Best Practices for Research Manuscripts in Two Parts: How to Pursue Publication and How to Become a Peer Reviewer
Christina Howlett Fullerton, PharmD, BCOP
Clinical Director, Research Oncology - Real World Evidence
Flatiron Health
New York, NY
Scott A. Soefje, PharmD, MBA, BCOP, FCCP, FHOPA
Director, Pharmacy Cancer Care
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, MN
There are many areas of uncertainty that may arise when developing a research manuscript for publication. Here are some tips for navigating the publication process with confidence and ease, followed by best practices for becoming a peer reviewer.
Research Focus: How to Pursue Publication
Find a Target Journal
In developing your manuscript, it is very helpful to have your target journal in mind from the beginning. By incorporating the journal’s style requirements for submission into your early drafts, you are avoiding having to do major revisions to meet their requirements at the time of submission. Locating journals that encompass the genre of the research topic and confirming that the journal has published research with similar study designs is critical.
It is also helpful to read the journal’s recently published articles to determine if your study aligns well with the current goals of the publication. If you are setting out to write a review article or case report, it may be helpful to reach out to the editor and inquire if there are any themed publications on the horizon for which your submission may be of interest. This can help with directing a case report or review article toward a specific goal for submission.
Create a Timeline & Seek Feedback Often
To stay on track, like any other project, it is best to keep a timeline for your manuscript from development through submission and peer-review. Having all team members involved and engaged throughout the process is critical for success, and this includes timeline execution.
If you are the resident on the project, you can decide how best to allow for editing by your mentors. Seeking out feedback early and often can allow for utilization of this guidance for future iterations. Also, writing a section at a time and asking for feedback on that section before moving to the next can allow for a more continuous process of writing and editing (i.e., You ask for feedback on the Background section and while mentors work on providing feedback for this section, you start writing the Methods section).
The most critical piece of advice regarding publication submission of residency research projects is to keep the process moving after residency graduation. Whether you are still in the editing phase, or getting the manuscript tidied up before submission, keeping up with these final tasks are critical for getting to the finish line. This may also be the time you hear back from the journal that they are accepting, accepting with minor/major revisions or are not accepting your manuscript for publication. If the latter is the case, do not fret, you can try again! Finding a new target journal and making edits according to the new journal’s style and prior journal’s feedback understandably do take time but stay the course. It may take 2-3 submissions to find the right fit.
Utilize What you Have
Keep in mind that you have already written early draft sections of your manuscript throughout the research project process. Even though your IRB Background section may need substantial work when translating it into the manuscript Background, it is a great place to start. You also have the Background references from the section pulled and possibly a conference abstract written. These written pieces can all contribute to your manuscript development, so do not let them go to waste. Even just having them as a placeholder for future editing can be reassuring when you set out to write your manuscript.
Network, Network, Network
As a general piece of advice for moving research projects to publication, creating a professional network of co-researchers is enormously helpful. As you move from residency to a full-time clinical role, there may be a variety of novel research ideas you come across. Keep discussing these ideas with pharmacy colleagues, as well as multidisciplinary team members. This will spark new research projects, allow for collaborations across disciplines, and foster opportunities for publishing in other healthcare discipline journals. Also, moving into your clinical role will find you on the preceptor side of resident research and publishing. Acting as a residency research advisor can help to expand your own research methodology skills and allow you to be better equipped in responding to feedback during the journal peer-review process.
It is a very rewarding process and an honor to contribute to the breadth of peer-reviewed research used every day in patient care.
Research Focus: How to Become a Peer Reviewer
Doing peer reviews for journals can be an interesting, professionally rewarding activity. Peer reviews can help you become a better writer and researcher while giving you a glimpse into the publication process. It helps build your reputation as it sets you up as an expert. Most importantly, it improves the quality of the research process by preventing the publication of poorly done research and helps select papers that will be of most interest to readers.
How to Become a Peer Reviewer
One question is “how do I become a peer reviewer?” Journals are looking for professionals that are experts in their area. Often the journals will look for people that have published on the topic the article is discussing. Networking is another way, so if you know someone on the editorial board of a journal, ask them how to become a peer reviewer. The last way is to contact the journal and the editors directly. Explain your expertise, express your areas of interest, and your desire to review articles. Good peer reviewers will be asked to do more reviews and sometimes start getting requests from other journals.
When to Accept—and When to Decline—an Invitation to Review
When the request to peer review arrives in your inbox, take the time to review the information. Make sure you can meet the requested deadline. If you want to review the paper but cannot meet the deadline, ask for an extension as it is possible the journal may make your timeline work for their publication. It is often easier for the editor to give you an extension than try to find another reviewer. It is perfectly acceptable to decline the review because it is better to decline an offer than to do a poor review. If you decline, be prompt in your response, explain why you are declining, and, if possible, recommend an alternative reviewer that may be better suited for the review. Here you can take the opportunity to express that you would be willing to do reviews, tell them what your strengths are, and that you would like to see other opportunities.
Critical Reading and Commenting
If you decide to accept the peer review offer, read the journal guidelines and scope, since these instructions were made to guide you on how to do the most useful review. It is recommended that you read the paper multiple times. The first reading should be to get the overall impression of the article. Does it fit the scope of the journal? Is there a fatal flaw that stops the publication right there? Is this a paper you found interesting to read? The next reading should concentrate on the scientific aspects of the paper. Is the abstract a clear overview of the work? Does the introduction explain the rationale? Are the methods sound and the results present well with a complete analysis? Do the conclusions accurately describe the data? Either as a final reading or during the first two readings, concentrate on writing and presentation of the paper. DO NOT line edit the paper—the editorial staff will fix the grammar and spelling issues later. Focus on the bigger picture items such as, too many grammar and spelling mistakes, hard to read, or does not flow well. You are looking for readability and style.
Be Thorough and Balanced
You will be asked to make two sets of comments. One will go to the authors that are designed to make the paper better. List out the flaws in the paper and what the author should do to address the flaws. Be kind, but honest. Be concise and specific. You are outlining for the author what needs to be done to make the paper publishable.
The second set of comments goes to the editor and will not be seen by the author. Here you will usually make the recommendation acceptable as written (which rarely happens), acceptable with minor revisions, acceptable with major revisions, or reject the paper. If you recommend revisions, describe which items must change to make the paper acceptable and which are nice to change. Do not be afraid to reject a paper but do tell the editor the rationale for why you think the paper should be rejected. The best thing you can do as a reviewer is to outline the paper’s benefits and issues honestly and clearly as you see them and share the specifics as to why you see them that way.
The best reviews are thorough and balanced, and the absolute best reviewers provide such comments in a timely manner. Peer review is a collaboration that improves the overall quality of publications that you can find is a professionally satisfying activity.
REFERENCES
- Kostic M. How to be a Great Reviewer for a Research Paper. Cell Mentor. Aug 31, 2017. Available at http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/how-to-be-a-great-reviewer-for-a-research-paper. Accessed 3/18/22.
- McPeek MA, DeAngelis DL, Shaw RG, et.al. The Golden Rule of Reviewing. Am Nat. 2009;173(5):E155-8
- Stiller-Reeve M. How to Write a Thorough Peer Review. Nature Career Column. Oct 8, 2018. Available at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- 018-06991-0. Accessed 3/18/22.
- Stiller-Reeve M. A Peer Review Process Guide. The Scholarly Kitchen. April 2018. Available at https://www.scisnack.com/?s=peer+review+process. Accessed 3/18/22.
- Wallace J. How to be a Good Peer Reviewer. The Scholarly Kitchen. Sep 17, 2019. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/09/17/how-to-be-a-good-peer-reviewer/. Accessed 3/18/22.