4 Getting StartedThe 3 most important things in developing a career in biomedical investigationChoose the right mentor
5 Why is the mentor important? Scientific creativity has to be learnedNetworkingAccess to fundsInterest in developing people
6 Attributes of a good mentor Track record of steady productivityEvery student/post doc in group publishes first author papersEvery student/post doc in group publishes middle author papersUpward trajectoryInterested in you as a person
7 Do good science Definition of good research: The ability to ask and unambiguously answer an important scientific questionNF La RussoFormer editor in chief, Gastroenterology
8 Develop a reputation in a field Systematically develop a line of investigationBecome known as topic expertCollaborate well
9 Picking scientific ideas to follow Most interesting in your field (citations!)Opportunities for collaborationInnovative not DerivativeClear thinkingClear story telling
10 When and how to prepare your work for publication
11 When to publish a storyNumbersImpactTimeAdvice of mentor is key
12 Writing your paper Start early Time to get feedback Time to revise Get new ideas when writingThink in figures and tablesKey resultsFinish 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 playersExpose 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 knowledgeBalance
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 basicPhysiology vs pathophysiologyGeneral vs subspecialtyImpactTime 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.ClinicalNot good:Descriptive dataPure physiologySome human data
20 Editorial policyArticles 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 rate8% for original research submitted in 2011Time from submission to first decision16 days for reviewed original articlesTime from acceptance to publication28 days (online) 5 months (print)FrequencyMonthlyImpact factor10.614
22 Submitting your paper Adhere to rules of journal Length, figures & tables, references, order of sections etcConsort, STARD, subject flow etcWebsite eg ScholarOneCan seem difficult but work through itSuggest reviewersFriends?? – bewareNon-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 SlowSubject to biasFavours pre-existing ideasMay 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.ReviewsCommissioned or non-commissioned.Recent AdvancesLetters – best ones comment on previous Gut articlesCommentary / EditorialAlways commissioned
28 Life cycle of a manuscript PersonalReject 50%6 x ReviewersSearchAssociate Editor2 x ReviewsEditor-in-ChiefLife cycle of a manuscriptAssociate EditorEditorial OfficeCorresponding AuthorReject10%Editorial MeetingReject 20%More WorkRevise 15%Accept <1%Corresponding authorAccept withminor revisions 5%Give Up!
29 How Editors Pick Reviewers ExpertiseIndependenceRecordLack of conflict of interestAuthors suggestionsSearch
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 weeksHave no conflict of interestPositiveNegative
31 Step 1 in peer review Read the article Ask the big questions. Novel ValidInterestingSignificancePresentation of dataInterpretation of results
32 Step 2: Attention to Detail FiguresClearWell labelledNot MisleadingStatistics AppropriateTables.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? DecisionMajor and minor comments to the Editor “confidential”Comments to the author
35 What Does the Editor Want to Know? ScoresBrief summary of the main findings of the article.Are the findingsNovelValidInterestingIs the presentation adequate?Is the interpretation reasonable?Main reasons why you are making your decision.
36 What does the Author Want to Know StrengthsWeaknessesSuggestions for ImprovementsDo not tell the author what decision you are recommending.
37 Comments to Editor Good Specific reasons for recommendation Context relative to specialist fieldSignificance (citability)BadVagueSubjectiveToo shortPersonal/Vindictive
38 Comments to authors Good Praise Strengths Weaknesses and specific recommendationsMain pointsLesser pointsDetailedBadPersonal/vindictiveUnhelpfulSuperficialDidn’t read the ms thoroughlyGive away your recommendation
39 A good reviewComments 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 reviewComments 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 reviewersIndependence of ReviewersWhen reviewers disagreeEasy 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 competitionLikelihood of high citationNeed for accompanying editorial or commentary
43 How Editorial Decisions Are Made RejectMethodological or Analytical WeaknessClinical work – hard to overcomeLab work – easier to overcomePriorityLow noveltyLow significanceLow impact (citation potential)Unsuitability for journal
44 How Editorial Decisions Are Made RevisionMajor means new work neededExperimentsSubjectsDeep analysisMinor means writing changes usuallyInterpretationMinor 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 neededIs 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 commentAdditional dataRevised writingRebuttal
48 Float a boat Exciting data but results not well developed Submit to high impact journalIf reviewed and even if rejected you have reviewers commentsDo what they suggestResubmit
49 Revisions: some room for rebuttal At Gut a revise editorial decision usually leads to acceptanceReviewers and editors have pointed out several key weaknessesAddress key ones with additional dataRoom to rebut some less important onesEspecially if beyond scope of current project
50 Recruit a key collaborator to strengthen borderline weak papers Well known scientist in related fieldCutting edge analytical approachSubject/sample numbersOther diseases
51 Write a recent advances article Contact editor in chief with an abstract of your reviewIn cover letter explain why your topic is deserving of a major review articleSignificant recent advancesImpactClinicalPathophysiologySignificanceTopical/controversial