A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication

Ten Ways to Improve Getting a Scientific Manuscript Accepted

BACKGROUND

Scientific publication is the cornerstone to academic and private practice advancement in patient management and outcomes. Writing a manuscript requires a certain discipline and skill set that can be achieved with diligence and hard work.

METHODS

Anecdotal and review.

RESULTS

Several factors must be considered in scientific writing and journal manuscript submission and acceptance. Choosing where to submit the manuscript; understanding the instructions to authors; disclosing ethically; formatting correctly; never plagiarizing; supplying high quality appropriate images; creating meaningful tables; curating a pertinent but thorough bibliography; having valid, supported conclusions; and respecting timelines.

CONCLUSION

A discussion of relevant components in manuscript writing and journal submission to improve your chances of acceptance.

Comparison of Editor, Reviewer, and Author Demographics in The Journal of Hand Surgery

Purpose

To determine whether demographic differences exist among editors, reviewers, and authors in The Journal of Hand Surgery (JHS). We aimed to test the null hypothesis that there would be no difference among these 3 groups with respect to gender, geographic location, academic productivity, and financial relationships with industry.

Methods

Editors, reviewers, and physician authors were identified for 2018 JHS. Gender and geographic location were recorded for each person. We used the Scopus database to determine the Hirsch index (h-index) as well as the number of publications and citations for members of each group. Industry payment information was obtained using the Open Payments Web site.

Results

The editor group contained 20% women compared with the author group (17% women). Authors (59%) were less likely to be from the United States compared with editors (91%) and reviewers (88%). Editors were found to have a higher h-index (16) compared with reviewers (14) and authors (12). Authors demonstrated significantly higher mean total payments from industry ($41,738) compared with editors ($13,712) and reviewers ($20,457).

Conclusions

In 2018, there appeared to be an even distribution with respect to gender among editors, authors and reviewers in the JHS. International editors and reviewers are relatively under-represented compared to authors. Whereas editors and reviewers demonstrated higher h-indices compared with authors, JHS authors had significantly higher mean total payments in the Open Payments database.

Clinical relevance

Defining demographics, academic productivity, and conflicts of interest for journal editors, reviewers, and authors may aid in identifying potential sources of both author and peer review bias.

PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS' VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE

OBJECTIVES

Peer-review publication is a critical step to the translation and dissemination of research results into clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessment (HTA) and payment policies, and clinical care. The objective of this study was to examine current views of journal editors regarding: (i) The value of real-world evidence (RWE) and how it compares with other types of studies; (ii) Education and/or resources journal editors provide to their peer reviewers or perceive as needed for authors, reviewers, and editors related to RWE.

METHODS

Journal editors' views on the value of RWE and editorial procedures for RWE manuscripts were obtained through telephone interviews, a survey, and in-person, roundtable discussion.

RESULTS

In total, seventy-nine journals were approached, resulting in fifteen telephone interviews, seventeen survey responses and eight roundtable participants. RWE was considered valuable by all interviewed editors (n = 15). Characteristics of high-quality RWE manuscripts included: novelty/relevance, rigorous methodology, and alignment of data to research question. Editors experience challenges finding peer reviewers; however, these challenges persist across all study designs. Journals generally do not provide guidance, assistance, or training for reviewers, including for RWE studies. Health policy/health services research (HSR) editors were more likely than specialty or general medicine editors to participate in this study, potentially indicating that HSR researchers are more comfortable/interested in RWE.

CONCLUSIONS

Editors report favorable views of RWE studies provided studies examine important questions and are methodologically rigorous. Improving peer-review processes across all study designs, has the potential to improve the evidence base for decision making, including HTA.

Ready! Aim! Fire! targeting the right medical science journal

OBJECTIVE

Inadvertently submitting a paper to a journal that is unlikely to publish it is a waste of resources and ultimately delays dissemination of one's research. A high proportion of manuscripts are rejected by their author's first-choice journal. The aim of the present work was to review guidance provided within the literature for journal selection that might minimize the chance of manuscript rejection. We also consider papers that encompass more than one main medical science and describe the selection process that we used with a paper that was published in Cardiovascular Endocrinology.

METHODS

A database search (Embase, PubMed and Medworm) was performed for all articles published in the scientific literature providing guidance on journal selection. Articles were identified that either had journal selection as their principal topic or included journal selection as part of a broader discussion of publishing. The relative performance of four free-to-use, web-based applications that claim to provide guidance on journal selection was compared.

RESULTS

The searches identified 286 hits, of which 249 were in English. Of these papers, 16 discussed journal selection and a further 10 articles were identified from citations within the original 16 articles. Only one article described a comprehensive model for submission decision-making. Identification of appropriate candidate journals by various web-based applications was erratic, with the Jane database providing the most robust suggestions.

CONCLUSION

Our work suggests that little attention has been focused in the scientific literature on the mechanisms that authors use to select a journal for their work. Nevertheless, scientists for the most part seem to have a good sense of where their papers are most likely to be accepted. Beyond ensuring that a manuscript fulfils all the target journal's requirements, the literature suggests that it is important to have an objective view of the scientific contribution or 'value' of your work.

Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of peer review comments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the likelihood that comments provided by peer reviewers of one orthopaedic journal would be similar to comments of reviewers from the same journal and a second journal.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The consistency of the peer review process in orthopedic research has not been objectively examined.

METHODS

Nine separate clinical papers related to spinal deformity were submitted for publication in major peer-reviewed journals and initially rejected. The exact same manuscripts were then submitted to different journals. All papers were returned with comments from two to three reviewers from each journal. Reviews were divided into distinct conceptual criticisms that were regarded as separate comments. Comments were compared between reviewers of the same journal and to comments from reviewers of the second journal.

RESULTS

When comparing comments from reviewers of the same journal, an average of 11% of comments were repeated (range 0% [0/12] to 23% [3/13]). On average, 20% of comments from the first journal were repeated by a reviewer at the second journal (range 10% [1/10] to 33% [6/18]). If a comment was made by two or more reviewers from the first journal, it had a higher likelihood (43% [6/14]) of being repeated by a reviewer from the second journal.

CONCLUSION

When an identical manuscript is submitted to a second journal after being rejected, 80% of peer review comments from the first journal are not repeated by reviewers from the second journal. One may question if addressing every peer review comment in a rejected manuscript prior to resubmission is an efficient use of resources. Comments that appear twice or more in the first journal review are more likely to reappear and may warrant special attention from the researcher.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Peer review

The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals.

This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:436–41.

Improving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals

The peer review process for the evaluation of manuscripts for publication needs to be better understood by the orthopaedic community. Improving the degree of transparency surrounding the review process and educating orthopaedic surgeons on how to improve their manuscripts for submission will help improve both the review procedure and resultant feedback, with an increase in the quality of the subsequent publications. This article seeks to clarify the peer review process and suggest simple ways in which the quality of submissions can be improved to maximise publication success. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:245-7.