1. Melanie Wakefield, deputy editor Senior eds: Amanda Amos (Scotland)
Avoiding the spike: How to increase your chances of being rejected in research publication
Simon Chapman, Editor
Melanie Wakefield, deputy editor
Senior eds:
Amanda Amos (Scotland)
Lisa Bero (USA)
Andy Hyland (USA)
Joanna Cohen (Canada)

3. Editorial teleconference every 3 weeks: options
Reject without review
Send out for review
Offer as abstract only in paper version/full paper on website (8,000/day visitors)
Offer as letter
(reviewed papers): Revise & Resubmit
Reject after review(s)
ACCEPT!!

4. Reject without review? Inappropriately sent to our journal
Rants from crazies
Small parochial surveys, KAB studies
Most prevalence studies
Most disease etiology studies (although new findings OK)
Obviously poor studies (methods etc)
Material more suitable for local journals
Unoriginal replications of well known interventions
Interventions where the intervention is poorly described
Very boring papers

5. The first hurdle: limited space
We publish 6 x year
Av 10 papers/issue (ie 60/year)
2007:on track for 458 submissions ie 13% acceptance rate on current submissions.
Size of issue (eg: more papers) won’t increase till economics improves (ie more subscribers to pay for higher costs involved in bigger issues)

6. So what are we looking for?
What’s known about this issue?
What does this paper add?
So what? Who cares? Does it matter?
International implications?
Originality? Interesting!
Likely press/media interest?

8. Nobel prize work rejected..
Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences 1996, 47:
Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations . Science Communication 1995;16:
Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly cited. Social Studies of Science 1993; 23:
The competition for journal space among referees, editors and other authors and its influence on journal's impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences 1996; 47:
DO NOT TAKE IT PERSONALLY!

9. Aggrieved authors … Dear Simon Chapman,
Last year when we met in Paris, you asked to French researchers to send manuscripts, in order to have articles in Tobacco Control that will not be only Anglo-Saxons.
Therefore, we send you a short medico-economic article on the cost effectiveness of [study description].
I got the feeling that you decided not to publish our article without having a look at it. We were very disappointed to receive an the day after, explaining that our article was not given a priority sufficient for further consideration.
I would like to underline the fact that in 2006 a review written by Theadom (from UK) on the same topic (without any new data) and in June 2007 an article written by Bertram (from Australia) on the benefits of cost effectiveness, were published.
I am really grieved to realise that only Anglo-Saxons articles are supported in Tobacco Control.
I hope that one day “anti-tobacco world” will be more open-minded to others countries
Sincerly yours

10. French vs US rejections since Jan 2002..
France:25
USA: 396

11. Journal Impact factors
ISI Impact Factor: how often articles in a journal are cited within 2 years following the publication date.
TC’s ISI Impact Factor in 2005 = sum of all 2003 citations of any article published in TC in 2002 & 2003 divided by sum of all articles published in TC in those 2 years.
Will anyone ever cite this paper? Or will it be a dead weight on our impact factor, no matter how “worthy”?
Heavily cited: reviews; highly original papers; papers that receive high press attention

13. Is TC the right journal? Target your paper at a particular journal
Familiarise yourself thoroughly with potential journals
what sort of papers do they publish? (OAs, briefs, reviews, commentaries, iconoclastic pieces?)
What is the “culture” of the journal?
National or international focus?
Write for that journal
Many papers submitted that suggest authors have never read the journal.
Clue to likely desperation (ie rejected many times before) or that authors are not cutting-edge/up to speed
Wrong referencing = dead giveaway re above

14. We are a specialist journal...
Cut to the chase!
Do not waste time with elementary ABC introductory sections -- it is being read by people who know the field
locate your paper precisely in what has gone before & explain how your work takes it further

15. WHY PAPERS ARE REJECTED: 1. general
issue not important, boring, “so what?”
not original
Too parochial, not interesting for international readership
not appropriate for journal
data old & now irrelevant
practical difficulties -> doubtful results
As before, usually an editor’s judgment on original screen; some will be raised by reviewers;

16. WHY PAPERS ARE REJECTED: 2. scientific
unclear hypotheses
poor or weak design
sample biased or too small
statistics inappropriate or misapplied
conclusions unjustified
Causal conclusions from cross-sectional data
references outdated/authors not up with current debate
Wont go into detail here; topic for another presentation and Platt and Barnes covered one of these topics at a previous round
will comment further on conclusions and references later

17. WHY PAPERS ARE REJECTED: 3. presentation/style
poorly organized
badly written
careless errors
Terrible, multiple tables
needless/endless figures
outdated or improperly cited references
Too “ABC”
the crux of the matter; any of these tilt the balance sharply against you; if a reviewer has to struggle he or she is unlikely to view paper kindly and will probably look harder and find more scientific flaws; rarely a rejection saying your paper is so badly written we won’t accept
triggers a subconscious negative bias

18. Some rapid rejects .. And why
Smoking status of step-parents as a risk factor for smoking in adolescence
Tobacco Smoking Prevalence, Knowledge, Attitude, And Behaviour Towards Tobacco Controls Among [Country Name] Medical Students
Determination of Benzo(a)Pyrene in Mainstream and Sidestream Cigarette Smoke
The Mediating Effects of Sense of Community on the Relationship between Depression and Smoking

19. Which of these papers would have been rejected. Sent for review
Which of these papers would have been rejected? Sent for review? Accepted after review?

20. TOBACCO CONTROL POLICY INITIATIVES AND [ethnic group] MALE SMOKERS: COMMUNITY BASED, QUALITATIVE STUDY.
Objective: to explore the potential impact of proposed tobacco control initiatives on {nation} resident [ethnic group] male smokers.
Design: observational cross-sectional study using focus groups and one to one interviews in English and [ethnic group langauge].
Setting: [suburb of large city], during 2002.
Participants: 81 men aged years from the [ethnic group] community. Participants were recruited to reflect their age, place of birth and tobacco use status.
Results: in addition to confirming the influence of tradition, culture and the family on smoking and tobacco use three key areas for tobacco control were reported to influence the success of cessation attempts: the workplace, the availability of alternative sources of tobacco and perceptions of nicotine replacement therapy. The absence of a regulatory framework in the workplace environment meant smoking was widely accepted. Alternative, cheaper forms of tobacco were readily accessible such as conventional roll-up tobacco or traditional [ethnic group] chewing tobaccos. Smuggled cigarettes were also available for purchase. Information about the availability and purpose of nicotine replacement therapy was limited. Feelings of isolation and exclusion from current smoking cessation initiatives were important in shaping responses by the participants to these three issues.
Conclusion: participants reported limited positive experience of current tobacco control initiatives and a range of barriers to successful smoking cessation. The issues identified will help to inform the implementation of accessible and appropriate public health initiatives for tobacco control to ensure access to support for this community.

21. Determinants of exposure to secondhand smoke in an urban Mediterranean population.
Aim: To describe the sociodemographic factors associated to the exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in different settings of exposure (home, leisure time, and workplace).
Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data of self-reported SHS exposure in 1059 non-daily smokers interviewed within the XX Health Interview Survey Follow-up study in We calculated age-adjusted prevalence rate ratios (PR) of overall SHS exposure and in different settings, according to selected sociodemographic and lifestyle variables. All analysis were stratified by sex.
Results: 69.5% (95% CI: 64.5%-74.4%) of men and 62.9% (95% CI: 58.1%-67.6%) of women were exposed to self-reported SHS in any setting. The exposure was more frequent during leisure time (55.4% men and 44.3% women) than at home (25.9% men and 34.1% women) or in the workplace (34.0% men and 30.1% women). Both in men and women, overall exposure to SHS decreased with age. In men, SHS exposure was related to civil status, physical activity, tobacco consumption and alcohol intake. In women, SHS exposure it was related to educational level, civil state, occupational status, self-perceived health, to suffer some tobacco related illness, and to alcohol intake.
Conclusion: The prevalence of self-reported SHS exposure in this population is very high and its main correlate is age and educational level among females.

22. Risk of heart disease and stroke due to smoking in the WHO XX and XX regions
Introduction:
Tobacco will soon be the biggest cause of death worldwide with the greatest burden being born by low and middle-income countries where 8/10 smokers now live.
Objective:
This study aimed to quantify the direct burden of smoking for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) by calculating the population attributable risks (PAR’s) for heart disease (HD) and stroke (haemorrhagic and ischaemic) for all 38 countries in the WHO XX region.
Design and Subjects:
Sex-specific smoking prevalence rates were obtained from existing data. Estimates of the RR for HD and stroke with smoking as an independent risk factor were obtained from the ~600,000 adult subjects in the [name of collaboration]. RR estimates and prevalence were then used to calculate sex-specific PARs for HD and stroke by country.
Results:
Prevalence of smoking from the 33 countries, with smoking prevalence data from the region, ranged from 28-82% in males and from 1-65% in females. The risk of HD attributable to smoking ranged from 13% to 33% in males and from <1% to 28% in females. The risk of haemorrhagic stroke attributable to smoking ranged from 4-12% in males and from <1-9% in females. Last, the risk of ischaemic stroke attributable to smoking ranged from 11-27% in males and from <1-22% in females.

23. Attitudes of smokers in no-smoking areas
Objective: To ascertain to what extent smokers are aware of the tobacco legislation and their conduct in public places.
Material and methods: The population present in the public places defined by the 3/2001 Act (4th of April). Stratified sampling C.I. 95.5%, absolute error 7.5%, sample of 178 places and 326 people. The elements per category were chosen by proportional fixing. To analyse the quantitative variables the average, the typical deviation, the median, the inter-quartile range and the rank were calculated. To analyse the qualitative variables a descriptive statistical test and a comparative statistical study were performed using Pearson’s Chi-square test and the SPSS programme.
Results: 56% of the smokers think that smoking is permitted in places where it is prohibited. Only 29% adhere to the ban on smoking. It is observed at all times in nurseries, health centres and when using public transport, however, in waiting rooms, establishments where food is served, higher education institutions and hospitals, more than 85% of smokers fail to abide by the law. It is important to stress that 38% smoke in areas where it is prohibited to do so and 94% claim to extinguish a cigarette if asked to do so, however in the test carried out by the investigating team only 35% did so.
Conclusions: Two-thirds of smokers say the law is not complied with, particularly in waiting rooms, establishments where food is served, higher education institutions and hospitals. Many more smokers claim to stop smoking when asked to than those who actually do. It is necessary and advisable to appoint suitable and legally qualified personnel in order to enforce performance of this legislation in all establishments.

24. To what extent do smokers plan quit attempts?
Aims: We know surprisingly little about the extent to which quit attempts are planned ahead or initiated immediately following a sudden decision to quit. This is important because if most smokers quit abruptly, rather than plan ahead, this could impact heavily upon recommendations to health care professionals on the kind of smoking cessation advice they deliver to patients. This paper aims to address this gap in knowledge by examining detailed smoking histories taken from smoking and ex-smoking patients.
Design: Face-to-face in-depth semi-structured interviews.
Participants: 146 smoking and ex-smoking patients within a family medicine practice were recruited by means of screening 700 consecutive patients (14 years of age and older) and inviting eligible patients to participate. To be eligible, patients had to have smoked a minimum of 5 cigarettes per day for at least 6 months in their lives and made at least one serious quit attempt that lasted at least 24 hours. There were no refusals. Ex-smokers (N=67) were defined as those who had not smoked for 6 months. The remainder were classified as smokers (N=79).
Measurements: Participants were asked to describe, in their own words, their most recent quit attempt and whether they had planned the quit attempt in advance, what were the triggers and how long they abstained. A quit attempt was defined as planned if smokers set a quit date at some future time point. An unplanned quit attempt was defined as a sudden decision not to smoke any more cigarettes including those that might be remaining in the current pack. Information was also collected of methods used to quit and reasons for quitting.
Findings: A majority (51.6 %) of quit attempts were reported as being unplanned. The figure was higher for ex-smokers than for smokers (67.1% versus 36.7%, p<.001). Most quit attempts were unaided (64%) and made for reasons of health (64%).
Conclusions: The finding that so many quit attempts are unprepared suggests that models of smoking cessation should place greater emphasis on the dynamic nature of motivation to quit. This is an area that requires further investigation.

25. Preliminaries: Abstract & Title
structure abstract if so required
make it tell the whole story
tell it well; may be all that is seen
It WILL influence editor
title: choose with care (not too clever/obscure)
Take lots of time with abstract
may be all that is read
influences the screen step
choose title with care

26. Is your paper a paper, a brief or a research letter?
Easier to get letters & briefs accepted (space). They are indexed!
Decide whether you should submit it as a brief or letter

27. PROCRASTINATE pass it around comments from co-authors
seek criticism from colleagues
get mentor’s advice
put it away for awhile

28. POLISH accuracy, brevity, clarity, grace
revise, revise, and revise for:
accuracy: spelling, figures differ in tables and text; too many decimals
brevity: cut all empty phrases and words
clarity: basic grammar
grace: choice of words; vary sentences

29. PARSIMONY
make it “lean and mean” -- make every word justify its existence
check word limit; do word count
LIMIT tables & graphs to those necessary
shorter is (almost) always better
cut all extra words, phrases, paragraphs
prune, prune, prune
Shorter is better; cutting usually clarifies

30. PERSUADE covering letter to editor explain why your paper is special
May influence the editor; worth it but not too much detail

31. Been previously rejected by another journal?
DO send the reviewers’ comments, + a letter showing how you’ve addressed changes to the new journal editor
ANTICIPATE YOR REVIEWERS
Who has published recently in this journal on a related topic?
What are their preoccupations?
Can you cite their work?

32. PREPARE for rejection We rarely accept without revision
respond to comments promptly and in detail
Learn how to recognize the codes; provisional acceptance means just that

33. PERSIST revise promptly as requested resubmit push and explain
choose another journal
Sometimes worth challenging the decision if reviewers are not in agreement

34. Author Crimes Duplicate publication (& not telling)
salami slicing (& not telling)
media coverage prior to publication
web publication?
Multiple authorship:You must be able to justify the inclusion of every author

35. ALWAYS REMEMBER...
Journals need papers (almost as much) as authors need journals
Editors want their journals to be read and their papers to be cited