Editorial Evaluation of Manuscripts Thomas S. Rieg, PhD Head – Clinical Investigation Department Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, VA.

Editorial Evaluation of Manuscripts

Thomas S. Rieg, PhDHead – Clinical Investigation Department

Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, VA

Acknowledgments

“Evaluating Manuscripts: An Editor’s Perspective” by

Dr. Myron Eisenberg, VA Medical Center, Hampton, VA

All the journals that have rejected my papers in the past

Objectives

Designed for those thinking about writing an article for publication in a professional journal

Editor’s perspective someone who reviews manuscripts and

determines “accepted,” “returned for revision,” or “rejected”

Help avoid certain pitfalls leading to rejections

Several Sections

1. “Common Manuscript Flaw” describes problems leading to “revise and resubmit” or “reject”

2. “Elements of the Perfect Manuscript” things that reviewers and editors look for

3. “Lethal Flaws” which will lead to an editorial decision to reject the paper

4. qualities of the “Perfect Author”

At the conclusion should be aware of what not to include as well as what to include in your manuscript

Three Types of Journals

1. Refereed Journals use reviewers to determine the suitability and adequacy of papers

2. Non-Refereed Journal, do not use a review process

Typically the journal’s editor makes this decision by him or herself

3. Cost per page Journal

Refereed vs. Non-Refereed Journal

Non-refereed journal may be acceptable and even advisable for the first time or novice author

The quality of refereed journal invariably of higher Manuscript submission ALWAYS is improved as a

result of critical review. Having your work critically examined by your peers

can be a threatening experience it is ultimately a worthwhile one one which will ultimately improve the submission a piece of work that will carry YOUR name on it

From Manuscript to Article

Submit Manuscript to Journal Editor Editor or Peer Review Changes by Author Resubmit to Journal Copy Editor Print Editor - proof

Nine Common Manuscript Flaws

1 - Inadequate Review of the Literature

Manuscript presents an inadequate review of the literature even though the research itself is highly relevant to the

subject area Not necessary that a review of the literature contain

a copious review of all literature It is important to cite major directly relevant studies

particularly recent vintage

Post-hoc Literature review is Possible

2 - Inappropriate Citations

The citations refer to studies which are largely irrelevant to the research

Citations are falsely used to support research findings

Occasionally errors of this type are correctable

 If the citation problems are pervasive the manuscript is likely to be rejected

3 - Unclear Introductory Section

Introduction sections which are fairly obscure Commonly mention studies which are not directly

relevant to the issues advanced Highlighting variables which cannot be found in the

methodology section The purpose of the Introduction is to let the reader

know what will be studied and why Hourglass Analogy

The Introduction Section can be Rewritten

4 - Unclear Research Question

Not describing the methodology in sufficient detail Methodology should be specific enough that it could be

replicated based on the information given

The reviewer should not have to wonder about exactly how the study was conducted

The sequence of events in conducting the study is unclear

Again, Rewriting will be Necessary

5 - Measures Inadequately Described

Relates to unclear methodology happens frequently enough to merit separate mention

Insufficient information regarding the measures used or collected makes it difficult for the reviewer to make a final

judgment regarding publishability

Adding Descriptions will be Suggested

6 - Unclear Analysis

The analysis used in evaluating the data sometimes is not explained clearly, For example, multiple regression analysis frequently do

not provide information regarding the order in which the variables entered the regression equation

Such shortcomings, while annoying, often are correctable

7 - Inappropriate Statistical Techniques.

The author must use appropriate analysis techniques

Research studies sometimes use analyses, which are incorrect for the type of data

Parametric tests are used with ordinal data Analysis may be inappropriate

a more suitable or powerful type of analysis might be the substitution i.e., a MANOVA or ANOVA when the data contain multiple

related dependent variables.

8 - Poorly Conceived Discussion.

Discussion section, which Wanders makes dubious connections to only marginally

related research just rehashes the results section

Usually involves major Investment to rectify 

9 – Length or Brevity

A manuscript can be rejected or returned for revision if it is too lengthy especially when the subject matter doesn’t

support the paper’s length

Usually returned with directions to shorten it often with a specific number of pages

Shorten or Expand as Requested

Elements of the Perfect Manuscript

The Perfect Manuscript

The perfect manuscript is well organized logical thought processes by the author

Communicates to readers what the author understands about the research

must be told coherently to the readers

The Perfect Manuscript

The manuscript should try to: address readers’ alternate hypotheses and

interpretations of the results defend the form of the questions asked consider other forms of the questions marshal support for the author’s choice

of hypotheses, methods, and interpretation of results

The Perfect Manuscript

Written in English not pseudo-scientific jargon.

Some specialized words are needed in some circumstances most ideas and procedures can be described well in

English

The Perfect Manuscript

Begins with an appropriate review of the literature General principles always to be followed are that

1. the literature cited should represent the background for the research

2. the literature cited should not be selectively biased towards the author’s hypotheses

The Perfect Manuscript

Uses appropriately sophisticated statistical analyses Overkill side

use of elaborate ANOVA designs and analyses with too few subjects

Naïve side use of many univariate comparisons when a single,

multivariate procedure would serve far better

The Perfect Manuscript

Makes appropriate claims for the scope and importance of the research

exaggerated claims for the generality of results and their importance for the field

To be publishable, a piece of research does not have to revolutionize and area, just make a contribution to its development

Four Lethal Flaws Leading to Rejection

1 - Inappropriate topic for the Journal

Domains of subject matter which they consider appropriate for their particular publication

Frequently domains are stated in a policy statement in the journal usually appears on the inside front or back cover or in the first

several pages of the journal

Best way to get a feel for appropriate subject matter is to examine issues of the journal spanning two or more years

When a topic is inappropriate, the editor will immediately reject the manuscript

2 - Outdated research question

Address an issue with little or no reference to or consideration of relevant previous literature

Such research often is not offered as a replication or extension of previous research; rather, it is presented as if it were a unique approach

It is rejected because it adds little to what is already known

3 - Measures of unknown validity or reliability

Use of measures that apparently were constructed for the particular research but provide no basis for establishing the validity and/or reliability of such measures

Frequently even the theoretical rationale is not established in the manuscript

Such measures usually are difficult to accept and the paper is rejected

4 - Faulty research design

The research described has not been designed appropriately to test the hypotheses

Manuscript is automatically rejected in that there is no way to correct this error

The Perfect Author

Qualities of the Perfect Author?

Must anticipate and accept rejections Most manuscripts are initially rejected It is critical to an author’s personal adjustment that

they anticipate this outcome for initial submissions

Qualities of the Perfect Author?

Must be able to defend his or her point of view It is possible that paper was sent to the wrong

journal Can write to the editor and appeal the decision

with a well-reasoned response Not very helpful to accuse the editor or the

reviewers of malevolence

Qualities of the Perfect Author?

Flexible about making revisions that do not substantially alter the thrust of the manuscript

Qualities of the Perfect Author?

Brave enough to consult with colleagues before submission

Much grief and rejections would be modified if more authors got criticisms from their friends and associates before asking for a more formal review

Qualities of the Perfect Author?

Persistent in pursuing a line of research Authors need self-confidence to follow their own

best judgment in the research they do not to say that blind ignorance of others’ opinions is

good courage to disagree for a time until the research

develops and the arguments become more persuasive to others is necessary

Qualities of the Perfect Author?

Learns from adversity Previous experience with rejections and revisions

gives knowledge of flaws to avoid and toughens one to future adversities

The End

Questions?

Comments?

Review

Review: Common Manuscript Flaws

1. Inadequate review of the literature2. Inappropriate citations3. Unclear introductory section4. Unclear research question5. Measures inadequately described6. Unclear analysis7. Inappropriate statistical technique

8. Poorly conceived discussion 9. Length of Manuscript

Review: Perfect Manuscript

1. Be well organized2. Communicate to readers3. Address alternate hypotheses and interpretation 4. Marshal support for choice of hypotheses, methods

and interpretation of results5. A minimum of pseudo-scientific jargon 6. Have an appropriate review of the literature 7. Use appropriately sophisticated statistical analyses8. Appropriate claims for the scope and importance of

the research

Review: Lethal Flaws

1. Inappropriate topic for the Journal

2. Outdated research question

3. Use of measures of unknown validity and/or reliability

4. Faulty research design

Review: Perfect Author

1. Ability to anticipate and accept rejection

2. Ability to defend his or her point of view

3. Capacity to remain flexible about making revisions

4. Persistence in pursuing a line of research

5. Ability to learn from adversity