After You Submit the Paper

Peter L. Munk

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

Editorial Office

• Now that I’ve submitted my paper what happens to it?

Partners : Triumvirate

• Editorial Office• Authors • Reviewers

Work FlowSubmission Process

• Varies depending on Journal– Paper– Electronic

• Important to adhere to precise instructions to the author

Speed of Process

• Varies considerably by journal• Esoteric topics may take longer to

get reviewed

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

email

• 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 …….

The Manuscript ReviewerandYou

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

Editor & Reviewer CommentsHow to Deal with the Verdict on Your Returned Manuscript

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