Writing and Reviewing for

the Journal II:

Critical Skills

The Journal of

Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

WRITING

FOR THE

JOURNAL

EE Moore No disclosures

Validate Scientific Work

Distribute New Knowledge

Referee Expectations

- Knowledgeable

- Fair - Minded

- Bias - Free

- Constructive

- Timely

PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL

Balance: Succinct and Informative

Search Engines: Focus on Title

Good:

TITLE:

CATCHY BUT NOT MISLEADING

Poor:

ABSTRACT:

THE MOST TRUTH IN THE LEAST SPACE

JOT-ACS: 300 word limit, structured for original research

Introduction: include hypothesis

Methods: limit verbiage

Results: clear

Conclusion: do not overstate

Level of Evidence: include if clinical

Key Words: 3-5, do not duplicate title

INTRODUCTION:

WHY SHOULD I READ THIS PAPER?

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Known information

Knowledge gap

Hypothesis

METHODS & RESULTS

Methods:

• Systematic

• Use SDC if complex

• Include

comprehensive

biostatistics

Results:

• Logical order

• Use figures for key

data

• Do not include

discussion

DISCUSSION:

CONVINCE THE READER

Discussion should convince the reader to file the paper

One sentence: Reiterate study hypothesis

Summarize: 3 key findings (“chunking”)

Justification: How did the study bridge the

existing knowledge gap?

Study limitations: What are the potential issues?

Concluding paragraph: Take-home message !!!

MANUSCRIPT

SUBMISSION &

THE EDITORIAL

PROCESS

JL Crebs No disclosures

EDITORIAL PROCESS

Submission Editorial

assessment Decline

External peer review

Editorial decision

Decline

Revision requested

Accept

INITIAL SUBMISSION

Pre

-su

bm

iss

ion

ch

ec

k

NO

Initial technical check Editorial office checks general formatting

against Journal requirements.

Submission complete?

Author addresses issues &

resubmits

YES

Manuscript number assigned Authors receive email with ms #;

paper sent to editor.

Author submits manuscript

FIRST REVIEW

Init

ial

pe

er

re

vie

w

Paper sent out for review Paper sent to at least two reviewers.

Reviewer #1

Reviewer #2

Editor makes first decision When reviews complete, editor prompted to make a decision.

Accept†

Paper immediately

enters production.

Provisional Accept Paper

returned to authors for

minor revision.

Major Revision

Paper returned to authors for revision of

specific points.

Reject Paper not eligible for publication –

returned to authors for submission

elsewhere.

† Acceptance after first review is rare…

Statistical editor*

Marginal Paper returned to authors for

extensive revision with

the addition of significant new

data.

* If recommended, Journal biostatistician

will also review.

REVISION CHECKLIST

Good time to upload all copyright forms

Itemize all responses to reviewers in cover letter… if you disagree with suggestion, address but don’t ignore!

Two manuscript files required: one clean, one with changes highlighted or tracked.

Need more words? Cite previously-described methods or place online (SDC)

Ensure clinical trial IDs, public dataset locations, IACUC, and IRB protocol numbers are available.

Plagiarism, duplicate publication, and image manipulation must be addressed before review.

Author Instructions: http://edmgr.ovid.com/jt/accounts/ifauth.htm

REVISION REVIEW

Revision technical check Editorial office checks formatting, overlap, image quality,

reporting, and responses to reviewers.

Submission complete?

Author addresses issues & resubmits

YES

Manuscript sent to statistical editor

NO

Revision statistically acceptable?

NO

Great! To the editor…

YES

Back to original

reviewers

Author submits revision

Decision to

authors

Editor may make final decision with or

without recourse to original reviewers.

REVIEWING

FOR THE

JOURNAL

SR Shackford No disclosures

Recent phenomenon: rare before 1950

Few Journals

NIH expanded funding 1940→research

“Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff.”

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

PEER REVIEW

Peer review should: Serve the editor AND the author(s): critical and

constructive

Prevent the publication of bad work

Poorly conceived, designed or executed

No flaws in design or methodology

Ensure that the results have been interpreted correctly

Select work that will be of greatest interest to the readership

Improve the quality and readability of the publication

Strunk and White (rule #17)

PEER REVIEW