1. Manuscript Submission, Revision and Galley Proof 講員：華 瑜 研究員

2. Manuscript Submission Before preparing the manuscript - Which journal to submit to - Pay attention to instructions to authors - Read recently published articles in journals that you intend to submit manuscript to

6. Manuscript Submission Before preparing the manuscript - Which journal to submit to - Pay attention to instructions to authors - Read recently published articles in journals that you intend to submit manuscript to

8. Manuscript Submission Before preparing the manuscript - Which journal to submit to - Pay attention to instructions to authors - Read recently published articles in journals that you intend to submit manuscript to

9. - Pay close attention to journal regulations - Make sure that the manuscript has all the required elements During manuscript preparation

10. Organization of the Manuscript 1. Formatted for 8.5 x 11 inch paper 2. Single spacing throughout 3. Two column page format including Summary through Discussion sections.?Title section as well as references, footnotes, figure legends and tables at the end of the manuscript are in single column format. Click here to see an example. 4. One-inch left and right margins and 0.25 inch spacing between columns. 5. Text typed in Times New Roman, 11 point 6. Manuscript is to be arranged in the following order:Click here to see an example (a) title, author(s), and complete name(s) of institution(s) and running title (b) summary (c) introduction (d) experimental procedures (e) results (f) discussion (g) references (h) footnotes (i) figure legends (j) tables (k) figures (l) supplemental data ( if applicable ) 7. Number all pages including figures. Please note: Any paper submitted without page numbers will be deleted and you will be asked to resubmit with pages numbers using the online submission system.

11. - Pay close attention to journal regulations - Make sure that the manuscript has all the required elements During manuscript preparation

13. Manuscript submission - For hard copy submission be sure to mail all the materials that required - For online submission be sure to upload all the requirements

14. Cover Letter - Identify title and authors of the manuscript - Identify the novelty of your work - Identify the category of submission - Mandatory statements Manuscript Submission

15. Dr. James T. Willerson Editor, Circulation St Luke's Episcopal Hospital/Texas Heart Institute 6720 Berner Avenue Houston, TX 77030-2697 USA Dear Dr. Willerson: Enclosed please find the original typescript, with one set of original figures, for the manuscript entitled, 'Nongenomic mechanism of cardiovascular actions of glucocorticoid in the nucleus tractus solitarii of the rat' by Samuel H.H. Chan, Chen-Chun Ou, Ling-Lin Wang and Julie Y.H. Chan, for your consideration to be published in Circulation as a Basic Science Reports. Cover Letter

16. I declare that all authors have read and approved submission of the manuscript, and that material in the manuscript has not been published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere in whole or in part in any language except as an abstract.

17. Authorship Responsibility and Copyright Transfer Agreement Authors Conflict of Interest Disclosure Acknowledgment Permission Key Word List Journal Subject Heads Related Materials Manuscript Submission

18. Editorial board or reviewers can only be recommend Only the editor decides

19. Within 1 - 5 days (electronic submission) Within 2 - 4 weeks (submission by mail) Subject is suitable to the journal Sufficient priority Acknowledgement of Receipt Manuscript Submission

20. Within 3 - 8 weeks Call or write after 8 weeks The Editorial Decision

21. 1. Novelty of the study? 2. Is the manuscript suitable for general readers of the journal? 3. Is the title accurate, succinct and effective? 4. Does the abstract properly represent the main body of the manuscript? 5. Does the Introduction adequately set the stage leading to the main question or hypothesis? Evaluating the manuscript From a reviewer’s or an editor’s point of view

22. 6. Completion and suitability of experimental designs 7. Validity and significance of the results. 8. Clarity and quality of the illustrations. 9. Is the discussion provides sufficient information? 10. Do the results support the conclusion? 11. Do all elements of the manuscript are in the right sequence? 12. Does the manuscript prepare in correct format? 13. Is the reference citation correct?

29. Reviewer Recommendation Term: Revisions Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 80 Rate Reviewer: (Select 1-100) Comments to Editor: Review Sheet: General Judgement ============================================================ 1. Is JBS the proper place for publication? ___#___ Yes ______ No 2. Is manuscript: _____ A. Acceptable in its present form or with minor revisions as noted under comments __#__ B. Acceptable, if revisions as noted under Comments are made _____ C. May become acceptable, if suggested experiments are supplemented and/or extensive revisions are made _____ D. Unacceptable (poor/no originality). Please include reasons under Comments Specific Assessment (Please check appropriate boxes) Yes/No 1. Is the title clear and precise? _#_ Yes __ No 2. Is the Abstract descriptive of contents? _#_ Yes __ No 3. Are enough details presented in the Methods section? _#_ Yes __ No 4. Are adequate statistical evaluations of data provided? _#_ Yes __ No 5. Are the Figures and Tables of suitable clarity and quality? _#_ Yes __ No 6. Is the Discussion section pertinent to the main theme of the article? _#_ Yes __ No

30. Outright acceptance - Congratulate yourself - Only about 3 - 5% of the manuscripts submitted to a good journal are accepted with minor corrections in style, e.g. grammar, spelling The Editorial Decision

31. Outright rejection - Usually “unacceptable”, “unacceptable in present form”, “low-priority score ” - You are not alone. Most good journals reject about 60-80% or more of the submitted manuscripts The Editorial Decision

32. Outright rejection Total rejection: Final decision. No negotiation More common: some useful data, but with major flaw in experimental design or interpretation Basically acceptable: lacks a control experiment or poor interpretation of acceptable data The Editorial Decision

33. Total rejection - Do not submit the manuscript anywhere to ruin your reputation - Salvage usable data, add more experiments before you consider a re-submission How To Deal with the Situation

34. More common: Conditional rejection - Chance of acceptance is not good if you re-submit to the same journal - Unless you can document that the reviewers have seriously misjudged your manuscript, or you have undertaken a major overhaul

35. More common: Conditional rejection - Use the comments for improvement - Add extra experiments - Submit to another journal

36. Basically acceptable - Repair and re-submit to the same journal - State what you have done - Your chance is good. Worth trying if it is the “best” journal in your field

37. Revision (“Acceptable”) - Be very happy that you get a revision - You are still in the game - Minor or major revision - de novo submission How To Deal with the Situation

38. Minor revision - Go ahead and do it

39. Major revision (reviewers are correct) - Follow their suggestions - Re-write - Re-make figures - Add experiments

40. Major revision (reviewers are wrong or unfair) - Use the comments to improve the manuscript - Submit to another journal

41. Major revision (reviewers are wrong or unfair) - Re-submit with a very polite point-by-point rebuttal - Never be antagonistic - Use scientific merits as your weapon The reviewers can be wrong, but the editor is never wrong!

42. Major revision (some valid comments, some not) - Revise those points that you feel acceptable - Write a rebuttal on those you disagree - Use scientific evidence to document your arguments There is no need to accept everything the reviewers suggest

43. Owing to the amount of work required to address the concerns of the reviewers and the editors, we do not wish to encourage revision. However, if you feel that you can satisfactorily construct a new manuscript that addresses the comments of the referees, we would be willing to process that manuscript as a de novo submission. We have found that the vast majority of such manuscripts are not accepted, and only 10% of all manuscripts are ultimately published. de novo submission

44. We have incorporated into our revision (highlighted in blue) all the suggestions by the Editors and the two reviewers. Our point-by-point responses are listed below for your reference. Responses to the Editors We wish to respectfully submit that in addition to being an experimental marker for neuronal activation, our group has demonstrated that c-fos plays a functional role in long-term central cardiovascular regulation. Responses to reviewer’s comments (Rebuttal letter)

45. Responses to reviewer’s comments (Rebuttal letter) Responses to Reviewer #1 (1) Q: Changes in p38MAPK, ERK1/2 or c-fos expression in the RVLM following ICV infusion of Ang II for 7 days. A: As suggested, we have introduced a new Figure 7 to demonstrate activation of p38 MAPK, ERK1/2 and CREB (Figure 7A), along with c-fos induction (Figure 7B) in ventrolateral medulla 7 days after i.c.v. infusion of Ang II. We also showed that parallel to blunting the pressor response to Ang II infusion (Figure 6A,B), treatment with ERK1/2 or CREB ASON, but not p38 MAPK ASON, significantly blunted the augmented c-fos gene expression (Figure 7B). Finally, together with data from Figure 6C, we demonstrated that upregulation of AT1R gene after c-fos induction (Figure 7C) underlies the long-term pressor response to Ang II in the RVLM. The relevant narration appears on P. 6, Para. 2, Lines 5-9; P. 6, Para. 3, heading and Lines 3-5; P. 10, Para. 2; and P. 11, Para. 1, Lines 4-5.

46. (2) Q: Comment on why PKC inhibits ERK1/2 but not c-fos. A: We wish to respectfully point out that PKC ASON indeed blunted c-fos expression. P. 8, Para. 1, Lines 3-4 in our original submission reads, “However, only pretreatment with PKC  ASON (100 pmol) significantly antagonized the Ang II-induced c-fos mRNA expression (Figure 3B). ” In fact, it is because of this finding that “PKC  ” is specified in the title of this article. This information now appears on P. 11, Para. 2, Lines 7-15. Responses to reviewer’s comments (Rebuttal letter)

47. Always consider submitting to a better journal after being rejected Your revision is an improved manuscript The Upward Game Manuscript Submission and Revision

48. Galley Proofs The manuscript bears your name – mistakes are your mistakes 1. It is your responsibility to make corrections on the printer’s galleys 2. Correct only the printing errors 3. Not a place to rewrite 4. Notes in proof

49. 5. “Read” – to find missing words “Study” – to find spelling mistakes 6. Learn the standard symbols and conventions for marking galleys 7. Mark errors twice, one in where the error occurs and the other at the margin 8. Check illustrations. Note whether they are reproduced effectively: size of reduction, fidelity 9. Answer the queries and/or remarks

50. Be a professional! Play the game according to the roles! If I had to do it, I might as well enjoy doing it!