How to Review for JVIR

771 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
771
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

How to Review for JVIR

  1. 1. How to Review (…and Read…and Write)How to Review (…and Read…and Write) Scientific PapersScientific Papers
  2. 2. Peer ReviewPeer Review BackgroundBackground • Editor, Journal of Vascular and InterventionalEditor, Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (since January 2006)Radiology (since January 2006) • Have served as a reviewer for JVIR, AJRHave served as a reviewer for JVIR, AJR (including editorial board), Journal of Clinical(including editorial board), Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, Journal of Interventional RadiologyUltrasound, Journal of Interventional Radiology
  3. 3. Reviewer’s RoleReviewer’s Role • The reviewers are extremely important to anyThe reviewers are extremely important to any journal.journal. • Arbiters of quality of submitted manuscriptsArbiters of quality of submitted manuscripts • Role twofoldRole twofold • Does the manuscript merit publication?Does the manuscript merit publication? • Advisory role: Provide constructive criticism (help make aAdvisory role: Provide constructive criticism (help make a manuscript better)manuscript better) Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
  4. 4. Does a manuscript merit publication?Does a manuscript merit publication? • AcceptAccept • Rare decision, nearly every manuscript could use some workRare decision, nearly every manuscript could use some work • Accept with RevisionAccept with Revision • If authors address queries and criticisms, will generally be acceptedIf authors address queries and criticisms, will generally be accepted • [Conditional Acceptance] (Editor only)[Conditional Acceptance] (Editor only) • Will accept but authors MUST address certain key issuesWill accept but authors MUST address certain key issues • Reject Request ResubmissionReject Request Resubmission • Not suitable now, and may not ever be, but could be worth a secondNot suitable now, and may not ever be, but could be worth a second look--undergoes repeat formal peer reviewlook--undergoes repeat formal peer review • RejectReject • Poor science, report without value, redundant or duplicatePoor science, report without value, redundant or duplicate publication, “me too” reports, clear bias, too esoteric even for labpublication, “me too” reports, clear bias, too esoteric even for lab rats, or good/great paper but wrong audiencerats, or good/great paper but wrong audience
  5. 5. Peer ReviewPeer Review • Caveat: the tips and suggestions I willCaveat: the tips and suggestions I will bring up are based on my own personalbring up are based on my own personal preferences and biases, and these maypreferences and biases, and these may not be applicable to all journalsnot be applicable to all journals
  6. 6. Common Sense RulesCommon Sense Rules • Be polite. Avoid insults, sarcasm, demeaningBe polite. Avoid insults, sarcasm, demeaning statements (the Editor will generally removestatements (the Editor will generally remove these anyway)these anyway) • If there is something that the reviewer feelsIf there is something that the reviewer feels needs to be transmitted to the Editor but notneeds to be transmitted to the Editor but not the authors, there is generally a “commentsthe authors, there is generally a “comments to Editor” boxto Editor” box • Direct comments to “the authors” or evenDirect comments to “the authors” or even better “the manuscript” (I avoid “you”better “the manuscript” (I avoid “you” sentences)sentences) Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
  7. 7. Systematic ApproachSystematic Approach • To what category does the manuscript belong?To what category does the manuscript belong? • Clinical StudyClinical Study • Laboratory StudyLaboratory Study • Brief ReportBrief Report • Letter to the EditorLetter to the Editor • Other (special communication, standards, editorial,Other (special communication, standards, editorial, etc.)etc.) • Is there potential for reviewer bias (positive orIs there potential for reviewer bias (positive or negative)?negative)? • Does the reviewer have sufficient expertise for thisDoes the reviewer have sufficient expertise for this topic? nb: to me this is important, but NOT criticaltopic? nb: to me this is important, but NOT critical • Does the reviewer have time to do the review?Does the reviewer have time to do the review? Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
  8. 8. How to “Read” a ManuscriptHow to “Read” a Manuscript • No set right answer, depends on your styleNo set right answer, depends on your style • Many do a quick survey (e.g. read abstract,Many do a quick survey (e.g. read abstract, skim remainder) to start to address theskim remainder) to start to address the following generaly questionsfollowing generaly questions • Why are the authors reporting this? What was theirWhy are the authors reporting this? What was their intent?intent? • Is the topic of interest to readers of the journal?Is the topic of interest to readers of the journal? • Does the study try to answer important questionsDoes the study try to answer important questions that have not been answered adequately?that have not been answered adequately? Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
  9. 9. How to Review A ManuscriptHow to Review A Manuscript • As an Editor I prefer a structured, numbered approachAs an Editor I prefer a structured, numbered approach • Highlight very important points with asterisksHighlight very important points with asterisks • [Brief Summary][Brief Summary] • General commentsGeneral comments • Section by Section Review (Title, Abstract, Introduction,Section by Section Review (Title, Abstract, Introduction, M&M, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, Tables,M&M, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, Tables, Figures/Illustrations/Graphs and Legends, References)Figures/Illustrations/Graphs and Legends, References) • Summary: Why you feel this article should beSummary: Why you feel this article should be accepted/revised/rejectedaccepted/revised/rejected **Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
  10. 10. Peer ReviewPeer Review • The most important criteria areThe most important criteria are 1.1. The importance of the study or reportThe importance of the study or report to the existing body of knowledgeto the existing body of knowledge 2.2. The scientific merit of the studyThe scientific merit of the study
  11. 11. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript Section by SectionSection by Section • (Title)(Title) • AbstractAbstract • IntroductionIntroduction • Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods • Combined with Results for Brief ReportsCombined with Results for Brief Reports • ResultsResults • DiscussionDiscussion • Figures/GraphsFigures/Graphs • TablesTables • ReferencesReferences Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
  12. 12. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript TitleTitle • Should truly reflect purpose and findings ofShould truly reflect purpose and findings of studystudy • Not too longNot too long • Watch abbreviationsWatch abbreviations
  13. 13. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript AbstractAbstract • The summary of the manuscript’s most important featuresThe summary of the manuscript’s most important features • For many readers, this is the ONLY part that they will read.For many readers, this is the ONLY part that they will read. • Therefore, the abstract should be able to stand alone as aTherefore, the abstract should be able to stand alone as a summary of the worksummary of the work • Ideally, should contain a well-articulated purpose andIdeally, should contain a well-articulated purpose and hypothesis (not just “report our experience with…”)hypothesis (not just “report our experience with…”)
  14. 14. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript AbstractAbstract • Purpose (avoid vague objectives)Purpose (avoid vague objectives) • Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods • ResultsResults • ConclusionConclusion
  15. 15. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript AbstractAbstract • There should be no major discrepancies between theThere should be no major discrepancies between the body of the paper and the Abstract!body of the paper and the Abstract! • The most important features of each section shouldThe most important features of each section should be the focus of the Abstractbe the focus of the Abstract • There are word count limits to the Abstract for eachThere are word count limits to the Abstract for each type of manuscript--should not be overly lengthytype of manuscript--should not be overly lengthy
  16. 16. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript AbstractAbstract • Purpose should mirror end of IntroductionPurpose should mirror end of Introduction • Actual data with P values should be included in Results asActual data with P values should be included in Results as appropriateappropriate • Conclusions should be justified by and follow directly fromConclusions should be justified by and follow directly from Methods and Results and NOT simply be a reiteration ofMethods and Results and NOT simply be a reiteration of ResultsResults • Conclusions should not be overstated, esp. on the basis of aConclusions should not be overstated, esp. on the basis of a small number of patients and observationssmall number of patients and observations
  17. 17. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript IntroductionIntroduction • Explains, via background information, why theExplains, via background information, why the authors bothered to perform the studyauthors bothered to perform the study • Should be brief (save rest for Discussion)Should be brief (save rest for Discussion) • What is the rationale of the study?What is the rationale of the study? • Show that an important problem or question existsShow that an important problem or question exists • Show that prior published work has failed to adequatelyShow that prior published work has failed to adequately address the problemaddress the problem • What are the goals of the study?What are the goals of the study? • Introduce any unusual terms used for the studyIntroduce any unusual terms used for the study • Make sure all data/claims referencedMake sure all data/claims referenced
  18. 18. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods • The “blueprint” of the study (What subjects wereThe “blueprint” of the study (What subjects were included? How was the study performed?)included? How was the study performed?) • Should give sufficient information to allow anotherShould give sufficient information to allow another investigator to repeat the studyinvestigator to repeat the study • Also provides an outline of statistical methodsAlso provides an outline of statistical methods used, if appropriateused, if appropriate • Give definitions (e.g. outcomes measures such asGive definitions (e.g. outcomes measures such as patency results)patency results)
  19. 19. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods • Subsection headings may be useful for major papersSubsection headings may be useful for major papers (Patient group, technique,(Patient group, technique, study endpoints and definitionsstudy endpoints and definitions,, statistical analysis)statistical analysis) • Patient group: demographics, comorbidities, proof ofPatient group: demographics, comorbidities, proof of disease, etc. Technically, for prospective studies, should bedisease, etc. Technically, for prospective studies, should be in Results, but I (and many others) prefer this in the M&Min Results, but I (and many others) prefer this in the M&M anyway for readability/clarity/flow of the paper.anyway for readability/clarity/flow of the paper. • Make sure numbers add up (here and in results)Make sure numbers add up (here and in results) • IRB approval or equivalent (or statement that it is notIRB approval or equivalent (or statement that it is not necessary at the authors’ institution for this type of study)necessary at the authors’ institution for this type of study)
  20. 20. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods • Details of imaging techniques may be important; routineDetails of imaging techniques may be important; routine steps of procedures generally aren’t, but be sure there is nosteps of procedures generally aren’t, but be sure there is no question regarding major technical aspects esp. if unusualquestion regarding major technical aspects esp. if unusual or importantor important • There should be corporate attribution for devices, etc.There should be corporate attribution for devices, etc. • Complications should be defined (ideally categorized perComplications should be defined (ideally categorized per SIR standards)SIR standards) • Stats: Worthwhile to develop a working knowledge ofStats: Worthwhile to develop a working knowledge of important statistical testsimportant statistical tests
  21. 21. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript ResultsResults • Should follow directly from the Materials andShould follow directly from the Materials and Methods section (the Materials and MethodsMethods section (the Materials and Methods section should tell what types of Results are to besection should tell what types of Results are to be looked for); no “new” or unanticipated resultslooked for); no “new” or unanticipated results should be presented that don’t follow from the M&Mshould be presented that don’t follow from the M&M • The order of presentation of results should parallelThe order of presentation of results should parallel the order of presentation of the methodsthe order of presentation of the methods • Section headings may be useful if lots of complexSection headings may be useful if lots of complex datadata
  22. 22. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript ResultsResults • Follow guidelines for significant figuresFollow guidelines for significant figures • Patency and survival data should be done byPatency and survival data should be done by Kaplan Meier analysisKaplan Meier analysis
  23. 23. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript DiscussionDiscussion • State whether hypothesis was verified or proven untrue, or (ifState whether hypothesis was verified or proven untrue, or (if no hypothesis) what questions were answered or why theno hypothesis) what questions were answered or why the report is importantreport is important • Should comment as to whether the results are in line withShould comment as to whether the results are in line with prior studies. If not, an attempt should be made to explain theprior studies. If not, an attempt should be made to explain the discrepancies.discrepancies. • Review only those parts of the medical literature relevant toReview only those parts of the medical literature relevant to the study.the study. • Note (preferably in a separate paragraph)Note (preferably in a separate paragraph) limitationslimitations of theof the studystudy • Should have a concluding paragraph that summarizes theShould have a concluding paragraph that summarizes the studystudy
  24. 24. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript Figures and GraphsFigures and Graphs • Should illustrate important features of the methods andShould illustrate important features of the methods and resultsresults • Many authors have trouble limiting figures to those essentialMany authors have trouble limiting figures to those essential for the understanding of the MS--should ask yourselffor the understanding of the MS--should ask yourself whether each figure necessarywhether each figure necessary • Watch for HIPAA issues/patient identifiersWatch for HIPAA issues/patient identifiers • Decide also whether color necessary (color expensive inDecide also whether color necessary (color expensive in print, we can choose color on web, gray scale in print forprint, we can choose color on web, gray scale in print for JVIR)JVIR) • Should be highest possible quality and should have figureShould be highest possible quality and should have figure legends that adequately explain the meaning (supplementedlegends that adequately explain the meaning (supplemented by appropriate arrows)by appropriate arrows)
  25. 25. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript TablesTables • A Table summarizes complex collections of data inA Table summarizes complex collections of data in order to make it more understandable and in orderorder to make it more understandable and in order to allow the reader to more easily maketo allow the reader to more easily make comparisonscomparisons • Tables are not necessary if the information can beTables are not necessary if the information can be adequately presented in the text (the latter isadequately presented in the text (the latter is preferable)preferable)
  26. 26. The Scientific ManuscriptThe Scientific Manuscript ReferencesReferences • Should be timely, accurate, and should follow the journalShould be timely, accurate, and should follow the journal citation formatcitation format • Should support claims made in the text of the manuscriptShould support claims made in the text of the manuscript • The support for the study should be based on evidence thatThe support for the study should be based on evidence that is as strong as possibleis as strong as possible • Evidence given from articles should be cited accurately--inEvidence given from articles should be cited accurately--in other words, the results of other articles should not beother words, the results of other articles should not be misinterpreted to buttress the authors’ casemisinterpreted to buttress the authors’ case • Be sure in journal formatBe sure in journal format
  27. 27. Why Do Articles Get Accepted?Why Do Articles Get Accepted? • The study is considered timely and relevant to aThe study is considered timely and relevant to a current problemcurrent problem • The manuscript is well-written, logical, and easy toThe manuscript is well-written, logical, and easy to comprehendcomprehend • The study is well designed with appropriateThe study is well designed with appropriate methodologymethodology Bordage G, Acad Med 2001
  28. 28. Why Do Articles Get Rejected?Why Do Articles Get Rejected? • Incomplete or insufficiently described statisticsIncomplete or insufficiently described statistics • Overinterpretation of the results (e.g. stating that aOverinterpretation of the results (e.g. stating that a technique is “safe and effective” on the basis of a singletechnique is “safe and effective” on the basis of a single case report)case report) • Suboptimal or insufficiently described means of measuringSuboptimal or insufficiently described means of measuring data (again, could another investigator duplicate the study?)data (again, could another investigator duplicate the study?) • Sample population too small or biasedSample population too small or biased • Text difficult to follow (grammar/syntax vs. complex, highlyText difficult to follow (grammar/syntax vs. complex, highly specialized language insufficiently explained for readers)specialized language insufficiently explained for readers) • Insufficient problem statementInsufficient problem statement Bordage G, Acad Med 2001
  29. 29. How to Get Your Paper PublishedHow to Get Your Paper Published • Assuming that you have a good study, aAssuming that you have a good study, a number of other steps can be taken to helpnumber of other steps can be taken to help improve the likelihood of acceptanceimprove the likelihood of acceptance • Some of these are remarkably easy toSome of these are remarkably easy to implement (yet even more remarkably, oftenimplement (yet even more remarkably, often ignored by authors)ignored by authors)
  30. 30. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Tip 1Tip 1 • Highlight the Importance of theHighlight the Importance of the ManuscriptManuscript
  31. 31. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Highlight the Importance of the ManuscriptHighlight the Importance of the Manuscript • Each acceptable study or report should addEach acceptable study or report should add to the literature in an important and uniqueto the literature in an important and unique way. Don’t make the reviewer guess this.way. Don’t make the reviewer guess this.
  32. 32. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Highlight the Importance of the ManuscriptHighlight the Importance of the Manuscript • Focus the Introduction on the background leadingFocus the Introduction on the background leading to the study and the report, and finish it with a clearto the study and the report, and finish it with a clear statement of purpose, ideally a hypothesis.statement of purpose, ideally a hypothesis. • Focus the Discussion on an explanation of why theFocus the Discussion on an explanation of why the conclusions and the purpose served by theconclusions and the purpose served by the manuscript are valuable, and place this explanationmanuscript are valuable, and place this explanation in the context of pre-existing literature (Does itin the context of pre-existing literature (Does it corroborate existing literature, perhaps makingcorroborate existing literature, perhaps making certain conclusions more firm? Does it refutecertain conclusions more firm? Does it refute existing literature? If so, why?)existing literature? If so, why?)
  33. 33. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Highlight the Importance of the ManuscriptHighlight the Importance of the Manuscript • Avoid direct statements of primacy (“This is the first reportAvoid direct statements of primacy (“This is the first report of…” or “This has not previously been described…”).of…” or “This has not previously been described…”). • Statements of primacy are difficult to sustain.Statements of primacy are difficult to sustain. • Statements of primacy add little to a manuscript otherwiseStatements of primacy add little to a manuscript otherwise deemed worthy of publication.deemed worthy of publication. • Statements of primacy sometimes border on the absurdStatements of primacy sometimes border on the absurd (“This is the first description of percutaneous biopsy of a(“This is the first description of percutaneous biopsy of a left patellar angiosarcoma in a 41 year old commercialleft patellar angiosarcoma in a 41 year old commercial fisherman”)fisherman”)
  34. 34. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Highlight the Importance of the ManuscriptHighlight the Importance of the Manuscript • Avoid statements of purpose that simply reiterateAvoid statements of purpose that simply reiterate what you are describing. E.g. “We describe ourwhat you are describing. E.g. “We describe our experience with the Ultimate Stent”. Add aexperience with the Ultimate Stent”. Add a statement that describes why the reader shouldstatement that describes why the reader should care about your experience with the “Ultimatecare about your experience with the “Ultimate Stent”Stent”
  35. 35. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Tip 2Tip 2 • Follow Directions!Follow Directions!
  36. 36. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Follow DirectionsFollow Directions • Each scientific journal has very clearly articulatedEach scientific journal has very clearly articulated “Instructions to Authors”“Instructions to Authors” • Such instructions detail the types of articles aSuch instructions detail the types of articles a journal considers, the acceptable format for suchjournal considers, the acceptable format for such articles, and the content requirements for thearticles, and the content requirements for the individual sections of the articles.individual sections of the articles.
  37. 37. Types of ManuscriptsJVIR publishes several types of articles, each of which has a distinct format. Clinical and Laboratory Investigations are the central focus of the Journal and are based on original clinical or experimental studies. The complete format is described below. Brief Reports include descriptions of a new or modified interventional procedure or device and small clinical studies or case reports. A brief one paragraph abstract (less than 100 words) should be included. In general, limit the paper to six pages of text, 15 references, and no more than eight figure parts. Review Articles are generally invited by the Editor. Specific instructions are provided at the time of invitation. Letters to the Editor can be used to offer commentary on any material published in JVIR. Letters may also be used to convey material of more general interest to the interventional radiology community. On occasion, the Editor may offer such space for submitted case reports that do not receive high enough priority for publication as such. Letters should be no longer than three pages with no more than four references. Only one figure (with no more than four figure parts) can be submitted. Letters to the Editor are accepted for publication at the discretion of the Editor and may be copyedited for content and length.
  38. 38. Manuscript PreparationThe preferred word processing program is Microsoft Word. Manuscripts must be written with 12 point font, double-spaced throughout (including tables, references, and figure legends), and have at least 3 cm margins. The text should be ragged right (no right justification). Embedded instructions (eg, italics, underlines, boldface) should not be used or kept to a minimum Do not use coding for centering. Insert only one space after punctuation marks. Sequential page numbering should begin with the text. The order of sections is Abstract, Text, Acknowledgements, References, Tables, and Figure Legends. To ensure blinded peer-review, no direct references to the author(s) or institution of origin should be made anywhere in the text of figures.
  39. 39. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Follow DirectionsFollow Directions • ““Instructions to Authors” also frequently provideInstructions to Authors” also frequently provide additional suggestions for enhancing the value ofadditional suggestions for enhancing the value of submitted manuscriptssubmitted manuscripts • For example: JVIR lists (and gives access to)For example: JVIR lists (and gives access to) published reporting standards that, if relevant topublished reporting standards that, if relevant to the paper, should be followed.the paper, should be followed.
  40. 40. Reporting Standards: In order to assure consistency in reporting of results of clinical research, the Society of Interventional Radiology has developed a number of reporting standards documents that authors should follow when submitting manuscripts for consideration. Links to these documents are given below. Adherence to relevant reporting standards will be taken into account in the review process.
  41. 41. Haskal, Ziv J., Rees, Chet R., Ring, Ernest J., Saxon, Richard, Sacks, David Reporting Standards for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003 14: 419S-426
  42. 42. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Tip 3Tip 3 • Make the manuscript as “readable” as possibleMake the manuscript as “readable” as possible
  43. 43. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Make the Manuscript ReadableMake the Manuscript Readable • Reviewers are only human, and errors in grammar, syntax, and spellingReviewers are only human, and errors in grammar, syntax, and spelling are at the very least frustrating and distracting to the reviewer.are at the very least frustrating and distracting to the reviewer. • In extreme cases, such errors can confuse the message of even theIn extreme cases, such errors can confuse the message of even the most scientifically sound study.most scientifically sound study. • Also, reviewers may assume (rightly or wrongly) that such errors areAlso, reviewers may assume (rightly or wrongly) that such errors are reflective not only of the writing of the manuscript, but the way the studyreflective not only of the writing of the manuscript, but the way the study itself was performed.itself was performed. • Abbreviations should be explained at first “callout” in textAbbreviations should be explained at first “callout” in text • Avoid unconventional abbreviations (abbreviations place the burden ofAvoid unconventional abbreviations (abbreviations place the burden of remembering what they stand for on the reader, and can be extremelyremembering what they stand for on the reader, and can be extremely irritating to the reader)irritating to the reader) • Note: as a reviewer, your choice to point these out, but if there are many,Note: as a reviewer, your choice to point these out, but if there are many, many such errors simply state--multiple errors of grammar and syntaxmany such errors simply state--multiple errors of grammar and syntax
  44. 44. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Make the Manuscript ReadableMake the Manuscript Readable • The problem of readability is particularly relevantThe problem of readability is particularly relevant for authors for whom (at least for JVIR) English isfor authors for whom (at least for JVIR) English is not their native tongue.not their native tongue. • While this problem is completely understandable, aWhile this problem is completely understandable, a good suggestion is to have a colleague fluent ingood suggestion is to have a colleague fluent in English manuscript preparation review theEnglish manuscript preparation review the manuscript prior to submissionmanuscript prior to submission
  45. 45. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Tip 4Tip 4 • Accept Suggestions By Reviewers as Ways toAccept Suggestions By Reviewers as Ways to Improve the ManuscriptImprove the Manuscript
  46. 46. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Accept Suggestions By ReviewersAccept Suggestions By Reviewers • Too often, authors respond to reviewers in an argumentativeToo often, authors respond to reviewers in an argumentative fashion, as if the reviewer were personally attacking them.fashion, as if the reviewer were personally attacking them. “What in the world does this reviewer want???”“What in the world does this reviewer want???” • Be respectful of the reviewers: while they may be mistakenBe respectful of the reviewers: while they may be mistaken in some of their suggestions, most are trying very hard toin some of their suggestions, most are trying very hard to help authors recognize weaknesses in the study and itshelp authors recognize weaknesses in the study and its presentation. Try to respond in a calm, thoughtful fashionpresentation. Try to respond in a calm, thoughtful fashion even if you disagree with a suggestion.even if you disagree with a suggestion.
  47. 47. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Tip 5Tip 5 • Be Succinct!Be Succinct!
  48. 48. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Be SuccinctBe Succinct • Short, concise articles that “stick to the point” areShort, concise articles that “stick to the point” are far easier to read and review than rambling tomesfar easier to read and review than rambling tomes that stray far from the heart of the study.that stray far from the heart of the study. • It is reasonably easy to add material if an editor orIt is reasonably easy to add material if an editor or reviewer believes more detail is necessary.reviewer believes more detail is necessary. • Delete material extremely familiar to journal readersDelete material extremely familiar to journal readers (e.g. explanation of Seldinger technique)(e.g. explanation of Seldinger technique)
  49. 49. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Tip 6Tip 6 • Know the Audience for the Journal You AreKnow the Audience for the Journal You Are Submitting the Manuscript toSubmitting the Manuscript to
  50. 50. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published Know the AudienceKnow the Audience • A superbly written, scientifically sound manuscript may,A superbly written, scientifically sound manuscript may, nevertheless, not be accepted to a particular journal, if thenevertheless, not be accepted to a particular journal, if the subject matter fails to reflect the practice patterns andsubject matter fails to reflect the practice patterns and concerns of the majority of readers.concerns of the majority of readers. • This is a little difficult in some cases for interventionalThis is a little difficult in some cases for interventional radiology, which covers such a broad range of practiceradiology, which covers such a broad range of practice patterns. However, for example, an article on treatingpatterns. However, for example, an article on treating coronary artery disease with drug eluting stents would, incoronary artery disease with drug eluting stents would, in general, be better sent to a journal on coronary interventionsgeneral, be better sent to a journal on coronary interventions than to JVIR.than to JVIR.
  51. 51. How To Get Your Paper PublishedHow To Get Your Paper Published SummarySummary • Timely, relevant, evidence-based scientific studiesTimely, relevant, evidence-based scientific studies that are well designed and well writtenthat are well designed and well written • Highlight the importance of the study or reportHighlight the importance of the study or report • Follow directionsFollow directions • Make the manuscript clear, logical, and easy to readMake the manuscript clear, logical, and easy to read • Be willing to accept reviewers’ suggestions as waysBe willing to accept reviewers’ suggestions as ways to improve the manuscriptto improve the manuscript • Be succinctBe succinct • Know the audienceKnow the audience
  52. 52. Thank You!

×