1. Manuscript Writing and the Peer-Review Process
Josephine Mauskopf, PhD
C. Daniel Mullins, PhD

2. Outline Study Design Authorship Guidelines Journal Selection
Adhering to standard formats
Following good writing practice
Following journal instructions
Peer-Review Process

3. The Value of Peer-Review
Peer-review makes you look better
My worst paper was accepted without any revisions requested
My best paper
Required three rounds of extensive revisions
Was rejected by the first journal with the first round of comments
Was significantly (positively) influenced by the peer-review process

4. Study Design
A good paper starts with good research methods and credible data
Research methods must be current and complete and well-supported
(e.g. probabilistic sensitivity analysis, linear versus non-linear relationship between variables)
Need to anticipate and incorporate changes in accepted research methods
Analysis should be evidence-based
(i.e. based on reliable data)

5. Authorship Follow biomedical journal guidelines Contribution to
Conceptualization of research
Interpretation of results
Responsibility for the paper
Generally requires writing or heavy editing sections
First author
Second author
Senior author
Acknowledgement versus authorship
No courtesy authorship

6. Choosing the Target Journal
Who do you want to read the paper – practitioners or researchers
Who do you want to review the paper – practitioners or researchers
Journal impact factor
Is the paper of interest to the journal
Read old issues
Check journal mission statement
Perform a PubMed search for similar publications
Consider the journals listed in your references

7. Follow Good Writing Practice: I
Editors and reviewers find it easier to assess your paper if the paper is
Well organized
Well written
Follow standard format
Abstract
Background
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
Make sure Discussion is not mixed in with Results
Start the peer-review process by having a colleague give you informal peer-review

8. Follow Good Writing Practice: II
The introduction is critical
In 3 or 4 paragraphs you need to provide enough background to show
that you are familiar with the literature
why your paper is an important addition to this literature
To answer the “so what” question, provide
A general description of the importance of the topic
A quick review of the literature to show what is missing and why this matters
A brief summary of how your paper is going to fill this gap

9. Follow Journal Instructions
Editors get irritated if you do not do this!
On-line submissions are increasingly the rule
Follow author guidelines
Abstract word limits and format
Paper word limits
Reference format
Tables and Figures instructions
Blinded and un-blinded copies
Disclosure of financial support
Copyright release forms

10. Know the Peer-Review Process
Value in Health
Editor in Chief does initial review for scope and major methods flaws
Editor in Chief assigns co-editor
Co-editor does second review for “so what” and major methods flaws
Co-editor chooses reviewers
Reviewers send reviews
Co-editor makes first decision
Editor in Chief reviews and confirms first decision
If revise and resubmit – the revised paper goes back to the co-editor who probably sends it back to the reviewers
Final decision by co-editor if reviewers and co-editor are satisfied with the revisions
Editor in Chief approves decision by co-editor

11. Delays in the Peer Review Process
Avoidable:
Paper is incomplete (e.g. missing Abstract or Conclusion)
Paper does not conform to journal style
Unavoidable:
Hard to find reviewers – you can suggest reviewers with your submissions
Reviewers may be late with reviews
A reviewer may suggest a further expert review is needed

12. Getting sent out for review
To get through the editors initial review the paper needs to:
Be in line with scope of the journal
Use appropriate methods
Be well written
Give sufficient detail so that reviewers can understand/evaluate
Methods
Data sources
Values
Answer the “So What” question

13. Getting to Revise and Resubmit
The literature cited in the introduction and discussion must be comprehensive and include likely reviewer’s papers
The need for the paper must be clearly stated
The methods must be current and appropriate for the study question and must be clearly described
The data must have credible sources and be appropriate for the methods and conclusions
The analysis should not be biased either for or against a product or procedure
Accept that there is an element of luck in the assignment of editors and reviewers that may make a difference

14. Responding to the Reviewer Comments
This is one of the most important steps in the process
Responding to the reviewer comments will make your paper much better than the one you submitted so treat the comments as “value-added”
Do not be upset by the comments – sometimes they seem insulting but they are always helpful
Never, never ignore any comment from a reviewer
If the reviewer does not understand what you have done it is your error – clarify the text
If the reviewer does not like what you have done – change it if possible – if not possible to change it acknowledge his/her suggestion in the discussion and say why this is not done

15. Responding to the Reviewer Comments (cont’d)
Reply letter
Write the “response to reviewer” letter before making the changes to the manuscript
Helps you plan out exactly what you need to do to answer each and every comment
Should include a shortened version of each comment along with your response to the comment
Remember: reviewers need to find something to say in their review so there always will be some changes requested

16. Some Do’s and Don’ts Do’s Have a current literature review
Be within the recommended word limit
Make sure methods and data source are transparent, e.g. a table is included with all model inputs for an economic model
Make sure tables and figures can be interpreted without looking at the text in the main body of the paper

17. Some Do’s and Don’ts Don’ts Write the abstract at the last moment
Misinterpret published papers to suit the paper conclusions
Have inconsistent data in the text, tables and abstract
Over (or under) exaggerate results

18. Questions?
Good-luck!
We look forward to receiving your manuscripts at Value in Health