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 www.networkphar... and we’d welcome your suggestions for new topics and speakers.
Full details of this MedComms Networking event are at medcommsnetwork...
Pippa’s presentation (PDF format) is at medcommsnetwork...
Pippa’s Linkedin page is at / pippa-smart-2b6b2a2
More about PSP Consulting can be found at www.pspconsulti...
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 www.medcommsnet...]

[@annieinbamani7170]

This is an example of how the presentation should be... Phenomenal....to the dart 🎯 👍👌

[@michellecowan2469]

Ms. Smart, your time was well spent. I am a non-profit grant reviewer in Wisconsin. My current life situation makes working outside of the home impossible, so I chose to edit. When I read articles in a newspaper or a magazine with misspellings, it takes away my trust. I would enjoy peer reviewing in the future and am gathering knowledge to do so. I am extremely impressed with the level of good, solid information and the honesty in which you presented it. Thank you. Time is money, and my time was well spent learning from you. Michelle Cole

[@mrpisarik]

How to improve acceptance rate: 1) Editors are not experts in your field - write such that they could recognize preciousness of your paper. 2) Intrigue the editors, reviewers and readers 3) Give a clear message of your work + write clearly and concisely. 4) Strive to get more citations. 5) BUT do not exaggerate your claims.

[@mrpisarik]

What happens after you submit your paper: 1) It goes right to an editor, who quickly checks whether your paper fits journal. 2) If it is fine, the editor starts to search 3 reviewers that takes sometime (suggest some reviewers) 3) Reviewers start to read paper, but since they are busy, they miss all deadlines. Eventually review takes 2 months. 4) Editor checks reviews and decides: (1) accept; (2) reject; (3) revision required.

[@andijeny8409]

A thorough explanation. This is what I need to know before submission

[@StephanMUnter]

A great presentation in content and style, very clear, honest and structured. I have struggled to figure out the publishing process myself, after this lecture I feel like I understand a bit better what's going on in the editors' offices. Which is quite important if you want (and I guess one should) to think things from the end, and to write an article not just for the sake of it, but for the scientific community to be accessible. Thanks a lot for bringing light into this sometimes dark and cloudy subject!

[@kouroumajeanmoussa4402]

Absolutely outstanding presentation! I really needed this specific but rare information

[@NikolausUndRupprecht]

Watched this after having gone through that process with a book I submitted to (respectable) series. Since it was my PhD thesis I hadn’t had much experience. Peer review is a nerve wrecking experience, especially if you are under time pressure. I had to request an extension for publication from my Faculty. Perhaps just a minor administrative issue, but nonetheless putting you under stress.

[@MuchangaManoah]

I love everything. thanks a lot, very insightful

[@eireditblogs]

Have done significant journal proofreading, but a lot of this is new to me. Good insights here.

[@lesleyfearn4300]

Very grateful for this useful and well presented video. It answers lots of questions. Thank you

[@huoliver1845]

the bad news takes time but good news travels quickly if you get a quick message it is actually more likely to be negative so if you are kept waiting it's not always a bad thing

[@sirmclovin9184]

She wanted to say it the other way around.

[@Faithtooh]

Very informative content. i enjoyed every single bit of my watch time. Thanks

[@mrpisarik]

There is no concrete instructions, just a general advice. Something like: "How to heal a cancer? Be strong and believe!". It seems that you better to read the book "What editors want" by Benson & Silver.

[@hemn891]

Thank you for the summrize.

[@sadatrabi4620]

useful editorial tips

[@RadioNul]

the right co-authors

[@ammaryasir4103]

Indeed a good lecture. I appreciate you respected madam.

[@franciswargirai3593]

Beautiful presentation

[@gangapparajashekarababu6672]

Very informative contents and very useful Thanks

[@japhethmumo6768]

Good guide, thank you

[@shahulameen3485]

Highly informative. Thanks.

[@tune490]

This was a very helpful presentation, thank you.

[@dmfaisal]

Outstanding lecture. I learned a lot.

[@vyomhansjournals]

Perfectly explained...

[@MrAhmedBakhsh]

excellant

[@zhannurturganbayeva6493]

It is informative video. Thank you very much.

[@nibsresearchwriteup1788]

Thank you very much for really nice talk

[@penncollins4963]

don't tell me no one gets the message at 18:13 -- "stroking your cat huh" haha haha haha hah

[@sri5sri]

Priceless information

[@rising6687]

informative and concise.

[@abualia922]

Pretty informative, thanks!

[@antonioliriololi]

I would like yo know how to present slides with that below row of mini screens....Any ideas? Thank you

[@medcomms3128]

It's a while ago now that we prepared this video, but at the time I was working with Mario Crispino, Freelance Cameraman and Editor who did the production work behind the scenes. There were some expensive out-of-the-box solutions at the time but he was able to find a more cost-effective approach of his own. If you want to follow up with Mario, see his LinkedIn page is at www.linkedin.com/in/mariocrispino/

[@ceciliamercado2430]

very useful . May I use it as a resource in my class ? Thanks

[@medcomms3128]

Yes, of course, cheers Peter Llewellyn

[@lazywarrior]

very good. thank you

[@PramodGoel73]

very informative

[@MrJabire]

Very important presentation but please i have a question many papers are talking about novelty or innovation what can one do about it?

[@sirmclovin9184]

Read related literature before you try to publish.

[@MoonMoon-rz5ub]

Great advice

[@beingdramatic4u]

Thankyou so much mam

[@hamzehasma9654]

ع Hello thank you very much for this wonderful explanation and thank you for all this important information I want to ask you Can you advise me I hear some health care magazines to be cheap I mean the publishing fee is cheap because I found many areas of health care is too expensive or is there A special site in scientific journals with a good but cheap effect coefficient I mean cheap that does not exceed the publishing thresholds about $ 200 Thank you

[@zacmac]

A lot of the journals that want your money tend to be predatory ie. not legitimate journals.. There are plenty of free journals to submit to..

[@hamzehasma9654]

Zac Macchesney could you suggest some Journals thank you very much for your response

[@akashwani377]

Thanks

[@bishopscore]

Rubbish articles? That hurts.

[@priyanksrivastava3454]

True.. i was about to submit my paper but after this lecture , second thoughts came to mind and now i think my paper is shit...😅😅

[@mehru9833]

awesome

[@amarilloatacama4997]

I love that accent

[@Jakob6174]

Does this not make anybody else angry? It's absolutely outrageous! What makes these people more qualified than scientists at determining what information is available?

[@coolisfoolable]

It used to upset me. But I've learned to accept it (without peer-review).

[@sirmclovin9184]

In my field editors almost always are scientists themselves. I still believe science needs to open up in general, including publishing. There is so much being afraid of "bad science" that too often one ends up defending exactly that. A democratic science will need to live with bullshit, but it will also assure that there is people calling it out for what it is.