1. Publishing research in a peer review journal: Strategies for success
Christine Craik, Editor-in-Chief

2. Learning Outcomes
Understand the peer review process
Develop a personal publication plan utilising the strategies suggested at the workshop

3. Outline Explain the BJOT peer review process
Follow your manuscript through the process after you submit it
Understand how and where the key decisions are made
Suggest methods to avoid common problems
Identify key strategies
Enable you to develop your personal action plan

4. Peer review process – screening
Technical check - does it meet the current submission guidelines for its category?
Word count, number of references for category, reporting guidelines, key messages, registration for RCTs
Ethical approval – informed written consent
Age of study

5. Peer review process – screening
Desk review – is it suitable for peer review?
Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor reads abstract and looks at submission
Is it within aims and scope of the journal?
Does it advance knowledge?
Is it current?
Does it have international relevance?
Consider quality

6. Peer review process – screening
Technical check – authors may be asked to address problems
Desk review –
send for review
invite to resubmit in another category
reject without review
Out of scope
Not advancing knowledge e.g. we have published a similar study, poor research, method does not match research question, no international relevance, ethical problems
Desk reject – prompt decision – can submit to another journal

7. Your strategies Is your study worth publishing ?
Honest reflection on its quality / value
Is a journal article the best option? – consider a conference presentation /non peer review journal
Is the study current now or when it is published?
What does your study add

8. Your strategies Pick a relevant journal
Check websites of possible publications
Look at Aims and Scope
Look at recent issues, table of contents, OnlineFirst
If you are not sure - the editor to ask if the journal would be interested
Expect an honest answer

9. BJOT Aims and Scope
to publish articles with international relevance that advance knowledge on research, practice, education and management in occupational therapy

10. BJOT Strategic Direction
Focus on topics less well represented in journal
More clinical/client focus
Emphasise research as evidence for practice
Prioritise research and reviews
All submissions should advance knowledge
Craik C (2016) Strategic directions for the British Journal of Occupational Therapy 79 (3)

11. Your strategies
Follow the current submission guidelines for the article category
Read the other material on submitting
For example – confirm work is original, not submitted elsewhere, all authors are eligible to be authors, have permission to reproduce copyright material e.g. figures

12. Peer review process – reviewing
Editor-in-Chief selects potential reviewers
Double blind peer review by at least 2 reviewers
Authors do not know the reviewers
Reviewers do not know the authors or the other reviewer
Information that could identify you is not sent to reviewers

13. Peer review process - inviting reviewers
Reviewers –UK and international are invited – with the abstract
If they agree they receive the full submission with guidelines on reviewing
Asked to return within 4 weeks
Both reviews are sent to Editor-in-Chief for an initial decision

14. Your strategies
Title and abstract must be well written to assist editors and reviewers
Title should be clear, unambiguous and only include relevant words –shorter is better
Abstract should follow submission guidelines
Include key information – research question / aim /number of participants
Make sure it reflects the study as currently written

15. Peer review process - reviews
Reviewers usually comment on each section of the manuscript
The style varies and they may focus on different aspects of the manuscript
With 2 reviews, most aspects should be covered
The Editor-in-Chief may also provide additional comments
Additional questions for reviewers -

16. Peer review process - questions for reviewers
Is the relevance to international occupational therapy clear?
Does the paper advance knowledge in its area of research?
Do the conclusions relate logically to the aims, results and discussion?
Are further recommendations made and limitations addressed
Do the abstract, key messages and what this study has added summarise the article accurately and concisely.

17. Peer review process – decision
Editor-in-Chief considers reviews and submission
Suitable for publication in the current form
Suitable with minor amendments
Suitable but requires major amendments / additions
Unsuitable
Author receives both reviews, any comments from the Editor-in-Chief and an overall decision

18. Possible outcome
If unsuitable use the reviews to improve and submit elsewhere
Seldom accepted without revisions
Minor revisions – should take a few hours
Major revisions – only suggested if possible e.g. one or two of-
Update literature
More justification / detail of method
Reconsider the analysis, too many tables / quotes
Develop the discussion / implications for practice

19. Responding to reviewers’ comments
Authors should expect revisions – they are an opportunity to improve your manuscript
Build in time and energy for revisions
Show you have considered all the reviewer comments and in relation to each comment, either
Revise as requested or
Justify why not
Provide a table with an account of your responses
Resubmit revised article as soon as possible -2 months

20. Your strategies Avoid common problems throughout the manuscript
Introduction /literature review
Method
Results/findings
Discussion
Key findings / what they study has added

21. Your strategies - literature review
Think of the reader – tell the story
If BJOT - no need to explain occupational therapy
Focus on recent, key literature
Use research articles and reviews
Not textbooks or conference presentations
Clearly identify the gap in the literature /rationale for study / research question/s

22. Your strategies - method
Follow a logical order – very important if study has several phases or is part of a larger study (cite it)
Explain what you did – link to research question
Some justification for choices – referenced
Explain validity and reliability / trustworthiness
Needs to be replicable

23. Your strategies - results / findings
Start with participants
Link to research question
Present in same order as method
Present key results – not everything
Sensible use of tables, figures, diagrams
Do not repeat information in tables in the text – highlight key points

24. Your strategies - discussion
Again present in same order as method and results
Discuss key points not everything
Identify implications for practice and further research
Discuss limitations
Conclusion
Check abstract, key findings and what this study has added do match

25. Peer review process – reviewing a resubmission
The same reviewer/s will be asked to review again
Not all are willing to do this
If the reviewers / Editor-in-Chief still do not think the manuscript is suitable –it may be rejected or further revisions recommended
Again revise and provide an account of your responses

26. Strategies for your action plan
Decide if your study is worth publishing
Pick a relevant journal for your study
Follow the submission guidelines carefully
Remember the importance of title and abstract
Avoid common problems throughout the manuscript
Expect revisions, do them promptly, demonstrating how you responded to the reviewers

28. Good Luck !
Follow us on COT member access to BJOT: login to then go to Christine Craik: For information on submissions or becoming a reviewer: