Developments in technology carry within themselves both challenges and opportunity. At times, they also lead to unexpected problems, which may require a journal editor to establish new parameters to aid in resolving those problems. While I have written in the past about letters to the editor,1 the preparation of tables and figures,2 and the change to structured abstracts,3., 4. changes in the use of computer technology and typesetting have made it necessary to revisit and provide additional guidance on these topics.
The need to do so is driven by one simple factor. The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) receives far more papers each year than it can publish. Even with a growing rejection rate, we are accepting more papers each year than we have space to publish; thus, the backlog of papers has grown and at times may exceed 12 months. What may not be understood is that we have only a specific number of pages we can print each year; exceeding that number adds substantial significant cost to the expenses for that year. We are, therefore, quite careful in how we edit and format papers for publication; we are not just editing but are keeping an eye on meeting page counts per issue.
What this means is that brevity is appreciated. While I have never implemented a page limitation to what is published in JMPT, I am always cognizant of ensuring that a paper says only what it has to say and no more. In addition, we have made changes in the internal layout of the journal, and this was done to help free up additional space. While it is a nice problem to have too many papers rather than too few, no journal editor wants to see good research wait an excessive length of time before publication. Good science demands timeliness. While I can leave it to JMPT readers to take this message to heart, a few areas require more than just a simple reminder, since the exact problem may not be clear to anyone but an editor or typesetter. There is a need to look once again at letters to the editor, tables and figures, and abstracts.
Letters to the Editor
As noted in the JMPT “Instructions to Authors,” letters to the editor are “communications that are directed specifically to the editor that critically assess some aspect of the JMPT, particularly as such assessment may add to, clarify, or point up a deficiency in a recently published paper; authors are afforded the privilege of a response.” Current information contained in the JMPT instructions do not provide information as to any limitations on the length of a letter to the editor. We have in the past published a number of letters to the editor that are essentially manuscript length. We can no longer do so.
In making this decision, I examined the letters policy at a number of important journals. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association notes the following stipulations: that a letter has the best success of acceptance if it is received within 4 weeks of an article's publication and must be limited to 400 words and no more than 5 references.5 The British Medical Journal offers the same criteria.6 The Annals of Internal Medicine limits letters to no more than 300 words, no more than 3 authors, and no more than 5 references.7 Other medical journals are similar in their requirements. These policies ensure that information regarding a paper is addressed in both a timely and a concise nature. I have had letters to the editor arrive many months after the publication of the paper in question. These have all been summarily returned to the writer. But it bears repeating the point that a letter must be timely. While due to our publication schedule a 4-week deadline would not work, given that we publish 9 issues per year and foreign readers may not receive their journal for several weeks, I still must insist on timely submission of a letter. And I am now instituting a limit on the length of letters to the JMPT of 500 words and 8 references. To be blunt, we need space to get more papers into print. Letters currently in the queue for publication will be printed as they were submitted and edited, but all future letters must follow these requirements.
Tables and Figures
The ease with which all of us have become comfortable with page-making programs for the computer means we no longer need to rely on others to make tables and figures for our papers. Digital photography has allowed us to take our own photographs and insert them into our papers, but few of us consider the layout and typesetting needs of the journal when we do so. There are some cautions that must be noted. An easy one is that if you are using digital photography, be sure your image is clean and is at a high dpi—300 for gray scale images, such as radiographs, and 1000 for line art, such as charts and graphs. Combination images, such as gray scale with text, should be at least 600 dpi. While figures may look acceptable on the computer screen at a lower dpi, the resolution required for print is much greater.
It may surprise the reader to know that a hard-copy proof is still required, even when the image is sent digitally. The electronic format for saving that image is critical as well. The only formats acceptable for electronic submission to the publisher are Encapsulated Postscript (EPS) and Tagged Image File Format (TIFF), which should also be of the proper dpi. Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) images are unusable and will be returned.
When creating charts and graphs, consider the space required to reproduce them. A larger image will require reduction—often problematic when the image is large but the type size is small. Keep in mind the size of the journal page when creating your image. An image that is no larger than necessary, with small but readable type, will not require reduction and will save space.
Normal typesetting of tables does not include the insertion of graphic elements. When tables contain elements such as shaded rows and columns or arrows, they should be submitted as figures so the graphic elements can be captured through scanning. In these cases, the tables will be reproduced exactly as is, or at a relative reduction.
All figures should be labeled appropriately and checked for spelling errors and consistency with the text so that late corrections are not necessary. Art should be ready for publication as is.
Lengthy tables and appendices will be considered for online-only publication to save room in the print journal. In these cases, reference to the journal website is made in the print issue for that image or text item.
Abstracts
The issue here is quite simple. Structured abstracts require more space than did the older prose abstracts. Given the design layout for JMPT, an abstract that exceeds a standard word count can easily end up taking up the entire first page of an article, requiring us to begin the actual Introduction to the paper on the second page of the journal. I have seen a growth in the length of abstracts over the past few years. Partly, this is due to the fact that many papers are initially prepared for presentation at scientific symposia and conferences, where the length requirements may be very different than for a scientific journal. Indeed, it is common for conference organizers to ask for expanded abstracts. Once the paper is then later prepared for publication, the original abstract is submitted and it is vastly too long for publication.
Abstracts should be limited to 250 words, no more. If one looks over the original recommendations about structured abstracts,8 there is no provision in these recommendations for the use of a section entitled “Background.” The standard methodology proposed the use of “Objective,” “Subjects,” “Setting,” and so on—but not “Background.” This seems to be a later development, and I have been unable to determine when it started or where. In principal, this is a fine idea; this little addition to the abstract provides a context for the reader. In practice, it just adds more words, and the context is already far more fully described in the Introduction to the paper. When faced with the need to edit an abstract for brevity, this is where I start; I eliminate the Background first so that I preserve the information that must be in the abstract.
Editors need to balance clarity and brevity, not an easy task. But editors are editors. Authors also have a responsibility when submitting material, first and foremost of which is to follow the instructions for authors. We editors can help make your writing better and help get your ideas across to readers, but the more you help at the outset, the better for everyone it is.
In closing, I would also like to acknowledge the help of Mary Dix, production manager par excellence at Mosby, whose advice comprises much of the information contained in the material above pertaining to tables and figures.
FULL TEXT