Where Shall I Publish It? daydreams. I had the other day. It was a conversation between the Chief Editor and the "Composite" Author, something that editors yearn for, but in real life can never occur. Too bad, because the best hope for misunderstandings is face-to-face communication. That is why heads of state
Editors can be sensitive to presump¬ tion. An ingratiating statement in the covering letter usually doesn't help, and can even backfire. In any case, the maneuver seldom accomplishes more than achieving a personalized letter in return along with an uninfluenced
travel.
ever
Armchairs induce a
happy
one
This is how the dialogue went. Editor: When you have written an article, how do you decide on what journal to send it to? Author: The first thing I think of is the size and special interest of its
readership.
Editor: What else; does
play a part?
prestige
Author: Yes, I guess so; we all have natural desire to hobnob with the great. It is common to say, "Let's try the\p=m-\Journal of Medicine. Dr\p=m-\ just might take it. If he doesn't, we can send it somewhere else." Editor: After one paper has been accepted, where do you send the next one? Do you change journals for successive articles? Author: Yes that's important. The innate pride (or vanity) of an author about the value of his contributions makes him want as wide an exposure as possible within his field. Editor: And the field of general surgery, offering at least five major journals in the United States, provides a rich opportunity here. What else? Author: Well, the thought that friendship with the Chief Editor may be helpful always comes forward. We have doubts about that. What is your reaction? Editor: I'm glad you mentioned it. a
rejection or acceptance. One thing I want to ask is if
you
submit a paper you are not en¬ tirely satisfied with, hoping you will get help in rewriting it from the comments of the referees? Author: I tried that, but it didn't work. All I got was a curt rejection. Editor: Yes, editors are too busy, and anyhow it is a local job. Most authors can improve their papers by making themselves perform more rewrites. The trouble is that none of us has the time. I'm convinced that that is the main factor interfering with good medical writing. But when an author is stuck and really needs advice, he should more often overcome his pride and get help from someone in his locality. If no friend with respected literary ability and the time is available, someone from a nearby educational institution can help, at least with the English. What else? Author: An important factor in an author's selection is the journal's repu¬ tation for rapid publication after acceptance. Why do some journals take so long? Editor: When I took over as Chief Editor, I vowed I'd get the interval down to a month or two. But I have found that advertising contracts and other pressures dictate that a certain number of pages must be filled each issue, so its size cannot vary with the
Downloaded From: http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/ by a University of Victoria User on 06/05/2015
load. This destroys any noble hope that one might accept the best papers at the uneven rate at which they arrive and then speed them all through the processing period at the same rate. Because of the need for a cushion of time, three to four months is about as fast as a monthly can handle routine submissions. Anything over six months, however, should be considered excessive. Let me ask you how you feel about the importance of speed of decision. Wouldn't you agree that a quick answer, particularly if it is a rejection, is highly desirable? It enables the manuscript to be sent to another journal without frustrating delay. Author: This is very important. Yes, indeed. Editor: How would you feel if the Chief Editor, knowing the waiting list for articles in that category was filled, sent it back to you by return mail? Author: Wait a minute. I would hope that it would be read and evalu¬ ated. Editor: Ah—there's the rub. A quick return would mean that the Chief Editor was the only person who had had time to read it. Otherwise, the usual two- to four-week waiting peri¬ od for complete Board review would be required. Chief Editors, believe it or not, have enough uncertainty about their own ability to make a definitive assessment of quality on a paper so that most would not accept such a position of power. Author: But isn't "the full waiting list" an inexact matter? Can't you always find room for a paper that you really want? Editor: Touché. Yes, the length of
the interval from acceptance to publi¬ cation can be tampered with. The system has the inexactitude of all selfimposed disciplines. But there have to be limits, and the power a Chief Editor exerts in this sort of control seems to me less autocratic than sending out to the Editorial Board a paper that he knows his (self-imposed) waiting list limitations will prevent his accepting when it eventually returns.
The need for quick decisions is widely felt. Some authors, or clinic
editors
representing authors, are con¬ sidering a system where they send out preliminary query letters along with an abstract of a paper to several jour¬ nals, asking whether they might be
interested in it. We may see more of this approach, which I believe is worth trying, but the abstract would have to be written perfectly so as to reveal all the important aspects of the paper. Author: I must say, I had not thought deeply about these problems. I admit that a quick rejection on the basis of an unmanageable backlog is
advisable. It would be wise to state in the rejection letter that the paper had not been read critically so as to remove any implication of autocratic judgment of quality. Even so, I am not
entirely happy.
Editor: Neither
am
again.
I woke from my daydream re¬ freshed by the opportunity for the conversation. RICHARDWARREN, MD Boston
50 Years Ago in the Archives of
Surgery
The Influence of
Operations
on
Decompression Experimentally
Produced Papilledema Loyal Davis, MD, PhD, Chicago (Arch Surg 12:1004-1029, 1926) 1. The introduction of sterile agar into the cerebral or the cerebellar substance produces an increase in intracranial pressure which results in the production of papilledema. 2. The gradual increase in size of the agar due to its absorption of fluid closely simulates the mechanics of an intracranial new growth. 3. A subtemporal decompression opening prevents the occurrence of papilledema from the introduction of agar into the cerebrum or the cerebellum. Such a cranial opening is as efficient in the presence of a cerebellar tumor as is a suboccipital craniotomy. 4. The importance of the mechanical factor of an increase in intracranial pressure in the production of papilledema has been corroborated by this method. 5. Connective tissue in abundance is found in the tissue immediately surrounding these artifically
produced
tumor
masses.
6. This method of experimentation affords a means of studying the disturbed function of the cerebrum and the cerebellum produced by the introduction of agar into the brain substance.
Downloaded From: http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/ by a University of Victoria User on 06/05/2015
I. Let's talk
Editors can be sensitive to presump¬ tion. An ingratiating statement in the covering letter usually doesn't help, and can even backfire. In any case, the maneuver seldom accomplishes more than achieving a personalized letter in return along with an uninfluenced
travel.
ever
Armchairs induce a
happy
one
This is how the dialogue went. Editor: When you have written an article, how do you decide on what journal to send it to? Author: The first thing I think of is the size and special interest of its
readership.
Editor: What else; does
play a part?
prestige
Author: Yes, I guess so; we all have natural desire to hobnob with the great. It is common to say, "Let's try the\p=m-\Journal of Medicine. Dr\p=m-\ just might take it. If he doesn't, we can send it somewhere else." Editor: After one paper has been accepted, where do you send the next one? Do you change journals for successive articles? Author: Yes that's important. The innate pride (or vanity) of an author about the value of his contributions makes him want as wide an exposure as possible within his field. Editor: And the field of general surgery, offering at least five major journals in the United States, provides a rich opportunity here. What else? Author: Well, the thought that friendship with the Chief Editor may be helpful always comes forward. We have doubts about that. What is your reaction? Editor: I'm glad you mentioned it. a
rejection or acceptance. One thing I want to ask is if
you
submit a paper you are not en¬ tirely satisfied with, hoping you will get help in rewriting it from the comments of the referees? Author: I tried that, but it didn't work. All I got was a curt rejection. Editor: Yes, editors are too busy, and anyhow it is a local job. Most authors can improve their papers by making themselves perform more rewrites. The trouble is that none of us has the time. I'm convinced that that is the main factor interfering with good medical writing. But when an author is stuck and really needs advice, he should more often overcome his pride and get help from someone in his locality. If no friend with respected literary ability and the time is available, someone from a nearby educational institution can help, at least with the English. What else? Author: An important factor in an author's selection is the journal's repu¬ tation for rapid publication after acceptance. Why do some journals take so long? Editor: When I took over as Chief Editor, I vowed I'd get the interval down to a month or two. But I have found that advertising contracts and other pressures dictate that a certain number of pages must be filled each issue, so its size cannot vary with the
Downloaded From: http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/ by a University of Victoria User on 06/05/2015
load. This destroys any noble hope that one might accept the best papers at the uneven rate at which they arrive and then speed them all through the processing period at the same rate. Because of the need for a cushion of time, three to four months is about as fast as a monthly can handle routine submissions. Anything over six months, however, should be considered excessive. Let me ask you how you feel about the importance of speed of decision. Wouldn't you agree that a quick answer, particularly if it is a rejection, is highly desirable? It enables the manuscript to be sent to another journal without frustrating delay. Author: This is very important. Yes, indeed. Editor: How would you feel if the Chief Editor, knowing the waiting list for articles in that category was filled, sent it back to you by return mail? Author: Wait a minute. I would hope that it would be read and evalu¬ ated. Editor: Ah—there's the rub. A quick return would mean that the Chief Editor was the only person who had had time to read it. Otherwise, the usual two- to four-week waiting peri¬ od for complete Board review would be required. Chief Editors, believe it or not, have enough uncertainty about their own ability to make a definitive assessment of quality on a paper so that most would not accept such a position of power. Author: But isn't "the full waiting list" an inexact matter? Can't you always find room for a paper that you really want? Editor: Touché. Yes, the length of
the interval from acceptance to publi¬ cation can be tampered with. The system has the inexactitude of all selfimposed disciplines. But there have to be limits, and the power a Chief Editor exerts in this sort of control seems to me less autocratic than sending out to the Editorial Board a paper that he knows his (self-imposed) waiting list limitations will prevent his accepting when it eventually returns.
The need for quick decisions is widely felt. Some authors, or clinic
editors
representing authors, are con¬ sidering a system where they send out preliminary query letters along with an abstract of a paper to several jour¬ nals, asking whether they might be
interested in it. We may see more of this approach, which I believe is worth trying, but the abstract would have to be written perfectly so as to reveal all the important aspects of the paper. Author: I must say, I had not thought deeply about these problems. I admit that a quick rejection on the basis of an unmanageable backlog is
advisable. It would be wise to state in the rejection letter that the paper had not been read critically so as to remove any implication of autocratic judgment of quality. Even so, I am not
entirely happy.
Editor: Neither
am
again.
I woke from my daydream re¬ freshed by the opportunity for the conversation. RICHARDWARREN, MD Boston
50 Years Ago in the Archives of
Surgery
The Influence of
Operations
on
Decompression Experimentally
Produced Papilledema Loyal Davis, MD, PhD, Chicago (Arch Surg 12:1004-1029, 1926) 1. The introduction of sterile agar into the cerebral or the cerebellar substance produces an increase in intracranial pressure which results in the production of papilledema. 2. The gradual increase in size of the agar due to its absorption of fluid closely simulates the mechanics of an intracranial new growth. 3. A subtemporal decompression opening prevents the occurrence of papilledema from the introduction of agar into the cerebrum or the cerebellum. Such a cranial opening is as efficient in the presence of a cerebellar tumor as is a suboccipital craniotomy. 4. The importance of the mechanical factor of an increase in intracranial pressure in the production of papilledema has been corroborated by this method. 5. Connective tissue in abundance is found in the tissue immediately surrounding these artifically
produced
tumor
masses.
6. This method of experimentation affords a means of studying the disturbed function of the cerebrum and the cerebellum produced by the introduction of agar into the brain substance.
Downloaded From: http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/ by a University of Victoria User on 06/05/2015
I. Let's talk
