11/5/2009

1

How to Get How to Get Your Paper RejectedYour Paper Rejected

Martha Montello, Ph.D.Martha Montello, Ph.D.Writing Consult CenterWriting Consult CenterUniversity of KansasUniversity of KansasSchool of MedicineSchool of Medicine

Citations and sourcesCitations and sources

“How to get your paper rejected,” H. Plotkin, “How to get your paper rejected,” H. Plotkin, British Medical JournalBritish Medical Journal, 329, 18, 329, 18--25 December, 25 December, p. 1469 (2004).p. 1469 (2004).“How to get your paper rejected,” V. Chernick, “How to get your paper rejected,” V. Chernick, Pediatric PulmonologyPediatric Pulmonology. 43: 22. 43: 22--223 (2008).223 (2008).gygy ( )( )“The Top 10 Reasons Why Manuscripts Are Not “The Top 10 Reasons Why Manuscripts Are Not Accepted For Publication”, D. Pierson, Accepted For Publication”, D. Pierson, Respiratory Care,Respiratory Care, 49, No. 10, 124649, No. 10, 1246--1252 (2004).1252 (2004).“Reasons reviewers reject and accept “Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports,” medical education reports,” Academic MedicineAcademic Medicine, , 76 (9): 88976 (9): 889--896 (2001). 896 (2001).

10 reasons why manuscripts 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publicationare not accepted for publication

Some are easily avoided or fixed.Some are easily avoided or fixed.Others are fatal flaws.Others are fatal flaws.

11/5/2009

2

#10 You chose the #10 You chose the wrong journal.wrong journal.

Wrong journalWrong journal

Journals receive articles outside their Journals receive articles outside their scope of interest. scope of interest.

A cause for rejection easily avoided.A cause for rejection easily avoided.

The fix: The fix: Read the journalRead the journal to which to which you’re submitting a manuscript.you’re submitting a manuscript.

#9 You did not read the #9 You did not read the instructions to authors.instructions to authors.

11/5/2009

3

Ignored instructions to authorsIgnored instructions to authors

Journals often have their own specific Journals often have their own specific instructions: read and follow.instructions: read and follow.

ICMJE (ICMJE (www.iemje.orgwww.iemje.org) and WAME: style ) and WAME: style and requirements among journals.and requirements among journals.

Specific instructions should be followed. Specific instructions should be followed. E.g. format for electronic submission of E.g. format for electronic submission of figures.figures.

#8 Your paper has a major, #8 Your paper has a major, undisclosed conflict of undisclosed conflict of

interest.interest.

Non disclosureNon disclosure

Makes the editor suspicious about the Makes the editor suspicious about the validity of your results.validity of your results.

Raises questions about your integrity Raises questions about your integrity and the worth of your research.and the worth of your research.

The fix: Be candid and forthright with The fix: Be candid and forthright with the editor.the editor.

11/5/2009

4

#7 Poor writing style#7 Poor writing style

Obscure, flowery, or complicated Obscure, flowery, or complicated languagelanguage

In promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or In promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable philosophical or psychological amicable philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous observations, beware of platitudinous , p, pponderosities. Let your communications possess ponderosities. Let your communications possess a clarified conciseness, a coa clarified conciseness, a co--efficient efficient consistency and a concatenated cogency. consistency and a concatenated cogency. Eschew conglomerations of flatulated garrulity, Eschew conglomerations of flatulated garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations. Let jejune babblement, and asinine affectations. Let your extemporaneous descantings and your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expiations have intelligibility and unpremeditated expiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity….veracious vivacity….

Avoid:Avoid:

Folk culture of patient care: acronyms, Folk culture of patient care: acronyms, euphemisms, and jargon,euphemisms, and jargon,

Clinical slang, cliches, purely local Clinical slang, cliches, purely local terminology,terminology,

Unnecessary abbreviations and acronyms.Unnecessary abbreviations and acronyms.

11/5/2009

5

Answer 4 questions, concisely:Answer 4 questions, concisely:

Why did you start? (introduction, including Why did you start? (introduction, including background & hypothesis)background & hypothesis)

What did you do? (methods section)What did you do? (methods section)

What did you find? (results section)What did you find? (results section)

What does it mean? (discussion section)What does it mean? (discussion section)

#6 Too many mechanical #6 Too many mechanical errors: spelling, grammar, errors: spelling, grammar,

punctuation, & “typos”punctuation, & “typos”p , ypp , yp

Sloppy writingSloppy writing

Raises suspicion that the Raises suspicion that the entire study was carelessly entire study was carelessly done, not worth publishing.done, not worth publishing.

11/5/2009

6

Mechanical errors: the fixMechanical errors: the fix

Your KUMC Writing Consult Center: editors will Your KUMC Writing Consult Center: editors will check manuscripts for errors & return a “clean” check manuscripts for errors & return a “clean” text (mmontell@kumc.edu).text (mmontell@kumc.edu).

Professional services found online.Professional services found online.

Commercial software programs designed to Commercial software programs designed to improve spelling and grammar improve spelling and grammar (www.studygs.net/spelling.htm).(www.studygs.net/spelling.htm).

#5 No substantive changes#5 No substantive changes

The paper has been rejected by The paper has been rejected by the editor of one journal & is now the editor of one journal & is now

submitted to another journal submitted to another journal without substantive changes.without substantive changes.

No substantive changes: dangerousNo substantive changes: dangerous

Reviewers and editors live in a small Reviewers and editors live in a small world. Can be insulted.world. Can be insulted.

If submitting elsewhere after rejection, be If submitting elsewhere after rejection, be candid.candid.

Make substantive changes and say so.Make substantive changes and say so.

11/5/2009

7

#4 Authors plagiarize others #4 Authors plagiarize others or themselves, misquote or or themselves, misquote or omit pertinent information.omit pertinent information.pp

DishonestyDishonesty

Plagiarizing others.Plagiarizing others.

Plagiarizing yourself.Plagiarizing yourself.

Misquoting, or omitting pertinent references.Misquoting, or omitting pertinent references.

Blatant dishonesty (e.g. use of fictitious data) is Blatant dishonesty (e.g. use of fictitious data) is dealt with harshly.dealt with harshly.

#3 No hypothesis#3 No hypothesis

11/5/2009

8

Readers need to know up front Readers need to know up front what idea you are testing and whywhat idea you are testing and why

Must be clearly stated in the Must be clearly stated in the IntroductionIntroduction

#2 Lack of focus#2 Lack of focus

Rambling, unfocused text, Rambling, unfocused text, difficult to read.difficult to read.

Particularly damaging:Particularly damaging:

Inadequate description of the MethodsInadequate description of the Methods

Scattered reporting of the ResultsScattered reporting of the ResultsScattered reporting of the ResultsScattered reporting of the Results

Lack of focus in the Discussion section Lack of focus in the Discussion section

Poor study designPoor study design

11/5/2009

9

Inadequate Methods sectionInadequate Methods section

Often too short: failure to include enough Often too short: failure to include enough detail on what was done.detail on what was done.

Include photographs, detailed diagrams, or Include photographs, detailed diagrams, or survey instruments.survey instruments.

Reporting of resultsReporting of results

Logical, consistent order, with actual data Logical, consistent order, with actual data rather than percentages, summary rather than percentages, summary statements, or generalizations.statements, or generalizations.

No interpretive commentsNo interpretive comments

Unfocused discussionUnfocused discussion

Unsupported or erroneous conclusions.Unsupported or erroneous conclusions.

Conclusions disproportionate to the Conclusions disproportionate to the results.results.

Uncritically accepting statistical results.Uncritically accepting statistical results.

11/5/2009

10

Poor study design: fatal flawPoor study design: fatal flaw

Know the existing literature.Know the existing literature.

Seek advice from experienced Seek advice from experienced researchers.researchers.

Consult a statistician or epidemiologist: Consult a statistician or epidemiologist: sample size, units of analysis, sample size, units of analysis, determinants of clinical importance or determinants of clinical importance or statistical significance.statistical significance.

#1 Failure to revise and #1 Failure to revise and resubmit after peer reviewresubmit after peer review

Peer review process plays vital Peer review process plays vital role in yielding an accurate, clear, role in yielding an accurate, clear,

and convincing message.and convincing message.

Using peer reviewUsing peer review

Include a detailed letter to editor, listing Include a detailed letter to editor, listing points raised by reviewers and how (or points raised by reviewers and how (or whether) each point has been addressed whether) each point has been addressed in the revision.in the revision.Include both a final version of the paper Include both a final version of the paper and a highlighted version showing where and a highlighted version showing where the changes have been made.the changes have been made.Thank the reviewers for their insights and Thank the reviewers for their insights and suggestions.suggestions.

11/5/2009

11

Ground ZeroGround Zero

Failure to write and submit a Failure to write and submit a manuscript at all.manuscript at all.

“Too many potentially useful “Too many potentially useful contributions to…science…have never contributions to…science…have never

been published simply because the been published simply because the investigator stopped after the abstract investigator stopped after the abstract

was completed.”was completed.”

David J. Pierson, David J. Pierson, Respiratory Care,Respiratory Care,October 2004 Vol 49 No 10, 1246.October 2004 Vol 49 No 10, 1246.