1. Editorial Evaluation of Manuscripts
Thomas S. Rieg, PhD
Head – Clinical Investigation Department
Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, VA

2. Acknowledgments “Evaluating Manuscripts: An Editor’s Perspective” by
Dr. Myron Eisenberg, VA Medical Center, Hampton, VA
All the journals that have rejected my papers in the past

3. Objectives
Designed for those thinking about writing an article for publication in a professional journal
Editor’s perspective
someone who reviews manuscripts and determines “accepted,” “returned for revision,” or “rejected”
Help avoid certain pitfalls leading to rejections

4. Several Sections
“Common Manuscript Flaw” describes problems leading to “revise and resubmit” or “reject”
“Elements of the Perfect Manuscript” things that reviewers and editors look for
“Lethal Flaws” which will lead to an editorial decision to reject the paper
qualities of the “Perfect Author”
At the conclusion should be aware of what not to include as well as what to include in your manuscript

5. Three Types of Journals
Refereed Journals use reviewers to determine the suitability and adequacy of papers
Non-Refereed Journal, do not use a review process
Typically the journal’s editor makes this decision by him or herself
Cost per page Journal

6. Refereed vs. Non-Refereed Journal
Non-refereed journal may be acceptable and even advisable for the first time or novice author
The quality of refereed journal invariably of higher
Manuscript submission ALWAYS is improved as a result of critical review.
Having your work critically examined by your peers can be a threatening experience
it is ultimately a worthwhile one
one which will ultimately improve the submission
a piece of work that will carry YOUR name on it

7. From Manuscript to Article
Submit Manuscript to Journal Editor
Editor or Peer Review
Changes by Author
Resubmit to Journal
Copy Editor
Print Editor - proof

8. Nine Common Manuscript Flaws

9. 1 - Inadequate Review of the Literature
Manuscript presents an inadequate review of the literature
even though the research itself is highly relevant to the subject area
Not necessary that a review of the literature contain a copious review of all literature
It is important to cite major directly relevant studies
particularly recent vintage
Post-hoc Literature review is Possible

10. 2 - Inappropriate Citations
The citations refer to studies which are largely irrelevant to the research
Citations are falsely used to support research findings
Occasionally errors of this type are correctable
 If the citation problems are pervasive the manuscript is likely to be rejected

11. 3 - Unclear Introductory Section
Introduction sections which are fairly obscure
Commonly mention studies which are not directly relevant to the issues advanced
Highlighting variables which cannot be found in the methodology section
The purpose of the Introduction is to let the reader know what will be studied and why
Hourglass Analogy
The Introduction Section can be Rewritten

12. 4 - Unclear Research Question
Not describing the methodology in sufficient detail
Methodology should be specific enough that it could be replicated based on the information given
The reviewer should not have to wonder about exactly how the study was conducted
The sequence of events in conducting the study is unclear
Again, Rewriting will be Necessary

13. 5 - Measures Inadequately Described
Relates to unclear methodology
happens frequently enough to merit separate mention
Insufficient information regarding the measures used or collected
makes it difficult for the reviewer to make a final judgment regarding publishability
Adding Descriptions will be Suggested

14. 6 - Unclear Analysis
The analysis used in evaluating the data sometimes is not explained clearly,
For example, multiple regression analysis frequently do not provide information regarding the order in which the variables entered the regression equation
Such shortcomings, while annoying, often are correctable

15. 7 - Inappropriate Statistical Techniques.
The author must use appropriate analysis techniques
Research studies sometimes use analyses, which are incorrect for the type of data
Parametric tests are used with ordinal data
Analysis may be inappropriate
a more suitable or powerful type of analysis might be the substitution
i.e., a MANOVA or ANOVA when the data contain multiple related dependent variables.

16. 8 - Poorly Conceived Discussion.
Discussion section, which
Wanders
makes dubious connections to only marginally related research
just rehashes the results section
Usually involves major Investment to rectify

17. 9 – Length or Brevity
A manuscript can be rejected or returned for revision if it is too lengthy
especially when the subject matter doesn’t support the paper’s length
Usually returned with directions to shorten it
often with a specific number of pages
Shorten or Expand as Requested

18. Elements of the Perfect Manuscript

19. The Perfect Manuscript
The perfect manuscript is well organized
logical thought processes by the author
Communicates to readers
what the author understands about the research must be told coherently to the readers

20. The Perfect Manuscript
The manuscript should try to:
address readers’ alternate hypotheses and interpretations of the results
defend the form of the questions asked
consider other forms of the questions
marshal support for the author’s choice of hypotheses, methods, and interpretation of results

21. The Perfect Manuscript
Written in English
not pseudo-scientific jargon.
Some specialized words are needed in some circumstances
most ideas and procedures can be described well in English

22. The Perfect Manuscript
Begins with an appropriate review of the literature
General principles always to be followed are that
the literature cited should represent the background for the research
the literature cited should not be selectively biased towards the author’s hypotheses

23. The Perfect Manuscript
Uses appropriately sophisticated statistical analyses
Overkill side
use of elaborate ANOVA designs and analyses with too few subjects
Naïve side
use of many univariate comparisons when a single, multivariate procedure would serve far better

24. The Perfect Manuscript
Makes appropriate claims for the scope and importance of the research
exaggerated claims for the generality of results and their importance for the field
To be publishable, a piece of research does not have to revolutionize and area, just make a contribution to its development

25. Four Lethal Flaws Leading to Rejection

26. 1 - Inappropriate topic for the Journal
Domains of subject matter which they consider appropriate for their particular publication
Frequently domains are stated in a policy statement in the journal
usually appears on the inside front or back cover or in the first several pages of the journal
Best way to get a feel for appropriate subject matter is to examine issues of the journal spanning two or more years
When a topic is inappropriate, the editor will immediately reject the manuscript

27. 2 - Outdated research question
Address an issue with little or no reference to or consideration of relevant previous literature
Such research often is not offered as a replication or extension of previous research; rather, it is presented as if it were a unique approach
It is rejected because it adds little to what is already known

28. 3 - Measures of unknown validity or reliability
Use of measures that apparently were constructed for the particular research but provide no basis for establishing the validity and/or reliability of such measures
Frequently even the theoretical rationale is not established in the manuscript
Such measures usually are difficult to accept and the paper is rejected

29. 4 - Faulty research design
The research described has not been designed appropriately to test the hypotheses
Manuscript is automatically rejected in that there is no way to correct this error

30. The Perfect Author

31. Qualities of the Perfect Author?
Must anticipate and accept rejections
Most manuscripts are initially rejected
It is critical to an author’s personal adjustment that they anticipate this outcome for initial submissions

32. Qualities of the Perfect Author?
Must be able to defend his or her point of view
It is possible that paper was sent to the wrong journal
Can write to the editor and appeal the decision with a well-reasoned response
Not very helpful to accuse the editor or the reviewers of malevolence

33. Qualities of the Perfect Author?
Flexible about making revisions that do not substantially alter the thrust of the manuscript

34. Qualities of the Perfect Author?
Brave enough to consult with colleagues before submission
Much grief and rejections would be modified if more authors got criticisms from their friends and associates before asking for a more formal review

35. Qualities of the Perfect Author?
Persistent in pursuing a line of research
Authors need self-confidence to follow their own best judgment in the research they do
not to say that blind ignorance of others’ opinions is good
courage to disagree for a time until the research develops and the arguments become more persuasive to others is necessary

36. Qualities of the Perfect Author?
Learns from adversity
Previous experience with rejections and revisions gives knowledge of flaws to avoid and toughens one to future adversities

37. The End
Questions?
Comments?

38. Review

39. Review: Common Manuscript Flaws
Inadequate review of the literature
Inappropriate citations
Unclear introductory section
Unclear research question
Measures inadequately described
Unclear analysis
Inappropriate statistical technique
Poorly conceived discussion
Length of Manuscript

40. Review: Perfect Manuscript
Be well organized
Communicate to readers
Address alternate hypotheses and interpretation
Marshal support for choice of hypotheses, methods and interpretation of results
A minimum of pseudo-scientific jargon 
Have an appropriate review of the literature
Use appropriately sophisticated statistical analyses
Appropriate claims for the scope and importance of the research

41. Review: Lethal Flaws Inappropriate topic for the Journal
Outdated research question
Use of measures of unknown validity and/or reliability
Faulty research design

42. Review: Perfect Author
Ability to anticipate and accept rejection
Ability to defend his or her point of view
Capacity to remain flexible about making revisions
Persistence in pursuing a line of research
Ability to learn from adversity