Editing: Things they don't tell you about what journal editors want

Pippa Smart, independent publishing and research communications consultant and Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Learned Publishing, provides some insights into the ‘black box’ of editorial decision-making and how authors can improve their chances of article acceptance.

Recorded 6 July 2016 at a MedComms Networking event in Oxford. Produced by NetworkPharma.tv

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

ABSTRACT:

Many authors are mystified both by the time it takes to publish work, and by the reasons for its being rejected or accepted only subject to revisions. The process of publication is actually straightforward. Following initial checks for completeness, suitability and plagiarism, high-impact journals tend to reject 70% or more of papers immediately, i.e. within a week or so, while those with less strict criteria will reject at least 30% of submissions. The commonest reasons are that the work is out of scope of the journal, or the quality is insufficient for a variety of reasons, from lack of originality, to flawed science and poor quality writing or overall structure. The review process is generally very time-consuming. It is standard practice to have three reviewers per article; one or two may be suggested by the authors, though not necessarily accepted. Recruiting these reviewers may require eight or more invitations. An editor will normally allow two weeks for review; however, deadlines are frequently missed, and the reviews received may be contradictory or unhelpful, necessitating a further round of reviewer recruitment or sometimes arbitration by an additional reviewer. Acceptance without changes following review is rare; the most common decision by an editor is to request revisions, which may be minor or major. Authors can greatly improve their chances of acceptance by carefully reading journal author guidelines, checking journal scopes to ensure that they submit to a suitable journal, and submitting good quality work. A good article will be attractive to a journal editor, communicate its message clearly and concisely, and encourage citation.

Written by Penny Gray, Freelance Medical Writer

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

We are building a library of free webcasts, like this one, for the global MedComms Community and others at http://www.networkpharma.tv and we’d welcome your suggestions for new topics and speakers.

Full details of this MedComms Networking event are at http://medcommsnetworking.com/event75...

Pippa’s presentation (PDF format) is at http://medcommsnetworking.com/present...

Pippa’s Linkedin page is at   / pippa-smart-2b6b2a2  

More about PSP Consulting can be found at http://www.pspconsulting.org

Filming and technical direction by Mario Crispino, Freelance Cameraman & Editor

[For the avoidance of doubt: this video is intended to be freely accessible to all. Please feel free to share and use however you like. Cheers Peter Llewellyn, Director NetworkPharma Ltd and Founder of the MedComms Networking Community activity at http://www.medcommsnetworking.com]