1. How to Review a Paper How to Get your Work Published
Professor Laurence J Egan
Associate Editor, Gut

2. Things I will cover How to start out doing good research
When and how to prepare your work for publication
The review process
Some specific tips

3. How to start out doing good research

4. Getting Started
The 3 most important things in developing a career in biomedical investigation
Choose the right mentor

5. Why is the mentor important?
Scientific creativity has to be learned
Networking
Access to funds
Interest in developing people

6. Attributes of a good mentor
Track record of steady productivity
Every student/post doc in group publishes first author papers
Every student/post doc in group publishes middle author papers
Upward trajectory
Interested in you as a person

7. Do good science Definition of good research:
The ability to ask and unambiguously answer an important scientific question
NF La Russo
Former editor in chief, Gastroenterology

8. Develop a reputation in a field
Systematically develop a line of investigation
Become known as topic expert
Collaborate well

9. Picking scientific ideas to follow
Most interesting in your field (citations!)
Opportunities for collaboration
Innovative not Derivative
Clear thinking
Clear story telling

10. When and how to prepare your work for publication

11. When to publish a story
Numbers
Impact
Time
Advice of mentor is key

12. Writing your paper Start early Time to get feedback Time to revise
Get new ideas when writing
Think in figures and tables
Key results
Finish strong

13. Writing your paper Writing Clear Succinct No repetition English
Find a good scientific author and emulate their style

14. Writing your paper Introduction Take the reader by the hand
Introduce the key players
Expose the knowledge gaps

15. Writing your paper Results Think in figures/tables Progression
Key data last

16. Writing your paper Discussion Start with most important findings
Interpret in light of prior knowledge
Balance

17. Figures Immaculate layout Clear labels No 3D histograms!
Grouped in logical sections to make key points

18. Submitting your paper Choose a journal Scan recent issues Fit?
Clinical vs pre-clinical vs basic
Physiology vs pathophysiology
General vs subspecialty
Impact
Time to first decision

19. Gut aims to publish original articles describing novel mechanisms of disease and new management strategies, both diagnostic and therapeutic, likely to impact on clinical practice within the foreseeable future.
Clinical
Not good:
Descriptive data
Pure physiology
Some human data

20. Editorial policy
Articles illustrating basic mechanisms and their application to clinical material will be welcomed. We aim to cover all areas of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and through a system of commentaries and Recent Advances articles to make clear the relevance of scientific advances to clinical practice. The priorities are originality and excellence. We aim to ensure a fair and independent peer review system and to publish articles which follow the highest ethical standards concerning research conduct.
Add Citation Potential: importance, general applicability

21. Acceptance rate
8% for original research submitted in 2011
Time from submission to first decision
16 days for reviewed original articles
Time from acceptance to publication
28 days (online) 5 months (print)
Frequency
Monthly
Impact factor
10.614

22. Submitting your paper Adhere to rules of journal
Length, figures & tables, references, order of sections etc
Consort, STARD, subject flow etc
Website eg ScholarOne
Can seem difficult but work through it
Suggest reviewers
Friends?? – beware
Non-preferred reviewers – avoid unless essential

23. Peer Review: the key process that determines if your article will be published
Subjecting scholarly work to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.
Encourages authors to meet acceptable standards.
Ensures validity.
Assesses significance and importance of findings.

24. Reasons for External Peer Review
Done by recruited reviewers.
Editors lack time and expertise.
Need for diversity of opinion.
Reviewers are anonymous and independent.
Reviewers must lack conflict of interest.

25. Weaknesses of Peer Review
Slow
Subject to bias
Favours pre-existing ideas
May suppress dissent and inhibit scientific revolutions.
Fails when invalid results are published.

26. How Biomedical Journals Work: Gut
Owned by the British Medical Journal Publishing Group.
Governed by the British Society of Gastroenterology.
Editor in Chief selected by representatives of BMJ Publishing Group and the British Society of Gastroenterology.
Pressures on Biomedical Journals include:
Declining paper subscriptions and increasing online access.
Increasing competition with higher numbers of journals.
Need to increase impact factor.
Copy flow

27. Types of Journal Articles
Original Research.
Reviews
Commissioned or non-commissioned.
Recent Advances
Letters – best ones comment on previous Gut articles
Commentary / Editorial
Always commissioned

28. Life cycle of a manuscript
Personal
Reject 50%
6 x Reviewers
Search
Associate Editor
2 x Reviews
Editor-in-Chief
Life cycle of a manuscript
Associate Editor
Editorial Office
Corresponding Author
Reject
10%
Editorial Meeting
Reject 20%
More Work
Revise 15%
Accept <1%
Corresponding author
Accept with
minor revisions 5%
Give Up!

29. How Editors Pick Reviewers
Expertise
Independence
Record
Lack of conflict of interest
Authors suggestions
Search

30. What Good Reviewers Do Read the abstract Know the Journal?
Know the topic?
Or are prepared to study it?
Can complete it in two weeks
Have no conflict of interest
Positive
Negative

31. Step 1 in peer review Read the article Ask the big questions. Novel
Valid
Interesting
Significance
Presentation of data
Interpretation of results

32. Step 2: Attention to Detail
Figures
Clear
Well labelled
Not Misleading
Statistics Appropriate
Tables.
Grammar and Writing.

33. Stew Over It No rash decisions. Write down initial impressions.
Read pertinent articles in the field in question if necessary.
Assess for similar publications.
Do not discuss.

34. Step 3: Write the Review What questions do the Editors want answered?
Decision
Major and minor comments to the Editor “confidential”
Comments to the author

35. What Does the Editor Want to Know?
Scores
Brief summary of the main findings of the article.
Are the findings
Novel
Valid
Interesting
Is the presentation adequate?
Is the interpretation reasonable?
Main reasons why you are making your decision.

36. What does the Author Want to Know
Strengths
Weaknesses
Suggestions for Improvements
Do not tell the author what decision you are recommending.

37. Comments to Editor Good Specific reasons for recommendation
Context relative to specialist field
Significance (citability)
Bad
Vague
Subjective
Too short
Personal/Vindictive

38. Comments to authors Good Praise Strengths
Weaknesses and specific recommendations
Main points
Lesser points
Detailed
Bad
Personal/vindictive
Unhelpful
Superficial
Didn’t read the ms thoroughly
Give away your recommendation

39. A good review
Comments to author: This study uses a well-established NEC model to examine the induction of a wide array of innate immune responses. The paper generates several hypotheses but these are not discussed and it is not clear to reader what the next step of this study should be. Although a thorough analysis, it is not surprising to the reader that NEC leads to induction of a broad inflammatory response at the tissue level. While the down-regulation of TLR5 and TGF-beta in NEC is interesting and novel, the demonstrated role of TLR4, IL-12, and IL-18 in NEC are not new.
…………………
Comments to editor: A descriptive paper that generates several interesting hypotheses. Unfortunately the authors do not follow-up by asking interesting questions or by providing possible answers. The manuscript would benefit greatly from adding data from suggested additional experiments (especially time-course). At the current stage we would not recommend publication in Gut but will be happy to re-review once the suggested changes / experiments have been performed.

40. A bad review
Comments to authors: Present study by ………. et al, evaluated the inhibitory effect of anti-IL23R mAbs on a T-cell independent IBD mouse model and compared this effect with anti-IL23 mAbs' effect. Moreover they identified some efficacy biomarkers - S100A8, S100A9, REG3  , REG3  , LCN2 - for anti- IL23 therapy in CD. Besides they confirmed the target biomarkers by using a T-cell dependent colitis model. This study also showed in vitro IL23/Th17 pathway upregulated the expression of same biomarkers in human colonic epithelial cells. Finally, authors demonstrated that both serum levels and tissue expression levels of same biomarkers were increased in active Crohn's disease patients whereas decreased in patients who were in remission. Furthermore, they found two novel CD-associated serum biomarkers: LCN2 and CCL20.
Comments to editor: none

41. How Reviewers Comments Interact With the Editorial Board
Advisory role of reviewers
Independence of Reviewers
When reviewers disagree
Easy or soft reviewers versus hypercritical reviewers

42. How Editorial Decisions Are Made
Reviewers Comments and Recommendations.
Suitability (should be addressed early by editor)
Priority and competition
Likelihood of high citation
Need for accompanying editorial or commentary

43. How Editorial Decisions Are Made
Reject
Methodological or Analytical Weakness
Clinical work – hard to overcome
Lab work – easier to overcome
Priority
Low novelty
Low significance
Low impact (citation potential)
Unsuitability for journal

44. How Editorial Decisions Are Made
Revision
Major means new work needed
Experiments
Subjects
Deep analysis
Minor means writing changes usually
Interpretation
Minor analytical issues

45. What to do with reviewers comments
If accepted without revision you have submitted to the wrong journal!
Scan quickly for the word “However”……….
Major revision with work needed
Is it fair or unreasonable?
Can you do it or a co-worker?
Would it negatively impact subsequent publications (number versus impact)
Can some of the reviewers comments be rebutted?

46. Preparing your manuscript for re-submission
Follow journal rules!!
Respond point by point to every comment
Additional data
Revised writing
Rebuttal

47. Some tips of the trade!

48. Float a boat Exciting data but results not well developed
Submit to high impact journal
If reviewed and even if rejected you have reviewers comments
Do what they suggest
Resubmit

49. Revisions: some room for rebuttal
At Gut a revise editorial decision usually leads to acceptance
Reviewers and editors have pointed out several key weaknesses
Address key ones with additional data
Room to rebut some less important ones
Especially if beyond scope of current project

50. Recruit a key collaborator to strengthen borderline weak papers
Well known scientist in related field
Cutting edge analytical approach
Subject/sample numbers
Other diseases

51. Write a recent advances article
Contact editor in chief with an abstract of your review
In cover letter explain why your topic is deserving of a major review article
Significant recent advances
Impact
Clinical
Pathophysiology
Significance
Topical/controversial