As an EMWA member, you probably reckon you're pretty good at writing.
Well, this is an advantage when it comes to preparing publications,
but it's not the whole story. Peer-reviewed journals have their own
rules and conventions, and you need to understand them. One difference
from regulatory writing is that you do not have a captive audience.
If you want to get published, you must first persuade the reviewers
and editor to accept your work. So, here is a 10-point plan to help
you get published. Please note that although I have used the term
"author" for simplicity, many of the roles could apply to
professional writers or author's editors.
1. Choose the right journal
Consider the implications of your research, your intended audience
and the message you want to communicate. Ask colleagues which journals
they read and respect. Browse back-issues to understand the journal's
scope. Check that the format you have chosen is acceptable (e.g.,
don't send a review to a journal that only publishes original research).
2. Keep the journal and your intended audience in
mind as you write
Ask yourself, "Why would these people want to read my paper?"
Check for specific instructions about length and format and stick
to these.
3. When you've finished writing, read the Instructions
to Authors again
Few things exasperate editors more than authors who ignore their instructions.
Although ground-breaking findings are unlikely to be rejected because
of a few typos, paying attention to detail usually pays off. The CONSORT
guidelines provide an excellent checklist for the components of randomised
trial reports and many journals ask authors to adhere to these. Get
the latest version from www.consort-statement.org.
4. Start gathering the things you need for the submission
package as soon as possible
By the time you come to submitting a paper, you will either be fed
up after umpteen revisions or facing a deadline. Either way you will
want to submit as quickly as possible. Check the items you will need
(such as authors' signatures, copyright permissions) and have them
ready at the pre-final draft stage to avoid last-minute stress.
5. Remember what the reviewers and editors will have
to do
Most journals want everything double-spaced with wide margins on numbered
pages. This is to help reviewers and technical editors mark their
suggestions and queries on the paper.
6. Facilitate masked review
Put author details on a separate title page (start the abstract on
the next page). Do not include authors' names in headers, footers
or file names. This will assist journals that remove author details
before sending papers to reviewers.
7. Write a good covering letter
8. Submit your paper
But only after having read the Instructions to Authors yet again to
check that you've included all the bits and pieces.
9. Wait!
Journals usually acknowledge receipt of submissions and may assign
a reference number for further correspondence. Once you have received
this acknowledgement, all you can do is wait. A few journals (notably
the pay journals and electronic ones) aim to make a decision in a
couple of weeks. For the rest, decision-making usually takes from
3 to 6 months.
Four things can happen to your submission:
If your submission is rejected
Read the reviewers' or editor's comments carefully after the initial
disappointment has worn off. Put them away for a couple of days, then
read them again and decide, with your co-authors, whether to change
the paper.
Re-submitting to the same journal is not usually worthwhile. However,
if you feel your paper has been completely misunderstood, or you are
able to answer major criticisms, it may be worth appealing against
a decision. In most cases, though, it is better to submit elsewhere.
If you get a conditional acceptance
Virtually all acceptances are conditional on the authors responding
to the reviewers' comments. Remember that you do not have to make
all the changes the reviewers suggest, but you do have to answer all
their concerns. If you are unwilling to change something, you must
give convincing reasons.
After you have revised your manuscript, prepare a response describing
what you have done. If reviewers number their comments, use this system
for your response. If you have rejected a suggestion, give the reasons.
If you come across errors or feel inspired to make changes not suggested
by the reviewers, you should identify these in the response. In most
cases, editors are happy to accept these, since it is easier to make
changes at this stage than after typesetting. However, if you have
had a conditional acceptance, count your blessings and don't rewrite
your paper completely.
Some journals return revised papers to the reviewers, in other cases
the editor decides whether the paper is now acceptable. Sometimes
journals send papers to another reviewer, e.g., a statistician. Whichever
applies, you will get a response to your revised submission. In some
cases, you will be asked to make further changes. The same rules apply.
When the paper is acceptable to the journal, you will get a final
acceptance letter. Keep this in case you want to cite your work elsewhere
before it is published, since many journals require evidence that
a paper is "in press".
If you get an unconditional acceptance
CELEBRATE!
10. After your paper has been accepted
The next time you see your paper will be as proofs, but before it
is typeset it will undergo technical editing. Editors of specialist
journals may do this themselves, but in larger establishments this
is done by sub-editors who are experts in preparing papers for printing
and good at picking up errors and inconsistencies, and putting things
into house style.
Journals usually expect a rapid response to proofs, so make sure you
keep the editor informed of any changes to the corresponding author's
contact details. You can usually mark all changes on the proofs but
it may sometimes help to add a covering letter.
After you have returned the corrected proofs, sit back and wait for
publication day. Or start writing your next paper!
This article is based on a chapter that will appear
in: Wager E, Jefferson T & Godlee F (2002). Peer Review: A Survival
Guide for Healthcare Professionals, BMJ Books, London (due to be published
Q1 2002)
Liz Wager
Publication Consultant
Sideview Cottage
Station Road
Princes Risborough
Bucks, HP27 9DE, UK
liz@sideview.demon.co.uk
