

Stew Over It

• No rash decisions.• Write down initial impressions.• Read pertinent articles in the field in question if necessary.• Assess for similar publications.• Do not discuss.

Step 3: Write the Review

• What questions do the Editors want answered?• Decision• Major and minor comments to the Editor “confidential”• Comments to the author

What Does the Editor Want to Know?

• Scores• Brief summary of the main findings of the article.• Are the findings

• Novel• Valid• Interesting• Is the presentation adequate?• Is the interpretation reasonable?

• Main reasons why you are making your decision.

What does the Author Want to Know

• Strengths• Weaknesses• Suggestions for Improvements• Do not tell the author what decision you are recommending.

Comments to Editor

Good• Specific reasons for

recommendation• Context relative to

specialist field• Significance (citability)

Bad• Vague• Subjective• Too short• Personal/Vindictive

Comments to authors

Good• Praise• Strengths • Weaknesses and specific

recommendations• Main points• Lesser points• Detailed

Bad• Personal/vindictive• Unhelpful• Superficial• Didn’t read the ms

thoroughly• Give away your

recommendation

Comments to author: This study uses a well-established NEC model to examine the induction of a wide array of innate immune responses. The paper generates several hypotheses but these are not discussed and it is not clear to reader what the next step of this study should be. Although a thorough analysis, it is not surprising to the reader that NEC leads to induction of a broad inflammatory response at the tissue level. While the down-regulation of TLR5 and TGF-beta in NEC is interesting and novel, the demonstrated role of TLR4, IL-12, and IL-18 in NEC are not new. …………………

A good review

Comments to editor: A descriptive paper that generates several interesting hypotheses. Unfortunately the authors do not follow-up by asking interesting questions or by providing possible answers. The manuscript would benefit greatly from adding data from suggested additional experiments (especially time-course). At the current stage we would not recommend publication in Gut but will be happy to re-review once the suggested changes / experiments have been performed.

A bad review

Comments to authors: Present study by ………. et al, evaluated the inhibitory effect of anti-IL23R mAbs on a T-cell independent IBD mouse model and compared this effect with anti-IL23 mAbs' effect. Moreover they identified some efficacy biomarkers - S100A8, S100A9, REG3  , REG3  , LCN2 - for anti- IL23 therapy in CD. Besides they confirmed the target biomarkers by using a T-cell dependent colitis model. This study also showed in vitro IL23/Th17 pathway upregulated the expression of same biomarkers in human colonic epithelial cells. Finally, authors demonstrated that both serum levels and tissue expression levels of same biomarkers were increased in active Crohn's disease patients whereas decreased in patients who were in remission. Furthermore, they found two novel CD-associated serum biomarkers: LCN2 and CCL20.

Comments to editor: none

How Reviewers Comments Interact With the Editorial Board• Advisory role of reviewers• Independence of Reviewers • When reviewers disagree• Easy or soft reviewers versus hypercritical reviewers

How Editorial Decisions Are Made

• Reviewers Comments and Recommendations.• Suitability (should be addressed early by editor)• Priority and competition• Likelihood of high citation• Need for accompanying editorial or commentary

How Editorial Decisions Are Made

• Reject– Methodological or Analytical Weakness

• Clinical work – hard to overcome• Lab work – easier to overcome

– Priority• Low novelty• Low significance• Low impact (citation potential)

– Unsuitability for journal

How Editorial Decisions Are Made

• Revision– Major means new work needed

• Experiments• Subjects• Deep analysis

– Minor means writing changes usually• Interpretation• Minor analytical issues

What to do with reviewers comments

• If accepted without revision you have submitted to the wrong journal!

• Scan quickly for the word “However”……….• Major revision with work needed

– Is it fair or unreasonable?– Can you do it or a co-worker?– Would it negatively impact subsequent publications

(number versus impact)– Can some of the reviewers comments be rebutted?

Preparing your manuscript for re-submission

• Follow journal rules!!• Respond point by point to every comment

– Additional data– Revised writing– Rebuttal

SOME TIPS OF THE TRADE!

Float a boat

• Exciting data but results not well developed– Submit to high impact journal– If reviewed and even if rejected you have reviewers

comments• Do what they suggest• Resubmit

Revisions: some room for rebuttal

• At Gut a revise editorial decision usually leads to acceptance• Reviewers and editors have pointed out several key

weaknesses• Address key ones with additional data• Room to rebut some less important ones

– Especially if beyond scope of current project

Recruit a key collaborator to strengthen borderline weak papers

• Well known scientist in related field• Cutting edge analytical approach• Subject/sample numbers• Other diseases

Write a recent advances article

• Contact editor in chief with an abstract of your review• In cover letter explain why your topic is deserving of a major

review article– Significant recent advances– Impact

• Clinical• Pathophysiology• Significance

– Topical/controversial

laurence.egan@nuigalway.ie