View
213
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Disclosure Statement: No Conflict of Interest
I do not have an affiliation, financial or otherwise, with a pharmaceutical company, medical device or communications organization.
I have no conflicts of interest to disclose ( i.e. no industry funding received or other commercial relationships).
I have no financial relationship or advisory role with pharmaceutical or device-making companies, or CME provider.
I will not discuss or describe in my presentation at the meeting the investigational or unlabeled ("off-label") use of a medical device, product, or pharmaceutical that is classified by Health Canada as investigational for the intended use.
After You Submit the PaperOffice Workflow, Review and Revision
Peter L. Munk MDCM, FRCPC, FSIRProfessor of Radiology & Orthopedic Surgery
Director, Musculoskeletal RadiologyDepartment of Radiology
Vancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Editor in ChiefCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal
Work FlowSubmission Process
• Varies depending on Journal– Paper– Electronic
• Important to adhere to precise instructions to the author
Work FlowSubmission Process
• Screened by editorial assistant– Format– Covering letter
• Exclusive submission– DO NOT submit to more than one journal at a
time!!!!!– Violation of this rule may result in journal banning
you from publication
• Copyright permissions for any materials borrowed such as diagrams / figures
• Disclose if material previously or soon to be included in poster / exhibit
Work FlowSubmission Process
• Covering letter• Ethics (ie. Helsinki declaration for
experiments….)– Human and animal
• Conflict of interest– Are any of the authors likely to benefit materially
from this paper? Corporate sponsorship? Stock ownership?
Editor’s Desk
• Does this topic fit with the Journal’s focus?– If there is a ddoubt check with editor by
• Are there gross issues of quality or design that make it not worth sending for review?
– if either of these issues are a problem the article may be rejected with further review
Editor’s Desk
• Editor may send to Deputy / Associate Editor
• Reviewers selected and invited to review• Once reviews completed they are viewed
by Editor and decision made– Accept– Reject– Accept pending suitable revision– Reject with encouragement to resubmit– Further peer review
Post Editorial Final Acceptance
• Sent to copy editor– Looks for areas that are unclear
(ambiguous, omissions, contradictions ….)
– Corrects syntax, grammar– Improve readability
• Set to Journal Template
Post Editorial Final Acceptance
• Galley sent to Author for approval– Approval of changes made by copy edit
and questions requiring clarification– BE PROMPT!
• Final Copy editor review– Marks up manuscript to guide printer
• Sent to printer– Hard copy / electronic posting
Overview
• Manuscript processing is a complex, multistep process
• To facilitate the process and improve chances of acceptance authors must adhere scrupulously to Journal requirements
• Editors and reviewers are volunteers who donate their time …….
Understand what the Reviewer is Doing
• The review’s role is not to irritate you … although it may feel that way sometimes
• When you read the comments put yourself in the seat of the editor and reviewer and try to see things from their view point
What the Reviewer Looks ForGeneral
• The topic fits in with what the Journal publishes
• Will the readership have an interest in the topic?
• Does the author have a clear message to transmit?
• Is the topic original or redundant (or worse plagiarized)
What the Reviewer Looks ForStrengths
• Is the paper correctly / logically structured?
• Is there a clear application or value to the paper?
• Is the methodology clear? Sound?• Is the paper easy to read?
What the Reviewer Looks ForWeaknesses• No clear point or value …
– Is the subject of the paper of any importance? – Are we any better off in our understanding of
the subject after having read this paper?
• Defective, vague or unclear methodology• Lack of clarity or focus ….. What is the
point? Inability to follow the discussion….• Poor command of language
What the Reviewer Looks ForWeaknesses
• Reviewer needs to point out how (if possible) these weaknesses can be corrected / addressed by the authors
Main reasons for Reviewers Recommending Rejection
• Poor statistics• Over or incorrect interpretation of results• Poor or suboptimal description of
methods• Biased, poorly choosen or small study
population• Text hard to follow• Purpose unclear
Bordage G, Academic Medicine 2001;76:889-896
Fate of Your Manuscript
• Almost always a manuscript will need revision or submission to a different journal
• Rare to have acceptance without modification …..
• Rejection rates up to 95% for some journals
Fate of Your Manuscript
• Usually letter or email from editor notifies corresponding author
• Accompanied by editor comments and those of reviewers
Fate of Your Manuscript
• Rejected– Outright rejection– Rejection with encouragement to
resubmit (very extensive restructuring)
• Accepted– Rare to have acceptance without
revision• Minor• Extensive
Decision Format
• Generally…
• Comments from each reviewer– May be edited for clarity and
inappropriate comments removed
• Final comment from Editor
Decision Format
• May be brief or detailed• Dependent on :
– Journal policy and format– How far the manuscript goes down the
path of review
Rejection
• Very common experience• Dependent on Journal
– Higher with competitive and more desirable Journals
– Electronic and open access Journals often have better acceptance rates
• Can be a constructive learning experience
• Can assist in improving a manuscript for submission else where
Rejection
• May occur without review – Outside scope of journal / not suitable
for readership– Similar to previously published / recently
accepted material– Journal requirements not met
Rejection
• With review– Poor methodology and experimental
design– Flawed interpretation of results / poor
statistics– Poor writing (grammar, vocabulary
etc…)– Plagiarism
Rejection
• Fruitless to argue with point blank rejection
• Learn what you can, modify your article if necessary and look to another journal….– Journal with a different focus– Less prestigious journal
• In most cases an improved manuscript will find a place for publication
• …. Every paper with merit can find a home……
Accept with Revision
• Remember to stay positive ….. This is a GOOD thing!
• Editor and reviewer comments aimed at improving the manuscript
• Be optimistic …… there is a very good chance you will get published
Accept with Revision
• Reasons for revision request– Minor faults / omissions in methods– Minor inaccuracies / contradictions in
data– Unclear deductions / conclusions– Excessive manuscript length– Unclear / poor writing that is still felt to
be potentially salvageable
Revision
• Address every point made by both reviewers and editor in a covering letter with re-submission of manuscript
• Changes in the text should be clearly indicated
• Do it within the time frame stipulated
Revision
• “the editor and reviewers are always right”• Well …. sort of…..• Occasionally (rarely) if some facts or
details from editor / reviewer are in error or not justified this can be pointed out
• If this is done remember:– Make sure your facts are well supported– Be respectful and emotion free– The editor will almost always support the
reviewer
Revision
• If you cannot agree to make the changes required consider submission to a different journal
• Remember to let the journal know you are withdrawing the article
Final Proofs
• As with reviewers comments make sure you address ALL queries from the copy editor
• Do not be offended by grammar and other corrections
• Make sure meaning not altered• Check very carefully … last chance to
catch an error• Only make very MINOR changes in the
manuscript
Recommended