|
Epi Wit & Wisdom Resources
SER Holds
Workshop on Publishing Epi Research
Tips From Editors and
Reviewers Are a Popular Topic
A topic which appeared popular
with SER attendees on the first morning of the recent meeting in
Edmonton was the advice being handed out by editors and reviewers of
epidemiologic papers. Participating in the symposium were editors from
the American Journal of Epidemiology and from Epidemiology who
dispensed advice during a series of short presentations and during a
lively question and answer session. It was clear from the number in
attendance and from the questions that the topic is of vital interest
to practicing epidemiologists. Included on the program were UNC’s
David Savitz and MacMaster’s Stephen Walter
who are AJE editors and Cristina Cann,
associate editor from Epidemiology. Allen Wilcox from
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences spoke from the
perspective of a reviewer.
Find the Right Journal
Some of the tips given during
the session included suggestions on the best way to choose a journal
for publication. Attendees were advised to check out the library for
potential journals, to consider the “best” journals first, to consider
the incidental as well as the primary audience for the journal, to
assess the scope of the journal as reflected by the interests of the
board members, and to keep in mind the “predictable obsessions” of
each journal.
Handling Rejection
On how to handle rejections,
attendees were told “there is a message in rejection,” but do not
delay in getting the manuscript out to a second journal. The reason
for this is that there are multiple reasons why journals reject
manuscripts and these can vary over time. In the end it can be a very
subjective decision and researchers need to consider the comments but
then move on. Wilcox had a surprising suggestion. He said that
researchers should deal with the topic of rejection when the
manuscript is first submitted! He said that is the time to decide
which journal you are going to resubmit to in the event of a
rejection, and not to delay in resubmitting. Others were more cautious
in urging researchers to deal with the reviewers’ comments and not
skip over them in the rush to resubmit.
Commenting on what he is looking
for in a paper, Stephen Walter mentioned clarity, general interest of
the topic, and importance of the topic.
Writing a Review
On writing a manuscript review,
Wilcox offered the following guidelines:
1) Summarize. Start with a brief
summary of the paper, including its main results. It helps your
overburdened editor to get oriented, and it shows the authors that you
really did understand what they were trying to say, despite all the
evidence to the contrary that will follow!
2) Look for the positive. Find
something positive to say about the paper. Never underestimate the
power of a kind word. If the authors can be assured that you are not a
rabidly malicious person, they will be better able to hear your
criticisms. Sometimes you have to dig deep to find a positive aspect.
I used to think that in an otherwise hopeless case, one could at least
say the paper was a good length.
3) Focus on the content, not the
author. When you criticize the paper, don’t criticize the author.
Avoid comments such as “this person should have known better than
to...” and absolutely no sarcasm. Write it down if you can’t resist,
but then take it out.
4) Don’t be absolute. Leave
yourself some wiggle room. Remember, you may be wrong. It never hurts
to admit the possibility. A fatal flaw is less fatal if you preface it
by saying “Perhaps I didn’t understand correctly, but it seems as
if...”
5) Wait to send it. Never send a
review the same day you write it. This is my one unbreakable rule. It
applies even if you are a month late and the editorial office has
threatened legal action. Put the review on your chair at the end of
the day. When you come in the next morning, read it fresh as if you
were the author receiving the review. If something sounds harsh,
strike it out or move it to your comments for the editor. Then send it
off.
Savitz summarized the session by
saying that all of the participants seemed to be calling for clarity
and courtesy in making your case no matter what part of the process
you are involved in—as author, reviewer or editor.
Published July 1997
|
