Abstract
This article reviews common, but avoidable, errors that authors may make when submitting to a health care–focused, biomedical journal (eg, chiropractic, medicine, nursing, and physical therapy). As editors, we offer suggestions for improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, provide suggestions for how to avoid making errors, and recommend effective writing and submission strategies. Common errors in the following sections are discussed: title, abstract, key words, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgments, references, tables, figures, cover letter, format and writing, submission processes, communication with the editor, revision processes, and proof processes. This article includes a checklist that authors may use before submission and that peer reviewers may use for general critique of a manuscript. The goal of this article is to assist authors with successful manuscript submission and eventual publication.
Key Indexing Terms
The dissemination of research findings is crucial to the continued growth of science. Although the submission requirements and peer review processes of indexed journals may seem to be barriers to information dissemination, authors can reduce the likelihood of delays not only by submitting high-quality papers and by following journal instructions but by avoiding common errors. A manuscript submitted to a biomedical journal that is in compliance with the journal's instructions for authors is more likely to move smoothly through the submissions process than one that is rife with errors.
In our roles as journal editors, we have observed mistakes made by authors that heighten the barriers to acceptance. Avoiding common errors could make the submission process easier for authors, regardless of the journal to which they submit their manuscript. Our hope in writing this article is to assist you as an author in a successful submission process. This article identifies the errors that we commonly see as editors and offers solutions to both novice and seasoned authors for how to avoid them.
Discussion
With proper planning and forethought, common errors in manuscripts and submission processes can be avoided. Each set of common errors listed below is followed by solutions and suggestions for preventing these problems. In this discussion, we make the assumption that the study has been completed in an ethical manner, that all scientific procedures have been performed appropriately, and that there are no fatal flaws in the research or study design.
Title
Common errors:
- 1.Is too long or too short
- 2.Does not match the article or study design
- 3.Includes abbreviations, jargon, or attempts to be witty at the expense of clarity
- 4.Inadequately describes the study
Solutions:
Article titles should provide an accurate and succinct description of the contents of the article so that the reader knows exactly what the article contains.
1
, The study design and aim should be understood from simply reading the title. Typically, the title includes key words to assist readers with finding the article. Clever or artistic titles are generally discouraged, as they are often difficult to read, are confusing, and cloud the meaning and focus of the paper.3
, Abstract
Common errors:
- 1.Exceeds the maximum number of words allowed by the journal
- 2.Incorrect format for the journal (eg, unstructured instead of structured)
- 3.Lacks enough detail to accurately summarize the article
- 4.Omits primary findings or highlights inconsequential findings
- 5.Inaccurately reflects the contents of the manuscript or findings of the study
Solutions:
Abstracts should provide the core details of the study so that the reader will know what is contained in the full paper. Although it may be challenging to present succinctly the importance and depth of your research in the word count allowed by a journal, it is largely possible to provide an appropriate summary by following the instructions for authors. These instructions usually describe the format desired, word length, and other pertinent information.
5
Inasmuch as we have brought up the topic of instructions for authors, we should mention that following the journal's instructions for authors can help you avoid errors in all parts of the manuscript. Following the instructions is recommended by many experienced authors and journal editors as essential to successful publication., 6
, 7
, 8
Abstracts help readers find your article. The information in the abstract and the title are entered into computer databases and indexing systems; and therefore, the abstract contents are essential for those conducting literature searches and performing further research.
9
Therefore, you should be sure that your abstract accurately represents the contents of your manuscript. It is recommended that each section of your article is represented in the abstract and that primary reporting guidelines are followed in both the abstract and manuscript (eg, CONSORT, MOOSE, QUOROM, STARD, TREND), delineated in Table 1.Table 1Examples of guidelines and checklists for specific types of research studies
| Guidelines acronym | Guideline name | Description | Web site |
|---|---|---|---|
| AGREE | Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation | Instrument to assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines | http://www.agreecollaboration.org/pdf/agreeinstrumentfinal.pdf |
| ASSERT | A Standard for the Scientific and Ethical Review of Trials | Checklist for research ethics committees to review proposals for randomized controlled clinical trials | http://www.assert-statement.org |
| CONSORT | Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials | A checklist for randomized controlled trials | http://www.consort-statement.org/ |
| MOOSE | Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology | Meta-analyses and systematic reviews of observational studies | http://www.consort-statement.org/mod_product/uploads/MOOSE%20Statement%202000.pdf or http://www.greenjournal.org/misc/moose.pdf |
| PEDro Scale | Physiotherapy Evidence Database | A criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews | http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/scale_item.html |
| QUOROM | Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses | A guideline for systematic reviews of randomized trials | http://www.consort-statement.org/mod_product/uploads/QUOROM%20Statement%201999.pdf or http://www.greenjournal.org/misc/quorom.pdf |
| STARD | Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy | Checklist for accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy | http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/reprint/226/1/24.pdf |
| STARLITE | Sampling strategy, Type of study, Approaches, Range of years, Limits, Inclusion and exclusions, Terms used, Electronic sources | Guideline for reporting of literature searches | http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1629442&blobtype=pdf |
| STROBE | STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology | Checklist for observational studies (eg, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies) | http://www.strobe-statement.org |
| TREND | Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs | A checklist for nonrandomized trials | http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/94/3/361?ijkey=b1509dd44d955fdfb94a289bde01e9cfea874878 |
Key Words
Common errors:
- 1.Key words are not Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
- 2.Wrong MeSH are used; terms do not match content of the paper
Solutions:
MeSH are the cataloging terms used by PubMed that help readers and researchers more easily find your article. Therefore, using the correct key words is vital. To identify which terms are appropriate MeSH, visit the Web site http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=mesh and search for the MeSH that best match your study. It is important for authors to select the correct terms to identify their paper because commonly used words may have different meanings for a particular search engine. For example, searching PubMed with the term CAM may result in articles that are about “CAM 5.2 antigen,” as opposed to “complementary and alternative medicine” or “complementary therapies.” In addition, MeSH such as Physical Therapy, Specialty and Physical Therapy Modalities are distinctly different; so one term should not be used arbitrarily in place of the other. Selecting the appropriate key words will help more readers and researchers access your article.
Introduction
Common errors:
- 1.Contains material that is irrelevant to the purpose of the study
- 2.Does not include background information and foundational research
- 3.Omits or vaguely describes the purpose/hypothesis
- 4.Contains materials that belong in other areas (eg, methods, results, discussion of results)
- 5.Is unnecessarily long
- 6.Contains unsubstantiated statements
Solutions:
The introduction should provide the reader with a brief overview of the topic, a well-referenced and grounded rationale for the study, and the purpose (or hypothesis) for the paper.
10
You should avoid interjecting personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims into this section. The introduction should include the theoretical underpinnings or models for the study, as appropriate for the research purpose or design.6
It is important to provide enough background information to provide context for the study and establish its necessity; however, you should not provide excessive background that would detract from the study or include commentary.11
Although a comprehensive review of the literature is performed to prepare the manuscript, it is important to limit the amount of information in the introduction to what is adequate to familiarize readers with the topic.7
Editors recommend that introductions be short (eg, approximately 3-4 paragraphs in length)., 8
, 10
Summarily, the introductory points should be covered in a few paragraphs, including the purpose/hypothesis, which should lead the reader comfortably to the methods section of your study.Methods Section
Common errors:
- 1.Does not follow current reporting or quality guidelines for study designs (eg, CONSORT, MOOSE, QUOROM, STARD, TREND)
- 2.Does not provide adequate information; the reader would not be able to duplicate the study
- 3.Uses inappropriate statistical methods or poorly reports appropriate statistical methods
- 4.Lacks details of ethical approval or consent (when required)
- 5.Adequate details not provided (eg, manufacturer of apparatus used in the research is not reported, nor are the city and state/country of the manufacturer)
- 6.Fails to declare clinical trial registry in one of the many clinical trial registries available
- 7.Fails to report that human subjects research was reviewed by an appropriate ethics board before the initiation of the study that approval was given to publish a case report
Solutions:
Methods should be written clearly. Methods should follow published study guidelines and the instructions for authors for the journal. Some journals have particular requirements for formatting this section; most journals expect you to use the appropriate reporting format for specific studies, such as clinical trials or systematic reviews.
12
For examples of checklists and guidelines for specific study designs, see Table 1. It is crucial that the methods provide enough detail that another team of researchers could replicate the study., 7
, 8
, 10
, 13
When a study involves human subjects, you must include a statement that demonstrates the research was performed in compliance with commonly required ethical principles and was approved or deemed exempt by an ethics committee/institutional review board.,
6
, 14
It is important to remember that an ethics committee determines if a study involving human subjects data is deemed exempt, not you.8
, 14
For case reports, a signed consent form from the patient or guardian to publish the study is required.3
For studies involving animals, you should state which committee on the use and care of animals approved the experimental protocol before commencement of the study., 13
For clinical trials (recruiting patients on or after July 1, 2005), you should identify that the trial is included in a clinical trial registry.15
, 16
Data safety monitoring should be reported, when applicable.10
, 17
Statistical analyses used to produce the results should be presented clearly.
6
It is sound advice to consult a statistician before commencing with the research project to ensure that the appropriate analyses are used.8
Some suggest that a statistician should review the entire manuscript for clarity of statistical information., 10
In addition, you should refer to the style guide on which the journal is based. For example, the AMA Manual of Style requires that you include the manufacturer information for devices and software used. Therefore, you should include this information in the methods section.18
Results
Common errors:
- 1.Inappropriate or incomplete reporting of data or statistics
- 2.Redundant reporting of findings in the text, tables, and figures
- 3.Commentary, methods, or discussion is included in the results section
- 4.Contains technical jargon that focuses on the statistical function, rather than the results
Solutions:
Results should be clearly reported and stand on their own, without the need for the injection of interpretations or arguments by the author.,
6
As has been suggested by Alexandrov,10
“Make data presentation so clear and simple that a tired person riding late on an airplane can take your manuscript and get the message at first reading.”Findings should be reported in this location of the paper; further results should not meander into the discussion section. You should be thoughtful in selecting the best format to present your data. If data are better presented in a table or figure, this should be done; but do not redundantly report the same information in multiple places, such as text, tables, and figures.
6
, 8
Common statistical reporting standards should be used, such as reporting confidence intervals when appropriate. The best authors are able to present data in a fashion that focuses on the meaning of the results and clearly present the results of statistical functions.7
A useful resource to refer to when writing the results section is How to Report Statistics in Medicine: Annotated Guidelines for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers.19
Discussion
Common errors:
- 1.Includes material that is unrelated to the study and/or interjects irrelevant opinions
- 2.Contains material that is redundant to the introduction or results
- 3.Does not explain how the findings contribute to the larger body of evidence
- 4.Overinterprets findings, making them appear more or less meaningful than they actually are
- 5.Ignores the current body of knowledge in the area of the study
- 6.Does not include a section describing the limitations to the study or uses the limitations section to argue or downplay the limitations that were present
Solutions:
The discussion section helps the reader interpret the study findings and better understand how the new information supports or alters previous knowledge.
13
Important points that emerge from the research should be elaborated upon8
; however, you should not digress and include irrelevant or tangential topics that do not relate to the study's findings or purpose.5
In this section, you have the opportunity to point out the novelty of the study as it relates to previous research.10
The discussion should cogently relate the current findings with other highly relevant publications.7
, 20
Usually, research endeavors unearth or inspire ideas for future studies and you should include these in the discussion. Whether included in the discussion or the conclusion, the statement “more research is necessary” is overused, virtually meaningless, and provides no thoughtful direction as to what research activities should be engaged. If more research is truly needed, the discussion section should provide insightful comments about lessons learned from the current study and what type of future research should be done.
Because no research project is perfect and all studies have limitations, this section should contain a paragraph or two that addresses the shortcomings of the study.
10
This portion should honestly address the limitations and not contain arguments against limitations or excuses for why the results did not match the authors' expectations.Conclusion
Common errors:
- 1.Repeats content from other portions of the manuscript
- 2.Includes statements that are not supported by the study's findings
- 3.Includes extraneous information
- 4.Does not succinctly communicate the primary findings of the research as it relates to the purpose of the study
Solutions:
The conclusion of a paper, whether it is a separate section or the ending paragraphs of the discussion section, should provide insightful statements about the importance and relevance of the study without generalizing beyond the study's findings.
10
It is not meant to replicate the abstract or other areas already mentioned in the paper. The conclusion should not interject author opinions, make unsupported claims, or give statements that go beyond the limits of the study findings. This section should be brief, perhaps 1 or 2 paragraphs, and provide clear answers and summarize how the research thesis or hypothesis presented in the introduction was addressed.6
, 21
Acknowledgment
Common errors:
- 1.Thanking general groups of nameless people
- 2.Thanking people without being specific as to how they contributed to the article
- 3.Not obtaining signed permission to publish the name of the person or entity being listed
Solutions:
The acknowledgment section recognizes those who contributed to the article but who did not fully meet the necessary requirements to be authors.
22
People who did not contribute directly and substantially to the manuscript should not be included in the acknowledgment section. For example, statements thanking the “clinicians who worked on this study” or “my family for being patient with me as I wrote this manuscript” are not appropriate. The acknowledgments should include a brief statement of gratitude and explanation of how the person or entity contributed. All persons or entities that are acknowledged are usually required to send a release form to the journal office that indicates they are consenting to their names being published in the acknowledgment section of your paper.21
Funding sources typically should not be included in the acknowledgment section but in a separate area dedicated to funding, which is usually located near the author affiliations or on the title page.References
Common errors:
- 1.Improper citation style or reference format
- 2.Incomplete reference information
- 3.Using a reference inappropriately (eg, including a reference that does not accurately support the statement being made)
- 4.Using outdated references and/or ignoring landmark studies
- 5.Using too many or too few references
- 6.Using inappropriate references for biomedical journals (eg, Wikipedia, magazines, etc)
Solutions:
Because there are different technical styles (ie, Vancouver, American Psychological Association, etc), references should be formatted and organized as indicated in the journal instructions for authors. The most common format in biomedical and health care journals is Vancouver, although a number of public health journals use the social sciences format of the American Psychological Association.
Typically, references should be numbered in the order that they appear, including the tables. Each reference should only receive 1 number; thus, if it is used again, the original number should be reused. We highly recommend that you use a reference manager software program so that the order and numbering of manuscripts are updated automatically, per the format you prescribe, as you revise your manuscript. This is very helpful, as it negates the need to manually reorganize the references when the manuscript is undergoing revision.
References should be current, be accurate, and allow the readers to find the information if they wish to retrieve the original reference. This means that you need to provide information for a complete reference, including pages, journal name, or, if it is a text, publisher and editor information. References should come from high-quality, peer-reviewed sources, such as peer-reviewed journals.
People often ask, “How many references should I have?” Our answer is that the correct number of references is the number required to appropriately document your statements. Some journals impose limits on the number of references allowed for specific research designs, such as case reports
9
; however, other journals do not impose a limit. A single authoritative reference for a factual statement may be adequate to support a statement; a lengthy list of references published for the sake of documenting laborious scholarship may suggest a lack of understanding of the publication process and indiscrimination.1
, 20
It is your responsibility as the author to accurately represent the information in the referenced article. Be sure that you have read the full article, not just the abstract, and understand its contents before using it as a reference.Tables
Common errors:
- 1.Location is not identified in the text where the table should be placed
- 2.Include abbreviations without a legend
- 3.Do not present data (eg, are lists of items)
- 4.Authors do not submit appropriate permissions to republish a table that has been published previously
Solutions:
Sets of information in columns and rows that aid in visually presenting information in an appealing manner (rather than listing information as text in a paragraph) are tables. Tables should not be used for small amounts of data that could be conveyed clearly in a sentence. You should not reiterate in the text the same data that are also shown in a table because the point of creating a table is to eliminate that type of information from the text.
23
Tables have a minimum of 2 rows and 2 columns and should be arranged so that that horizontal rows and vertical columns of information are related to one another.
24
For example, a list of differential diagnoses for a given condition or a list of exclusion criteria is a figure and not a table. Tables should be simple and self-contained, needing no further explanation. All abbreviations used in a table should be explained in a legend underneath each table.If you wish to use previously published tables, the copyright owner of the original material must grant permission to do so; it is your responsibility to receive this permission before submitting the manuscript to a journal. The placement of each table should be clearly listed in the manuscript so that the editorial staff does not have to guess where they should be placed. To do this, type in “Table 1” at the end of the appropriate sentence or “see Table 1” in the text; and that will help place the table in your paper.
Figures
Common errors:
- 1.Locations are not identified in the text where the figures should be placed
- 2.Figures are embedded in the manuscript file
- 3.Legends and picture captions are missing at the end of the text
- 4.Legends are built in to the image as part of a software package
- 5.Figures are of poor quality or low dots per inch
- 6.Graphs have multiple colors that, once converted to gray scale for printing, look similar; and the reader cannot decipher which bar represents the corresponding data
- 7.Not formatted as per the journal instructions for authors
- 8.Contain personal protected information
- 9.Lack appropriate permissions for use of previously published images or model release forms
Solutions:
Figures need to be clear images submitted in an electronic format. When creating figures, identify in the text where the figure should be placed when it is time for the paper to go to layout. Number figures in the order that they appear. Each image should have a corresponding figure caption placed at the end of the manuscript. At the end of the manuscript, create a separate section identified as “figure legends”; and write a caption for each figure so that the reader will understand what you are trying to convey.
Figures should not be embedded in the manuscript file. The image should be created and saved as a separate image file (eg, TIFF, JPEG, or the format preferred by the journal) so that the publishing company may print the best possible image for your paper. The journal's instructions for authors will usually provide all necessary information for the size, resolution, type of image required (ie, JPEG, TIFF, etc), and methods of transmitting the image. Because journals change their requirements for figures with advances in technology, we recommend that the most current author instructions be reviewed to avoid submitting images in an outdated format.
Because most journals and readers print in black and white, you should remember that graphs should be constructed so that, when printed in black and white, the data will be interpretable. For example, a bar graph with bars in similar tones of green, blue, and red will all appear the same shade of gray when printed in black and white. Use different tones, symbols, or patterns to distinguish one set of graph data from another. If you are not sure how an image will look, print the photograph or graph using a black and white copier/printer and then adjust your image colors so that it will be interpretable.
If authors wish to use previously published photographs or illustrations, permission must be obtained from the copyright holder of the material; it is your responsibility to receive this permission before submitting a manuscript to a journal. If models or identifiable people appear in figures, you need to submit a signed release form for each person photographed, demonstrating that each person has given permission for his or her likeness to be published in the journal. Even if a bar is placed across their eyes in the photograph, if their mother or spouse would be able to recognize them, a signed permission note needs to be submitted.
Cover Letter
Common errors:
- 1.Not disclosing all conflicts of interest for all authors
- 2.Not disclosing potential issues of concern (eg, if some of the information has been published previously in print or electronically, or if a portion of the material has been presented elsewhere)
- 3.Not providing required items as stated in the instructions for authors
- 4.Is addressed to the wrong journal and/or editor
Solutions:
The cover letter is typically the initial communication that you have with the editor about your manuscript, and it should be written in a way that makes a good presentation of you and your research. The cover letter should briefly and accurately communicate the importance of your manuscript, how the manuscript meets the mission of the journal, any issues of potential concern, and all necessary disclosures. Relevant conflict of interests should be included in the cover letter. For example, if you are the president of the company that makes the gadget or product that you are testing, or if you or your spouse owns stock in this company or receives benefits from the company, this information should be declared to the editor and be included on the title page.
If for some reason your paper was submitted to another journal and you change your mind and wish to submit elsewhere, be sure that your paper is no longer being considered by the first journal and your copyright has been returned to you because you are not allowed to submit to 2 journals at the same time.
22
, 25
If your paper was rejected and you are now submitting to another journal, it is important to update your cover letter in addition to the format of the manuscript. Although it may sound obvious, you should check to make sure that the date, the name of the new journal, and the name of the editor of the new journal are correct.13
Format and Writing
Common errors:
- 1.Authors are not familiar with the journal content or format
- 2.Making statements of fact without support from proper references
- 3.Grammar or spelling errors are not corrected before submission
- 4.Jargon, new words, or new acronyms are created instead of using standard accepted terminology
- 5.All required materials are not submitted: the submission is missing figures, tables, funding information, conflict of interest statements, copyright forms, cover letter, permission forms, etc
- 6.Materials are not in order or correct format (eg, the format does not follow instructions for authors)
- 7.Author information is incomplete (eg, contact information, degrees, institutional affiliations, etc)
- 8.Authorship issues are not appropriately managed
- 9.Electronic files are not in required format (eg, dots per inch too low for figures, use of uncommon software program)
- 10.Duplicating, plagiarizing, or self-plagiarizing content that has been published in another document (eg, article, book, Web site)
- 11.The manuscript is not proofread by someone fluent in the English language
- 12.The paper is submitted with multiple format errors, fonts, columns, page breaks, etc
Solutions:
Although most general errors may be avoided by following the instructions for authors, a few of these items deserve elaboration. We are surprised when we receive a paper, or are peer-reviewing a paper for another journal, where it is obvious that the author has never consciously read an article published in that particular journal. In these cases, the topic, style, and content do not seem to meet the mission of the journal. Please avoid this mistake, as it reflects badly upon you as an author. Reviewing several recent issues of the journal, in addition to reading the mission and instructions for authors, will assist you with becoming more familiar with the journal. The submission should be able to meet the mission of the journal; your paper should be similar in aim and context to other articles in the journal and be formatted as such.
That being said, please do not take this advice too far and format your paper as if you were the publisher. We have received manuscripts formatted by authors as if the paper was already published and printed, complete with fonts, section breaks, column settings, figure placement, etc, that exactly match the printed version of the journal. Unfortunately, we must send those manuscripts back to authors so that they may be formatted in plain, old, and boring standard double line–spaced manuscript format, just as it clearly states in the instructions for authors.
Regarding authorship, each person who is listed as an author must meet the criteria necessary to be designated as an author as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
22
This includes that each author has22
: “(1) provided substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published.” As well, all authors who qualify and should be listed as authors should be included as authors.26
Authors typically may not be added or removed, and their order may not be changed, once the paper has been submitted to a journal without consent from each person involved. All authorship issues should be managed appropriately before submission.English is the language for scholarly journals.
27
, 28
If you do not write often or are not fluent in writing in English, it may be worth the time and money to have your manuscript edited by a proficient English proofreader. Even experienced authors benefit from having a fresh pair of eyes look over their manuscripts, and many experienced authors will enlist the specialized skill of a medical writer/editor for this purpose. It is your responsibility to make sure that grammar and spelling errors have been corrected before submission. Very little will stimulate frustration more from editors and peer reviewers than a manuscript that has so many writing and format errors that it is difficult or impossible to read.Materials submitted to biomedical journals should be original content that has not been published elsewhere. Materials that duplicate, replicate, or contain plagiarized materials typically should not be submitted to a journal.
25
If there is any possible overlap or duplication, this information should be clearly revealed to the editor in the cover letter at the time of submission.Submissions Process
Common errors:
- 1.Not following the journal's submissions instructions
- 2.Submitting a revision as if it were a new paper
- 3.Not submitting all required materials
Solutions:
Each journal has its own submissions process, so it is in your best interest to familiarize yourself with this process before submission. Usually, the instructions for authors and the journal's Web site provide this information. Many journals have online tutorials for their electronic submissions processes; so you may wish to take a few minutes and run through the tutorial, which should help speed up the submissions process for you. Even if you have submitted to a particular journal in the past, you may not have the most updated materials because electronic processes are updated regularly. Therefore, it behooves you to review the procedures just before submitting to make sure that you have the most current versions. Some authors may not be aware that, for some journals, each new submission is logged with a new code number that carries with it an accompanying cost to the journal. Therefore, if an author submits a revision as if it were a new submission, it wastes journal resources and does not reflect well on the author.
Please be sure to submit all required materials at the time of initial submission. Some journals require that the copyright form, disclosure forms, and other materials are submitted at the time of the initial manuscript submission. It wastes time for the editor and editorial staff to identify and track down missing items. This slows down the processing of your manuscript. Be sure to use the most current forms and format for submission (eg, do not use an older version that you have stored on your computer), as the journal will most likely require the updated version. It may only take a few minutes to check and make sure that you have all the updated forms and are meeting the updated version of the journal's instructions for authors. This is time well spent because, when your submission is not in compliance with the journal policies, it will delay your paper from moving forward in the review process.
Communications With the Editor
Common errors:
- 1.Nonauthors communicate with the editor about a submission
- 2.Not including manuscript title and identifier when querying editorial staff
- 3.Having a demanding, arrogant, or rude manner in your communications
Solutions:
Carefully select the corresponding author. This person must qualify as an author and should be responsible for all follow-up and other communications with the editor and editorial staff. Editors do not typically communicate with nonauthors because of blinding and other confidentiality issues surrounding submission content. Therefore, authors should not ask their nonauthor staff to query the editor; only authors should communicate directly with the editor. When communicating about a manuscript, be sure to include identifying information, such as the manuscript, number, and title. Most journals have hundreds to thousands of articles in process at any given point, and some authors have more than one manuscript in process at the same journal. Therefore, it is helpful for the editor to know which manuscript you may be asking about. Editors and their staff are usually eager to help you; so if you are polite when communicating with them, you are likely to find that they will be polite back to you.
Revision Process
Common errors:
- 1.Ignoring or not adequately addressing all of the reviewer comments and editor requests
- 2.Arguing with the reviewer comments instead of making improvements to the manuscript
- 3.Not returning a revision by the requested due date
- 4.Ignoring editor requests for materials or changes
- 5.Sending multiple e-mails and/or making multiple calls to the editor demanding a decision on your manuscript
Solutions:
Revisions should be addressed and returned to the journal in a timely manner (eg, typically 30 days after revision request).
5
Often, we hear authors complain they would like the manuscript processing time to be faster; however, these are often the very same authors who are extremely tardy in returning their revisions, often delaying the forward movement of their manuscript for many months because they do not return their revisions on time or follow the instructions for authors. If you have questions about what is being requested for your revision, such as if there are conflicting comments between peer reviewers, you should contact the editor for further guidance and clarification. Editors generally appreciate nonjudgmental process-driven queries.All reviewers' comments should be addressed, either as a modification in the manuscript or as a polite and thoughtful response that explains the rationale for why the requested change was not made. On the other hand, it is quite irritating for an editor to receive a revision letter from an author that states, “We revised our paper and made all the requested changes.” Without the appropriate list of details that were requested in the revision letter, it is sometimes uncertain if this is, indeed, a true statement. It is your responsibility to clearly show how the revision changes were made and that each of the reviewer and editor comments has been responded to and/or addressed.
There is an art to addressing reviewers' concerns, and we suggest that you write your revisions in a polite point-by-point format so that the reviewers can readily identify that you did your job well.
13
This will help speed up the processing time for the review of your revised manuscript. Authors can copy and paste reviewers' comments into a word processing document and then address each one of the comments in their revision reply to the reviewers. Here is a suggested format:Reviewer 1 comment: “The paper starts out well, however the specific hypothesis being tested is never clearly revealed to the reader.”
Response (from author): We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and have added a specific hypothesis statement to the end of the introduction section. It now reads: “The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of manipulation of the spine on older adult patients' attitudes and pain response.” Please see yellow highlights in manuscript for additional clarifications to the hypothesis in the introduction section.
If you think that a reviewer has made a mistake, politely offer a correction and substantiate your reply. If you think that a reviewer has misread or misunderstood a portion of your paper, it is possible that your paper is not written as clearly as it could be. The revision process is an excellent opportunity to clarify your paper (instead of arguing with the reviewer) because the clarification will ultimately make your final paper better once it is published. It is unproductive to reply to reviewers in a sarcastic, rude, or argumentative manner, as this accomplishes nothing more than angering the reviewers and places the editor in the uncomfortable position of asking you to either correct such commentary or face unnecessary criticism from reviewers when your commentary is forwarded on to them. After all, it is the editor and reviewers who wish to see the best possible articles published in the journal; and they will determine if your paper will be accepted for publication. Keep your communications thorough and polite, and it will enhance your chances for acceptance.
Proof Review Process
Common errors:
- 1.Ignoring or not addressing queries from the editor or publisher
- 2.Not returning proof responses and corrections on time
- 3.Changing corrections into errors or inserting new errors
- 4.Making substantial changes, revisions, or additions
- 5.Missing errors and expecting corrections to be made once the paper has already gone to press
Solutions:
Proofs are the publisher's nearly final draft of your manuscript. As well, the proof stage is the prelude to celebration; this is the last step before your paper is published in its final form. Reviewing the proofs is your opportunity to correct any final minor errors that either were present in the accepted manuscript (your mistake) or were inadvertently introduced during copy editing (the mistake of the editors or publishing team as they were preparing your manuscript for press). Unfortunately, sometimes during the copy editing process, corrections are made, despite all good intentions, that may alter the meaning of your original intention. It is important that you understand that edits are made in an attempt to assist with the clarity and accuracy of the final paper and to conform to journal style and publication standards, and are not meant to harm the paper or you in any way. We are a team; please be polite in requesting corrections. Everyone wants to see an excellent end product. Please treat the editorial staff with the respect that they deserve as you request corrections to the proof.
You should be familiar with the basic standards and style of the journal and should not introduce errors into the manuscript during the proof stage. For example, if the journal abides by the AMA Manual of Style, it would be inappropriate to request changes outside of this style. Another error that we commonly see is that some authors think that the proof stage is an opportunity to make major revisions or additions. This is not the case: only minor changes, such as spelling, punctuation, checking the order of tables and figures, and ensuring that figures are set appropriately (eg, not upside down), may be made at this time. Unacceptable changes include adding new figures, tables, content, or paragraphs; adding or deleting an author; adding new information that would require additional permissions (eg, new photos, acknowledgments, tables); or anything that would make a major change in the layout or content of the paper. Major changes made by the author at the proof stage are not allowed, unless it is at the request of the editor or done with the approval of the editor in advance. You should know that requesting a major change is not something that most editors are fond of or condone. Because of author requests for major changes, we have seen several papers that had to be resubmitted and go through peer review again because of extensive author modification requests at the proof stage. Although we understand that sometimes substantial changes may be necessary at this late stage, often these can be avoided if the initial manuscript was developed properly.
All sections of the article proof must be reviewed by the authors. It is your responsibility to review the proof to make sure that all items are correct and to answer any queries that the layout staff has included with the proof. If you miss an error and the paper goes to final press, there is no way that a correction can be made to the final published copy because it has already been published. Therefore, it is your full responsibility to review the entire content and not just answer the queries. Because of journal publication schedules, it is important for you to return proof queries and corrections quickly, often within 48 hours of receipt of the proofs. If you will be out of town at this time, it is important to have a coauthor prepared to review the proof for corrections and reply to all queries.
Conclusion
We hope that this article will help you as an author with improving and streamlining your manuscript submission processes. Appendix A provides a checklist of the above items, which may be helpful to you as an author preparing a manuscript for submission to a biomedical journal or if you happen to be peer reviewing an article for a journal.
We admit that this is not an all-inclusive list and that some journals have different requirements and expectations. However, many editors with whom we have communicated have shared similar requests. If we must put one item at the top of our wish list when it comes to publications, it is a request for you to please read the most current instructions for authors. The instructions for authors will typically answer most, if not all, of your questions that relate to the submissions process. The second item on our wish list is that, if you still have a question after reading the most current version of the instructions for authors, please contact us so that we may assist you.
As an author, you wish to publish your material to disseminate your research findings. As editors, we act as keepers of the quality of the material published in our journals; but we are also here to help you publish your paper in its best form and in the fastest manner possible. We are pleased, and sometimes become a little giddy, when we receive a well-delivered, properly formatted manuscript. We hope that this article will assist you with the successful publication of your future papers.
Appendix A. Presubmission checklist. The more “Yes” boxes that you have checked means that you have avoided making common errors and your submissions process will tend to be more successful
Tabled
1
| Section | Criteria | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Is the title the appropriate length? | □ | □ |
| Does the title match the article and study design? | □ | □ | |
| Does the title avoid abbreviations, jargon, or “witty” comments? | □ | □ | |
| Does the title adequately describe the study? Can it “stand alone”? | □ | □ | |
| Abstract | Does the abstract meet the word length required by the journal? | □ | □ |
| Is the abstract format correct for the journal (eg, structured)? | □ | □ | |
| Does the abstract provide enough detail to accurately summarize the article? | □ | □ | |
| Does the abstract contain primary findings of the paper? | □ | □ | |
| Does the abstract adequately reflect the contents of the manuscript? | □ | □ | |
| Key words | Can all key words be found in the MeSH list? | □ | □ |
| Are key words correct for the contents of the paper? | □ | □ | |
| Introduction | Does the introduction only contain material that is relevant to the purpose of the study? | □ | □ |
| Does the introduction include background information and references to foundational research? | □ | □ | |
| Does the introduction include a clear purpose/hypothesis? | □ | □ | |
| Does the introduction avoid materials that belong in other areas (eg, methods, results)? | □ | □ | |
| Is the introduction brief and to the point? | □ | □ | |
| Does the introduction contain referenced statements of fact? | □ | □ | |
| Methods section | Does the methods section follow established guidelines for study designs? | □ | □ |
| Does the methods section provide adequate information so one would be able to duplicate the study? | □ | □ | |
| Does the methods section use appropriate statistical methods? | □ | □ | |
| Does the methods section provide details of ethical approval and/or consent? | □ | □ | |
| Does the methods section provide adequate details (eg, apparatus and manufacturer information)? | □ | □ | |
| Does the methods section report clinical trial registry (for clinical trials)? | □ | □ | |
| Does the methods section state the appropriate ethics board or case consent information? | □ | □ | |
| Results | Do the results report appropriate and complete data or statistics? | □ | □ |
| Do the results avoid redundant reporting of findings in the text, tables, and figures? | □ | □ | |
| Do the results only contain the results and avoid commentary or discussion? | □ | □ | |
| Do the results focus on the results and avoid technical jargon or descriptions of statistical tests? | □ | □ | |
| Discussion | Does the discussion focus on material that is relevant to the study and avoid irrelevant opinions? | □ | □ |
| Does the discussion avoid material that is already contained in the introduction, methods, or results? | □ | □ | |
| Does the discussion explain how the findings contribute to the larger body of evidence? | □ | □ | |
| Does the discussion appropriately interpret findings, not making them more or less meaningful? | □ | □ | |
| Does the discussion address the current body of knowledge in the area of the study? | □ | □ | |
| Does the discussion include a section describing the limitations to the study? | □ | □ | |
| Conclusion | Does the conclusion avoid repeating content from other portions of the manuscript? | □ | □ |
| Does the conclusion include statements that are only supported by the study's findings? | □ | □ | |
| Does the conclusion only include pertinent information? | □ | □ | |
| Does the conclusion succinctly summarize the primary findings? | □ | □ | |
| Acknowledgment | Do the acknowledgments clearly thank specific people? | □ | □ |
| Do the acknowledgments specifically state how those people contributed to the article? | □ | □ | |
| Did the author obtain signed permissions to publish the name of the person or entity being thanked? | □ | □ | |
| References | Are all references in the proper citation style or reference format? | □ | □ |
| Are all references complete? | □ | □ | |
| Are all references accurately used? | □ | □ | |
| Are references current and landmark studies included? | □ | □ | |
| Is the correct number of references used (not too many or too few)? | □ | □ | |
| Are all references appropriate for biomedical journals (eg, avoid using Wikipedia, magazines, etc)? | □ | □ | |
| Tables | Is the table location identified in the text? | □ | □ |
| Are all abbreviations used in the table included in a legend? | □ | □ | |
| Does the table provide appropriate contents and data? | □ | □ | |
| If from a copyrighted source, did you obtain the appropriate permissions to republish it? | □ | □ | |
| Figures | Is the figure location identified in the text? | □ | □ |
| Are figures submitted as separate image files and not embedded in the text? | □ | □ | |
| Are legends and picture captions included at the end of the text? | □ | □ | |
| Are legends listed separately and not built in to the image? | □ | □ | |
| Are images high quality and have the resolution that is required by the journal? | □ | □ | |
| Do graph bars have appropriate tones so that they are discernible when printed in black and white? | □ | □ | |
| Are figures formatted according to the journal instructions for authors? | □ | □ | |
| Are figures devoid of personal protected information (eg, patient name or identifying marks)? | □ | □ | |
| If from a copyrighted source, did you obtain the appropriate permissions to republish it? | □ | □ | |
| Cover letter | Does the cover letter include all conflicts of interest for all authors? | □ | □ |
| Are all potential issues of concern disclosed (eg, if part is published or presented elsewhere)? | □ | □ | |
| Are all required items included as stated in the instructions for authors? | □ | □ | |
| Is the cover letter addressed to the correct journal and/or editor? | □ | □ | |
| Format and writing | Is the paper appropriate for the journal content and format? | □ | □ |
| Are statements of fact supported with proper references? | □ | □ | |
| Are all grammar or spelling errors corrected before submission? | □ | □ | |
| Is standard accepted terminology used (eg, avoid jargon, creating new words or acronyms)? | □ | □ | |
| Does the author have all required materials ready for submission? | □ | □ | |
| Are all materials in order and in the correct format? | □ | □ | |
| Is the author information complete (eg, contact information, degrees, institutional affiliations, etc)? | □ | □ | |
| Are all authorship issues appropriately managed (eg, all qualified authors are listed)? | □ | □ | |
| Are the electronic files in the required format? | □ | □ | |
| Has the author made sure that there is no duplicated or plagiarized content in the manuscript? | □ | □ | |
| Has the manuscript been proofread by someone fluent in the English language? | □ | □ | |
| Has the paper been formatted as stated in the instruction for authors? | □ | □ | |
| Submissions process | Are the journal's submission instructions being followed? | □ | □ |
| Is a revision submitted as a revision and not as a new paper? | □ | □ | |
| Are all required materials being submitted? | □ | □ | |
| Editor communications | Are only authors communicating with the editor about the submission? | □ | □ |
| Do all communications include the manuscript title and identifier when querying editorial staff? | □ | □ | |
| Are all communications polite and professional? | □ | □ | |
| Revision process | Do the revision and revision cover letter address all of the reviewer comments and editor requests? | □ | □ |
| Are reviewer comments appropriately addressed as improvements in the manuscript? | □ | □ | |
| Is the revision returned by the requested due date? | □ | □ | |
| Are all editor requests for materials and changes addressed? | □ | □ | |
| Are revision communications polite and professional? | □ | □ | |
| Proof review process | Are all queries from the editor or publisher addressed? | □ | □ |
| Are proof responses and corrections returned on time? | □ | □ | |
| Have you avoided inserting errors? | □ | □ | |
| Have you avoided making substantial changes, revisions, or additions? | □ | □ | |
| Has the entire manuscript been searched for errors, and have corrections been suggested? | □ | □ |
References
- The case report. I. Guidelines for preparation.Int J Cardiol. 1983; 4: 357-364
- Anatomy of a research paper.Respir Care. 2004; 49: 1222-1228
- How to write a case report for publication.J Chiropr Med. 2006; 5: 72-82
- How to write a manuscript.J Emerg Med. 2008;
- The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication.Respir Care. 2004; 49: 1246-1252
- Writing a scientific manuscript: some formal and informal proposals.Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2006; 5: 185-187
- Structure of a scholarly manuscript: 66 tips for what goes where.J Athl Train. 1996; 31: 201-206
- Tips on how to write a paper.J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008; 59: 1064-1069
- How to write a patient case report.Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006; 63: 1888-1892
- How to write a research paper.Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004; 18: 135-138
- Research Agenda Conference 3: editor's presentation: streamlining manuscript submission to scientific journals.J Neuromusculosket Syst. 1998; 6: 161-167
- How to write an oncology manuscript.J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2005; 17: 132-138
- How to write a scientific masterpiece.J Clin Invest. 2007; 117: 3599-3602
- On the subject of human subjects.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005; 28: 79-80
- Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.Lancet. 2005; 365: 1827-1829
- Transparency of research methods: proud to be a Naked Emperor.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005; 28: 377-378
- Ensuring the privacy of protected health information in research.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005; 28: 461-462
- AMA manual of style: a guide for authors and editors.10th ed. Oxford University Press, New York2007
- How to report statistics in medicine: annotated guidelines for authors, editors, and reviewers.2nd ed. American College of Physicians, Philadelphia2006
- How to write a scientific article for a medical journal.Indian J Anaesth. 2002; 46: 21-25
- Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade.J Chiropr Med. 2006; 5: 101-117
- Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication.International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Philadelphia2008
- Effective use of tables and figures in abstracts, presentations, and papers.Respir Care. 2004; 49: 1233-1237
- Interpretation of diagnostic data: 3. How to do it with a simple table (part B).Can Med Assoc J. 1983; 129: 705-710
- Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications: a review for authors and readers.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006; 29: 505-509
- Questioning the importance of authorship.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005; 28: 149-150
- Bridging the gap: working productively with ESL authors.Sci Ed. 2007; 30: 43-44
- How to write an English medical manuscript that will be published and have impact.Surg Today. 2006; 36: 407-409
Article info
Footnotes
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government.
Identification
Copyright
© 2009 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
