A multi-objective decision-making approach to the journal submission problem

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.

Publishing in library and information science journals: The success of less experienced researchers

This study explores the publishing success of less experienced researchers including early career researchers in a selection of library and information science journals. The study includes all authors of articles and reviews published in 10 library and information science journals during a 20-year period (2001–2020). The prior publication of each author is determined at the time of publication in one of the ten journals. The analysis includes 14,612 publications and publication histories of 36,417 authors. The results show that there are considerable differences between journals, and that the share of publications by less experienced researchers has generally decreased over time. Library automation journals publish considerably more publications by early career researchers than information science journals do. Publications in these 10 library and information science journals are being published by authors with an increasing publishing experience and fewer papers are being published by author teams with little experience.

Publishing patterns and citation performance of manuscripts relating to paediatric cardiology and congenital heart disease: comparison of paediatric and adult cardiology journals

BACKGROUND

Manuscripts pertaining to paediatric cardiology and CHD have been published in a variety of different journals. Some of these journals are journals dedicated to paediatric cardiology, while others are focused on adult cardiology. Historically, it has been considered that manuscripts published in journals devoted to adult cardiology have greater citation potential. Our objective was to compare citation performance between manuscripts related to paediatric cardiology and CHD published in paediatric as opposed to adult cardiology journals.

METHODS

We identified manuscripts related to paediatric cardiology and CHD published in five journals of interest during 2014. Of these journals, two were primarily concerned with adult cardiology, while the other three focused on paediatric cardiology. The number of citations for these identified manuscripts was gathered from Google Scholar. We compared the number of citations (median, mean, and 25th, 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles), the potential for citation, and the h-index for the identified manuscripts.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 828 manuscripts related to paediatric cardiology and congenital heart as published in the 5 journals during 2014. Of these, 783 (95%) were published in journals focused on paediatric cardiology, and the remaining 45 (5%) were published in journals focused on adult cardiology. The median number of citations was 41 in the manuscripts published in the journals focused on adult cardiology, as opposed to 7 in journals focused on paediatric cardiology (p < 0.001). The h-index, however, was greater for the journals dedicated to paediatric cardiology (36 versus 27).

CONCLUSION

Approximately one-twentieth of the work relating to paediatric cardiology and CHD is published in journals that focus predominantly on adult cardiology. The median number of citations is greater when manuscripts concerning paediatric cardiology and CHD are published in these journals focused on adult cardiology. The h-index, however, is higher when the manuscripts are published in journals dedicated to paediatric cardiology. While such publications in journals that focus on adult cardiology tend to generate a greater number of citations than those achieved for works published in specialised paediatric cardiology journals, the potential for citation is no different between the journals. Due to the drastically lower number of manuscripts published in journals dedicated to adult cardiology, however, median performance is different.

A Review of Journal Impact Metrics and Characteristics to Assist Emergency Medicine Investigators with Manuscript Submission Decisions

Introduction

A crucial, yet subjective and non-evidence-based, decision for researchers is where to submit their original research manuscripts. The approach of submitting to journals in descending order of impact factor (IF) is a common but imperfect strategy. The validity of the IF as a measure of journal quality and significance is suspect, and a number of other journal impact scores have emerged, such that no one scale is universally accepted. Furthermore, practical considerations, such as likelihood of manuscript acceptance rates and times for decisions, may influence how authors prioritize journals. In this report, we sought to 1) review emergency medicine (EM) journal impact metrics, and 2) provide a comprehensive list of pertinent journal characteristics that may influence researchers’ choice of submission.

Methods

We systematically reviewed five impact metrics (IF, H Index, CiteScore, Source-Normalized Impact per Paper, and SCImago Journal Rank) and other relevant characteristics of 20 EM journals.

Results

We found good to excellent agreement in ordinal rankings of four of the journal impact metrics, as measured by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The median acceptance rate for original research manuscripts in the EM category was 25% (interquartile range [IQR] 18, 31%), and the median initial decision time was 33 days (IQR 18, 56 days). Fourteen EM journals (70%) accepted brief reports, and 15 (75%) accepted case reports/images.

Conclusion

We recommend replication, expansion, and formalization of this repository of information for EM investigators in a continuously updated, open-access forum sponsored by an independent organization.

Manuscript Submission Patterns of Authors Publishing in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Journals

Background

Previous studies have examined the most cited articles in orthopaedic sports medicine research and the journals in which they were published.

Purpose

To analyze the manuscript submission patterns of authors who published manuscripts in various orthopaedic sports medicine journals.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

All articles published in the March 2017 and April 2017 issues of Arthroscopy, the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA), and the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM) were searched. In addition, the past 50 sports medicine-related articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) dating back from April 2017 to May 2015 were searched. The corresponding author of each article was asked whether the publishing journal was the first journal of submission. If the article was previously submitted elsewhere, authors were asked which other journals, the dates of submission, and the order of submission. The proportion of articles that were initially submitted to each journal, the mean number of submissions prior to publication, and the mean duration from initial submission to date of publication were calculated for each journal.

Results

A total of 298 articles were included in this study, and 221 (74%) corresponding authors responded to the survey. The mean number of submissions before acceptance was 1.05 for AJSM, 1.18 for JBJS, 1.20 for KSSTA, 1.38 for Arthroscopy, and 2.19 for OJSM. The percentage of articles that were submitted to their accepting journal first (ie, not previously submitted elsewhere) was 95% for AJSM, 85% for JBJS, 82% for KSSTA, 68% for Arthroscopy, and 13% for OJSM.

Conclusion

Among the orthopaedic sports medicine journals included in this study, articles published in AJSM have the highest percentage of first submissions.