The Manuscript Management Process

1
Writing and Publishing Papers in Peer-Reviewed
Journals
2
Writing and Publishing Papers in Peer-Review
Journals

• Bill Tierney, Martha Gerrity, Arlene Bierman,
  Adina Kalet, Marion Danis, Leonard Egede, Rich
  Frankel, Rich Hoffman, Judith Walsh, Morris
  Weinberger, Brent Williams
• Journal of General Internal Medicine

3
Workshop Agenda

• Welcome and introduction (Bill/Martha) 5 min
• Review of peer review (Martha) 10 min.
• Manuscript management (Bill) 5 min.
• Small groups (Deputy Editors) 50 min.
• Questions and answers (all) 15 min.
• Complete evaluations (audience) 5 min.

4
Workshop Objectives

• Participants will be able to describe
• Purpose of peer review and how a manuscript is
  managed by a peer-review journal
• Qualities of a well-written article
• Strategies for responding to reviewers and
  editors comments and suggestions.

5
Purpose of Peer Review

• To help editors make decisions about publishing
  submitted manuscripts
• To enhance quality of manuscripts

6
How Do Editors Use Reviewers Comments?

• Guide decisions about acceptance or rejection
• Identify strengths weaknesses
• Obtain suggestions for addressing weaknesses
• Obtain suggestions for improving clarity and
  efficient use of space (e.g., eliminating tables)
• Put paper in context of prior work

7
Reviewer Recommendations

• Accept - as is- conditional
• Reconsider after revision- minor revision-
  major revision
• Reject

8
Reviewer Ratings(1high to 5low)

• Interest to readership
• Originality (new information, importance)
• Study design (adequate, minor flaws, serious
  flaws)
• Statistical analyses (appropriate-inappropriate)
• Validity of results
• Clarity of writing

9
Guidelines for Reporting Studies

• CONSORT Statement on Reporting of Randomized
  Trials (Ann Intern Med 2001134657)
• Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy
  (STARD) (Ann Intern Med 200313840)
• Improving Quality of Reports of Meta-analyses
  (QUORUM) (Lancet 1999 3541896)
• Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in
  Epidemiology (MOOSE) (JAMA 2000 2832008)
• Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with
  Non-randomized Designs (TREND) (Am J Pub Health
  2004 94361)

10
Reasons Manuscripts are Rejected

• Incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated literature
  review
• Insufficient problem statement
• Lack of a conceptual model/theoretical framework
• Inappropriate or sub-optimal measures
• Sample too small of biased
• Incomplete or inappropriate statistics
• Insufficient, inaccurate, or inconsistent data
  reported
• Defective tables or figures
• Over interpretation of the results
• Text difficult to follow
  Acad Med 200176889

11
Reasons Manuscripts are Accepted

• Thoughtful, focused, up-to-date literature review
• Important, timely, relevant, critical, prevalent
  problem
• Problem well formulated, well stated
• Well-designed study (appropriate, rigorous,
  comprehensive, creative)
• Sample size sufficiently large
• Interpretation took into account the limitations
  of the study
• Practical, useful implications
• Acad
  Med 200176889

12
Responding to Editors and Reviewers Comments

• Address by reviewer
• Number the comments
• Address all comments
• Repeat the comment, or a portion of it, and set
  it apart from the response by formatting or
  change in font (e.g., italics)
• Include page and paragraph numbers
• OK to refer to previous responses
• Be gracious, even if the reviewer was not

13
The Manuscript Management Process
14
Manuscript received
Co-Editor Review
15
Manuscript received
Reject
Co-Editor Review
16
Manuscript received
Reject
Co-Editor Review
17
Manuscript received
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
18
Manuscript received
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
19
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
20
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Assign to 3 reviewers
21
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Deputy Editor Decision
22
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Deputy Editor Decision
Reject
23
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Decision
Reject
24
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Decision
Reject
25
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Decision

• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Brief report

Reject
26
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Decision
Deputy Editor Review

• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Brief report

Letter to authors
Revised MS received
Reject
27
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Deputy Editor Decision
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Return to reviewers (optional)
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Decision
Deputy Editor Review

• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Brief report

Letter to authors
Revised MS received
Reject
28
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Deputy Editor Decision
Reject
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Return to reviewers (optional)
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Decision
Deputy Editor Review

• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Brief report

Letter to authors
Revised MS received
Reject
29
Manuscript received
Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Deputy Editor Decision
Reject
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Return to reviewers (optional)
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Decision
Deputy Editor Review

• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Brief report

Letter to authors
Revised MS received
Reject
30
Manuscript received

• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Brief report

Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Deputy Editor Decision
Reject
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Return to reviewers (optional)
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Decision
Deputy Editor Review

• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Brief report

Letter to authors
Revised MS received
Reject
31
Manuscript received

• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Brief report

Reject
Reject
Co-Editor Review
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Review
Assign to Deputy Editor
Deputy Editor Decision
Reject
Assign to 3 reviewers
MS e-mailed to reviewers
Reviews returned to DE
Return to reviewers (optional)
Accept as is
Deputy Editor Decision
Deputy Editor Review

• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Brief report

Letter to authors
Revised MS received
Reject
32
Small Groups Editors Expertise

• Arlene Bierman health services research, aging
• Marion Danis ethics, health policy
• Leonard Egede racial disparities, quality,
  access
• Rich Frankel qualitative research
• Martha Gerrity medical education, survey
  research
• Rich Hoffman clinical epi, systematic reviews
• Adina Kalet educational research, curriculum
  eval.
• Bill Tierney medical informatics, HSR
• Judith Walsh clin. epi, prevention, womens
  health
• Morris Weinberger health services research
• Brent Williams med. ed, faculty development, EBM