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