Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
“Pearls” For Getting Published
In A Peer Reviewed Journal
Hillard M. Lazarus, MD
The George & Edith Richman Professor and
...
PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
Approach
• Identify target journal: be realistic but “aim higher”
• rejections often improve quality
•...
PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
Approach (con’t)
• Abstract: usually too long (250 words optimal)
• “Prose” versus sub-headings; do no...
PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
Approach (con’t)
• Results:
• frequently too short
• too many tables: redundant with text; combine tab...
PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
Approach (con’t)
• Counsel
• seek out expert counsel: “unofficial review”
• intra-institutional, i.e. ...
PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
BEST OF LUCK
WITH YOUR SUBMISSIONS
“Pearls” For Getting Published In A Peer Reviewed Journal
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

“Pearls” For Getting Published In A Peer Reviewed Journal

188 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

“Pearls” For Getting Published In A Peer Reviewed Journal

  1. 1. “Pearls” For Getting Published In A Peer Reviewed Journal Hillard M. Lazarus, MD The George & Edith Richman Professor and Distinguished Scientist in Cancer Research Director of Novel Cell Therapy University Hospitals Case Medical Center Case Western Reserve University
  2. 2. PUBLISHING “PEARLS” Approach • Identify target journal: be realistic but “aim higher” • rejections often improve quality • strongly consider reviewer comments (but not always) • Format • verify guidelines; journals differ • errors upset many reviewers • examine manuscripts published in that journal • Avoid common errors!
  3. 3. PUBLISHING “PEARLS” Approach (con’t) • Abstract: usually too long (250 words optimal) • “Prose” versus sub-headings; do not overstate findings • when possible, provide specifics, not generalities • Introduction: usually too long: optimal 1 – 1 ½ pages • set the stage; end with “tantalizing” phrase • “tell them what you are going to tell them” • Methods/Patients: often poorly organized and superficial • logical listing • include institutions, years, IRB & consent, reagents, etc • Be careful with statistical section; involve experts
  4. 4. PUBLISHING “PEARLS” Approach (con’t) • Results: • frequently too short • too many tables: redundant with text; combine tables • Discussion • Begin with most important finding(s) • Avoid “this is the first…”; use “this is one of the first…” • Follow with literature review but how your data differ • NEVER use “we confirmed”; avoid “me, too” • NEVER use “… trended to significance” (p=0.08) • Just as easily trended away than towards significance
  5. 5. PUBLISHING “PEARLS” Approach (con’t) • Counsel • seek out expert counsel: “unofficial review” • intra-institutional, i.e. your center or neighboring center • friends, colleagues, national experts • request less formal feedback to ease “burden” • “Partner”: do not be afraid to add authors who help
  6. 6. PUBLISHING “PEARLS” BEST OF LUCK WITH YOUR SUBMISSIONS

×