EDITORIAL
Avoiding Rejection Timothy Rowe, MB BS, FRCSC Editor-in-Chief
S
ince I have been Editor-in-Chief of JOGC, some of our contributors, many of whom are friends, have from time to time become cool towards me. I won’t say that they became enemies, which would be too strong; but to use a Facebook expression, they have definitely un-friended me. The reason for their coolness has been the obvious one. The editor’s job has been described as hiding in the hills until the battle is over, then coming down to the battlefield and shooting the survivors. I think that’s a little harsh, but it is certainly possible that contributors from time to time feel that my judgement is questionable and that I can’t recognize valuable work when it’s right in front of me. Fair enough. But putting out the journal each month is something that I’m certainly not able to do alone. I rely heavily on the wisdom of reviewers and editorial advisors, and for the most part these experts are responsible for keeping the journal’s contents scientifically valid and stimulating. Deciding to reject a submission is never pleasant, but if the reviewers provide objective reasons for doing so then we can work with the authors to modify their work so that it could be publishable. We do want to publish all submissions that push back the frontiers of medical knowledge, but some submissions just do not have the potential to do that, at least not in the pages of JOGC. Because I don’t enjoy being un-friended, I will list here (and expand on) the top five reasons why submissions are rejected from JOGC. I agree that it would be a more positive approach to list five golden rules to ensure that a submission is accepted—but I don’t know what they are. So here, instead, are the commonest reasons for rejection: 1. Not Appropriate for JOGC
In the United States, management of breast disease can fall in the purview of a gynaecologist, but in Canada it does not. Thus a submission related to the management of breast disease is not generally appropriate for JOGC. A manuscript written on a topic other than those
appropriate for JOGC can usually be directed without rancour to a more appropriate journal (there are a lot of journals out there). More difficult is the submission that is clearly on a topic appropriate for JOGC but in an inappropriate format. We publish original scientific reports, systematic reviews, commentaries, and case reports, all of which must be evidence-based and must undergo peer review before being considered for publication. Unfortunately, most case reports are rejected because they describe presentations or conditions that have already been reported. Submissions of work in other formats (such as the proceedings of a meeting of experts) are for the most part not accepted. We are grateful when authors of submissions in different formats contact us to ask about their suitability for JOGC, because that ensures our requirements are understood from the beginning and there is no ill-feeling from delayed rejection. I urge anyone who is uncertain about whether their submission is right for JOGC to contact us. We like it. 2. Poor Writing
None of us is Shakespeare, but Shakespeare would probably have been a terrible scientific writer. The best scientific writing is simple, direct, brief, vigorous, and clear. Newer authors, particularly, often feel the need to try to impress by using polysyllabic words where simple ones will do, and using acronyms that make outsiders feel like outsiders. Sometimes, surprisingly, the best writing comes from authors whose first language is not English (or French); they are not challenged by the need to impress, and only want to make themselves understood. It’s useful to remember that a scientific report is intended to convey just the following: why did you do the study you describe, how did you do it, what did you find, and what does it mean? The best manuscripts will provide this information clearly and briefly. The article in Nature J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014;36(3):203–204
MARCH JOGC MARS 2014 l 203
Editorial
by Watson and Crick outlining their proposal of a doublehelix structure for DNA comprised only 892 words.1 I’m embarrassed to point out that there are more words in this editorial. 3. Missing Essentials
Most journals including JOGC use a checklist for what is required in a manuscript submission. Nevertheless, important and sometimes vital information can be overlooked; examples include confirmation of ethics approval (and the name of the body providing it), details of statistical methods (and the software used for them), and confirmation that patient consent has been obtained—or even, astonishingly, the realization that consent from a patient or the patient’s next of kin is required for publication. With regard to the last issue, it is essential for potential authors of case reports or small case series to understand this: a patient’s right to privacy outweighs any potential educational value in describing their case. If a patient could be identified from the clinical details provided, consent is required, and if consent cannot be obtained we cannot publish. 4. Poor Scientific Standards
Fortunately it is rare for an author to submit a manuscript with a fatal flaw in the study, such as an inappropriate study design or incorrect use of statistical methods. In such cases, no amount of painting over the cracks can make up for an inherently incorrect process or conclusion. But not uncommonly authors may submit manuscripts indicating that in conducting their study they could have used a little guidance. Sometimes minor errors can be corrected during the review process; but it is sometimes also better to advise that the authors start again, if (for example) critical observations have been omitted or statistical calculations seem incorrect. I’m not a statistician, but fortunately I have access to experienced ones, and this is not uncommonly an area for professionals. “Poor scientific standards” is a broad category with more than a touch of subjectivity in what it means. Simple guidelines aren’t appropriate. However, the growing number of manuscripts describing the results of surveys is a concern for most journal editors, because they are often of minimal scientific value. These manuscripts appear to be proliferating because of the ease with which surveys can be done via the Internet. A survey of relevant people in an area of therapeutic uncertainty can always provide useful information; but when a survey has a 20% response rate, or it deals with an area with little general interest, it usually does not justify publication, even if presented beautifully.
204 l MARCH JOGC MARS 2014
5. Resentful Attitude to Review and Editing
Making a good impression at first contact goes a long way. Most authors (and all first-time authors) prepare a manuscript with their colleagues (and, in the case of first-time authors, their parents) in mind. But the first people an author must impress are journal editors; it is only through them that they will be able to reach their intended audience. Editors are human, so a friendly (and respectful!) tone helps. Authors who pay attention to detail will always start on the right foot, and providing a thoughtful and courteous cover letter makes a good impression. But be careful: we receive a surprising number of cover letters addressed to the editor of another journal, presumably the last journal from which the manuscript was rejected. As we say in the editorial office: that’s Strike One! We generally consider first how to accept any submission, and rejection is not our default response. If a manuscript appears to have potential for publication, it is screened first in the editorial office for any recognizable deficiencies and then sent for peer review. If the authors do not agree with a reviewer’s comment, they should point out respectfully why they disagree. Acceptance does not hinge on authors’ accepting everything that reviewers say. But it is critical for authors not to resent proposals for change; they may not agree with the reviewers’ comments, but the comments are made in good faith with the intent of improving the manuscript. Finally, once the review process has begun we try hard to keep the process moving. Sometimes reviewers are slow, but not uncommonly authors take a surprising amount of time to respond to comments from reviewers or editors. Responses that take a long time always arouse suspicions about the health of the manuscript and reduce the likelihood of quick publication. They may even lead to rejection. We don’t like to reject manuscripts any more than authors like to be rejected. If a manuscript is rejected, I write to the corresponding author personally to explain why the manuscript was rejected and what might be done (redrafting, submission to another journal) to enhance the odds of publication. The bottom line is this: JOGC is the official voice of reproductive health care in Canada. We all want that voice to be articulate and worth listening to. REFERENCE 1. Watson JD, Crick FHC. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953;171:737–8.
Avoiding Rejection Timothy Rowe, MB BS, FRCSC Editor-in-Chief
S
ince I have been Editor-in-Chief of JOGC, some of our contributors, many of whom are friends, have from time to time become cool towards me. I won’t say that they became enemies, which would be too strong; but to use a Facebook expression, they have definitely un-friended me. The reason for their coolness has been the obvious one. The editor’s job has been described as hiding in the hills until the battle is over, then coming down to the battlefield and shooting the survivors. I think that’s a little harsh, but it is certainly possible that contributors from time to time feel that my judgement is questionable and that I can’t recognize valuable work when it’s right in front of me. Fair enough. But putting out the journal each month is something that I’m certainly not able to do alone. I rely heavily on the wisdom of reviewers and editorial advisors, and for the most part these experts are responsible for keeping the journal’s contents scientifically valid and stimulating. Deciding to reject a submission is never pleasant, but if the reviewers provide objective reasons for doing so then we can work with the authors to modify their work so that it could be publishable. We do want to publish all submissions that push back the frontiers of medical knowledge, but some submissions just do not have the potential to do that, at least not in the pages of JOGC. Because I don’t enjoy being un-friended, I will list here (and expand on) the top five reasons why submissions are rejected from JOGC. I agree that it would be a more positive approach to list five golden rules to ensure that a submission is accepted—but I don’t know what they are. So here, instead, are the commonest reasons for rejection: 1. Not Appropriate for JOGC
In the United States, management of breast disease can fall in the purview of a gynaecologist, but in Canada it does not. Thus a submission related to the management of breast disease is not generally appropriate for JOGC. A manuscript written on a topic other than those
appropriate for JOGC can usually be directed without rancour to a more appropriate journal (there are a lot of journals out there). More difficult is the submission that is clearly on a topic appropriate for JOGC but in an inappropriate format. We publish original scientific reports, systematic reviews, commentaries, and case reports, all of which must be evidence-based and must undergo peer review before being considered for publication. Unfortunately, most case reports are rejected because they describe presentations or conditions that have already been reported. Submissions of work in other formats (such as the proceedings of a meeting of experts) are for the most part not accepted. We are grateful when authors of submissions in different formats contact us to ask about their suitability for JOGC, because that ensures our requirements are understood from the beginning and there is no ill-feeling from delayed rejection. I urge anyone who is uncertain about whether their submission is right for JOGC to contact us. We like it. 2. Poor Writing
None of us is Shakespeare, but Shakespeare would probably have been a terrible scientific writer. The best scientific writing is simple, direct, brief, vigorous, and clear. Newer authors, particularly, often feel the need to try to impress by using polysyllabic words where simple ones will do, and using acronyms that make outsiders feel like outsiders. Sometimes, surprisingly, the best writing comes from authors whose first language is not English (or French); they are not challenged by the need to impress, and only want to make themselves understood. It’s useful to remember that a scientific report is intended to convey just the following: why did you do the study you describe, how did you do it, what did you find, and what does it mean? The best manuscripts will provide this information clearly and briefly. The article in Nature J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014;36(3):203–204
MARCH JOGC MARS 2014 l 203
Editorial
by Watson and Crick outlining their proposal of a doublehelix structure for DNA comprised only 892 words.1 I’m embarrassed to point out that there are more words in this editorial. 3. Missing Essentials
Most journals including JOGC use a checklist for what is required in a manuscript submission. Nevertheless, important and sometimes vital information can be overlooked; examples include confirmation of ethics approval (and the name of the body providing it), details of statistical methods (and the software used for them), and confirmation that patient consent has been obtained—or even, astonishingly, the realization that consent from a patient or the patient’s next of kin is required for publication. With regard to the last issue, it is essential for potential authors of case reports or small case series to understand this: a patient’s right to privacy outweighs any potential educational value in describing their case. If a patient could be identified from the clinical details provided, consent is required, and if consent cannot be obtained we cannot publish. 4. Poor Scientific Standards
Fortunately it is rare for an author to submit a manuscript with a fatal flaw in the study, such as an inappropriate study design or incorrect use of statistical methods. In such cases, no amount of painting over the cracks can make up for an inherently incorrect process or conclusion. But not uncommonly authors may submit manuscripts indicating that in conducting their study they could have used a little guidance. Sometimes minor errors can be corrected during the review process; but it is sometimes also better to advise that the authors start again, if (for example) critical observations have been omitted or statistical calculations seem incorrect. I’m not a statistician, but fortunately I have access to experienced ones, and this is not uncommonly an area for professionals. “Poor scientific standards” is a broad category with more than a touch of subjectivity in what it means. Simple guidelines aren’t appropriate. However, the growing number of manuscripts describing the results of surveys is a concern for most journal editors, because they are often of minimal scientific value. These manuscripts appear to be proliferating because of the ease with which surveys can be done via the Internet. A survey of relevant people in an area of therapeutic uncertainty can always provide useful information; but when a survey has a 20% response rate, or it deals with an area with little general interest, it usually does not justify publication, even if presented beautifully.
204 l MARCH JOGC MARS 2014
5. Resentful Attitude to Review and Editing
Making a good impression at first contact goes a long way. Most authors (and all first-time authors) prepare a manuscript with their colleagues (and, in the case of first-time authors, their parents) in mind. But the first people an author must impress are journal editors; it is only through them that they will be able to reach their intended audience. Editors are human, so a friendly (and respectful!) tone helps. Authors who pay attention to detail will always start on the right foot, and providing a thoughtful and courteous cover letter makes a good impression. But be careful: we receive a surprising number of cover letters addressed to the editor of another journal, presumably the last journal from which the manuscript was rejected. As we say in the editorial office: that’s Strike One! We generally consider first how to accept any submission, and rejection is not our default response. If a manuscript appears to have potential for publication, it is screened first in the editorial office for any recognizable deficiencies and then sent for peer review. If the authors do not agree with a reviewer’s comment, they should point out respectfully why they disagree. Acceptance does not hinge on authors’ accepting everything that reviewers say. But it is critical for authors not to resent proposals for change; they may not agree with the reviewers’ comments, but the comments are made in good faith with the intent of improving the manuscript. Finally, once the review process has begun we try hard to keep the process moving. Sometimes reviewers are slow, but not uncommonly authors take a surprising amount of time to respond to comments from reviewers or editors. Responses that take a long time always arouse suspicions about the health of the manuscript and reduce the likelihood of quick publication. They may even lead to rejection. We don’t like to reject manuscripts any more than authors like to be rejected. If a manuscript is rejected, I write to the corresponding author personally to explain why the manuscript was rejected and what might be done (redrafting, submission to another journal) to enhance the odds of publication. The bottom line is this: JOGC is the official voice of reproductive health care in Canada. We all want that voice to be articulate and worth listening to. REFERENCE 1. Watson JD, Crick FHC. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953;171:737–8.
