Guiding Principles

• Stay up to date on best practices.
• Don’t go it alone.

Why is publication a good thing?

• Publication is a way of sharing knowledge to make the world a better place (improve the public’s health).
• Publication is part of the “oxygen mask” that keeps us employed and keeps our careers going so that we can do our best work.
• Publication meets our obligations to funders.
• Publication meets our commitments to our colleagues/co-authors.

Before submission

1. Have an important question that “fills a gap” (doesn’t recreate the wheel and builds logically from what before).
2. Do good science.
3. Write clearly.

 Submission

4. Be strategic about the journal you submit to
   • What is the mission/topical area/audience of the journal?
   • Consider journals about the exposure, methods, and outcome. Here are some examples in my field of looking at environmental exposures and autism using epidemiology:

Exposure journal – JESEE, EHP, Environmental Research

Methods journal – AJE, Epidemiology, IJE

Outcome journal – Autism Research, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

1. • Ask co-authors for advice.
   • What is the impact factor? But – keep the impact factor in mind as only one part of your consideration.  Sometimes impact factor is highest for clinical journal but might not be the right audience, or might not yield the highest quality reviews.
   • Has similar work been published in this journal (which is a good thing)?
   • Do you or your colleagues have prior positive experiences with the journal, which includes decent turn-around times for review and sensible and helpful reviews?
   • Do you have a prior relationship with the journal (you have published there before or reviewed for them?)
   • Pay attention to journals where work that you are interested in is being published.
   • Almost any journal indexed in reputable databases (like pubmed) is OK.
   • Beware of for profit journals – predatory journals. They will solicit to you by email.  Do not respond.

5. Along side of peer-reviewed publication, consider a preprint publication. Check your journals rules and check with your co-authors.  One used often in health sciences is  – https://www.medrxiv.org/
6. Prepare for submitting several times, by considering a “suite” of journals initially that have a similar audience and similar format (to reduce re-write time). This planning ahead will save you time and also be a mindset that helps buffer a possible rejection, by reminding you that resubmission to another journal is very common!  (Thanks KB for this sound advice!).
7. Recommend reviewers to the journal at the time of submission. (There is typically a place for this).  Editors these days often have to invite dozens of reviewers before they can find people to review a manuscript.  It will help to get the right people to consider your work by recommending those people directly. Consider a reputable and quality junior researcher as opposed to a senior researcher who will be more likely to be swamped and say no. Note that reviewers do not have to be at “arm’s length” to avoid conflict in the same way that grant reviewers are.

You Got a R&R (revise and resubmit)!

8. This is the best outcome you can get!  I have *never* heard of a manuscript being accepted on the first submission.  In my experience a R&R always turns into an acceptance.
9. Read the comments from reviewers and editors and allow yourself to be frustrated or annoyed. Acknowledge those feelings and move on.
10. Submit a revision ASAP – make it a priority.
11. Don’t go it alone. Get help from your co-authors. This could include something where their expertise is needed, something where you feel stuck, or simply sharing the load.  But note that typically a first author will do the bulk of the work of revising.
12. Respond to every comment of the reviewers in writing, taking this perspective:
    1. Remember that you have 2 audiences for your responses:
       • The editor, who will be looking for you to be responsive to the reviewers and has the point of view of preserving the quality and citation rate of the journal’s published articles.
       • The reviewers, who are often asked to review again, who have the point of view of being listened to for their hard work in reviewing.
    2. The reviewer is almost-always right.
    3. Say “thank you” and use polite language.
    4. You don’t need to over explain where you have chosen NOT to take a recommendation. Instead, say what you DID do.
    5. Realize that sometimes things simply weren’t clear or emphasized enough. In this case, improve the clarity of the writing and tell the reviewer how you did this.
    6. When you can’t address a consideration that you find valid, remember that you can add a discussion of the limitation and how it impacts the conclusions.
    7. If you don’t understand a comment from a reviewer, ask your co-authors to weigh in.
    8. If you feel “on the fence” about a recommendation of the reviewer, go ahead and do their recommendation, assuming that it doesn’t take a ton of time (e.g. major new analysis).
    9. At times you may need to “throw a bone” to the reviewer – improving wording or changing something minor – to show your responsiveness to their point of view.
    10. Keep a balance between the time it will take to improve the work, keeping in mind the “cost-benefit” of the time invested, but –
    11. Don’t be lazy and fail to do something that would improve the paper but would only take a few days.

You Got a Rejection

13. Allow yourself to be disappointed or frustrated. Move on.
14. Consider the many reasons for rejection, such as:
    1. The right editor or reviewer was not found, yielding a sub-optimal review.
       • It happens. Submit again!
    2. The topic or findings just didn’t meet the bar for the journal.
       • It happens. It can especially happen with null results, which is unfortunate for the field!  Submit again, OR – consider packaging your findings with more findings.  Consider a different type of journal that might understand your topic better.
    3. There were serious flaws, and the flaws could be addressable, or might not be.
       • This is tricky and hopefully your talents at finding a true gap that is important and doing good science prevented this. But – if something comes to light, first try to get some perspective.  Consult with your co-authors.  If you can address the flaws, do it!  There may be a rare situation where you realized that you no longer have confidence in the question or the approach, and be honest with yourself if this occurs.  Use the ”circular file” – put this work in the garbage and move on to something that matters.
    4. Luck of the draw. Peer review is a highly imperfect situation and has a random element to it.  Getting something published takes persistence and strategy!
15. Select the next journal.
16. Make changes if warranted because the reviewers had good points.
17. Submit.
18. Rinse and repeat.