Editor’s Letter
Ideas Regarding Developing, Submitting, Reviewing, and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript: An Editor’s Perspective
I
n 1991, I was appointed Editor of Neurosurgey. Later we established NEUROSURGERY/Online and Operative Neurosurgery. This was a position that I was honored to hold for 18 years. In 2009, I was privileged to be appointed Editor-in-chief and Founder of WORLD NEUROSURGERY and WorldNeurosurgery. org. During this combined 24-year period, I have provided oversight to the review of tens of thousands of scientific manuscripts involving literally hundreds of thousands of reviews and subsequent adjudications. These publications, it is safe to say, were and are among the leading scientific publications of the period and played a major role in shaping the field of neurological surgery as it is practiced throughout the world today. Developing, submitting, reviewing, and publishing a scientific manuscript is a complex multifactorial process that encompasses a multitude of perspectives and issues (1-11). The following comments provide a brief and simplified view regarding the overall matter.
by detailed literature review is key. “Rediscovery of the wheel” is a common pitfall of the naive author. Following this review, the essence of a rudimental bibliography can be formulated. One cannot overestimate the importance of the title. It is the marquee statement of the work and conveys many liminaland subliminal messages to the reader. The sectional design of the manuscript is standard by category and conveys a sense of order to the readers. It provides a template for each author’s presentation, and most importantly the design of the research, be it clinical or laboratory, should be rigidly constructed and adhere to accepted standardized methods providing data that is analyzed according to the standard and, when appropriate, statistically validated techniques. Carefully considered statements of inference of data are made only after deliberate contemplation of results. Care should be taken to avoid inappropriate interpretation and exaggeration of inference. This then requires a strong and lucid statement of appropriate conclusion.
The created manuscript should then provide a 1) substantial abstract that Current scientific journals offer a not only provides a sumbroad spectrum of opportunity mary of importance, relefor sharing concepts, ideas, and Scholars at a Lecture, by William Hogarth (1697e1764). vance, and conclusions but information. At Neurosurgery also sparks the interest of and WORLD NEUROSURGERY, the reader; 2) a strong statement of validation of the importance more than 60 separate categories of manuscript types can be of and need for the paper; 3) a clear statement of the approach defined. However, principle-working categories include: 1) Clinical taken to assess the issue or issues at hand; 4) a lucid and studies, 2) Laboratory/Experimental studies, 3) Reviews, 4) Case comprehensible presentation of the collected data; 5) a clear reports, 5) Technical reports, 6) Historical essays, and 7) Clinicostatement of results; 6) the implication of results; 7) the pathological studies. perspective provided by results; and, finally, 8) the importance of A systematic approach is essential for the development of an the results. individual manuscript.
THE MANUSCRIPT
An original concept is the seed of any eventually viable communication. It is essential for the concept’s ultimate success. Following this inspiration, a thorough investigation of the general topic
WORLD NEUROSURGERY 81 [3/4]: 443-446, MARCH/APRIL 2014
A sophisticated manuscript should provide analysis of the topic and present complimentary tables and figures that provide a rapid transmission of “the story.”
www.WORLDNEUROSURGERY.org
443
EDITOR’S LETTER SUBMISSION
society sponsorship;
In 2014, a number of issues attend the decision regarding manuscript submission. They have been examined in WORLD NEUROSURGERY and the New England Journal of Medicine (among others) in some detail (4, 6-11). Obviously, quality work should migrate to high-level, reliable publications in which issues of trust, reliability, and substance of stage are central. Our peer-review journals are a valuable primary resource and an anchor in the storm of what is an information deluge. Peer review is complimented by society sponsorship, which indicates an element of oversight. However, it needs to be considered that sponsorship occasionally impacts journal bias by society mission. The author should be aware of both the society’s and journal’s mission and intent. Association with established publishers offers another layer of oversight.
defined global reach or penetration;
The audience for each journal needs to be considered because society and “political” bias will, in part, define general populace distribution. Familiarity with each editor and his or her administration of decision-making and personal bias, given page limitation and current issues of importance, should also be considered by experienced authors. The review process in journals is quite variable. The concept of peer review is quite vague in its orchestration and implementation. Over the years, we have used independent peer review by a minimum of 6 expert individuals in a panel that is tailored by the editor to exclude biases and provide optimum appraisal for edification of the authors and intellectual protection of both sides of the process. Submissions with significant potential influence or that are controversial may have as many as 12 reviewers. All manuscripts have both general and specialty perspectives rendered before a decision is made. It’s not uncommon that other proclaimed peer-reviewed publications may have only one primary reviewer. However, one must be cognizant of the fact that strict peer review is a costly and tedious process that is the essential grounding of the information base. Authors should be familiar with the composition of editorial boards for each journal and their participation and importance in the process. For the more sophisticated and established journals, editorial board listings represent the tip of the iceberg. Both Neurosurgery and WORLD NEUROSURGERY have employed more than 1200 individual reviewers from various geographic regions, specialties, and perspectives per year. Other factors in submission often involve local perception of a journal’s importance or political factors that may prevail. Institutional and historical bias can play a role in submission. It is key to note that journals over time will show distinct variability in energy, quality of product, and substance, depending on the editor and his or her approach, style, bias, and most importantly dedication to task. Therefore, historical relevance is not always a wise point of decision, and care should be taken to give this issue undue importance. It is noteworthy that recently there has been an escalation in the presence of web-based, open-access publications, many with no oversight or a vaguely defined peer-review process. Frequently, a “pay-to-publish” model exists. Obviously, this is a buyer-beware situation (6-9). Overall, the concept of submission in such venues would not seem to be optimal or desirable. A few comments on assessment of journal importance are in order. Key factors that contribute to both relevance and importance include the following:
444
www.SCIENCEDIRECT.com
the perceived reputation and competence of the editor; the composition of the editorial board; advertising presence and revenues; generated revenues; citation index; historical significance; and association with an established publisher.
THE EDITOR Authors should be cognizant of the role and tasks of the editor and the issues attendant to shepherding a complex scientific journal, particularly one with a society sponsorship (1). Authors should be aware of the challenges of editorial stewardship and its variations according to the situation. A delicate balance exists between the editor and the individuals or institutions that are served: authors, reviewers, publishers, industry, and societies all require attention and provide specific challenges. 1) Author satisfaction with review time, considered propriety of critique, and points of consideration create an emotional climate that can be volatile. 2) Reviewers serve the journals needs without compensation and are individualistic in their styles and capabilities of response depending on the personal burden of time. Their time, willingness, and realistic capability of contribution need to be taken into account. It is often said that the editor is a “beggar” for time and effort, not to mention the issue of submitted manuscripts. 3) Relations with publishers are a constant challenge with deadlines, page allowance, and elements of composition points of focus and often contention. In all cases, the perspective related to the bottom line is central, requiring a give-and-take attitude on both sides to maintain fluidity and the delicate balance between a journal’s overall quality and cost. In some cases, the issue of profit and society royalties can become an issue. Contracts are typically written in 5-year time frames to define relationships. However, often these are hardly “nimble” in accommodation to rapid changes of need. 4) Industry must be courted and given significant attention as their support may at times be crucial for the function and reliability of the professional journal office, not to mention society sponsorships. 5) Societies, like all human organizations, are subject to change in attitude and agendas of those in leadership. These vicissitudes often stress the delicate balance that exists between the political climate that dominates most society leadership groups and the relative “ivory tower” milieu of the journal office and its functionality. Occasionally, personal or faction agendas come into play by “political operatives,” in which the journal and editor become a political football. This situation is more commonly observed in cases of leadership dysfunction. Occasionally, editorial appointments are not immune from the political realm. Such situations are obviously suboptimal and lend operations to tainted bias. The “church” and “state”
WORLD NEUROSURGERY, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.01.013
EDITOR’S LETTER
require separation. At times, strain exists, particularly in areas of resource allocation and appropriations management. 6) The Journal Office, particularly in a quality publication, is an assembly of unique professionals who orchestrate a complex array of tasks and interactions with all the aforementioned. The challenges facing the managing editor are particularly difficult. Hundreds of manuscripts and thousands of reviews are tracked in order while the simultaneous creation of multiple issues is juggled with authors and publishers. This all done while final products are polished and created, particularly in the case of a journal such as WORLD NEUROSURGERY. The finalization of each product represents a small miracle in itself. The identification of individuals who are ready, willing, and capable of functioning in such a complex team is hardly a simple task. They are not readily available. So, the creation of a sophisticated journal office represents a major editorial journal challenge. Once established, keeping the editorial office intact represents another major hurdle as the pressured environment frequently is attended by participant burnout. It is noteworthy that economic and profit-driven motives are causing the assimilation of independent journal office function into publisher’s general operations. This practice clearly lends to homogeneity of product and impacts the quest for freshness of each issue and the individualism that every good editor should seek.
assure and direct the products growth and evolution; and consistently recognize important novel and seminal developments and trends, not only in the field but also in relevant or potentially relevant areas. This being said, the editor must be constantly aware of the everevolving global, socioeconomic, and political climate. In addition, strict familiarity of the technical revolution in information is required. A sense of the vicissitudes of the political climate within and affecting all aspects of neurosurgery is essential. Finally, the editor oversees the peer-review process—The most important task of all.
THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS Proper peer review is a process that varies in concept application from one publication to another (2, 4, 5). Strict peer review with attentive editorial control is an arduous process. It is expensive. However, it is essential to establishing the scientific validity of our information base. The process itself is an academic exercise and an educational activity for all engaged with serious involvement (2, 5).
In my view, a principle act in the exercise is to mitigate bias while assuring a valid review arriving at a “veritas” in a decision that is fair to all, protects the auAs I have noted in the thors and journal, past, the editor’s task while ultimately extends far beyond providing valid data “the desk.” It requires to our scientific inthe development of formation base. As healthy and meaningful previously noted, relationships with auwe have used a thors, reviewers, venminimum of 6 (or dors, publishers, and more) independent society leadership reviewers in a groups, not to mention The Bench (second state), (1758), by William Hogarth (1697e1764). panel developed by a network of general the editor after personal support. It is a careful review of most delicate balance the submission. My approach has been to personally review each of forces. The editor is required to maintain stability to assure a manuscript in the following order: 1) title, 2) authors, 3) abstract, successful publication. The editor must comprehend the existing 4) bibliography, 5) introduction, 6) table and figures, 7) conclusion, climate, deal with its challenges, and foresee the future to maintain a 8) methods, and 9) results. necessary evaluation in proper course. I should add that this is all accomplished in many cases while maintaining clinical, research, The panel is then established to include recognized experts in teaching, and other professional commitments. various geographic regions and perspectives with care taken to Authors should appreciate the primary responsibilities for avoid competitive bias and potential agendas. In virtually all aseditorship: signments, I am personally familiar with the reviewer beyond established work and reputation. Given the current global reach, act to mitigate natural biases that occur in all areas of the peercare is taken to assign at least one reviewer from the country of review process; submission and establish oversight by a continental editor, maintain a broad spectrum of representation of topics, especially if I am not familiar with the authors. themes, and individuals in journal products; provide a personal style, spirit, and energy to the publication and its operation; establish and maintain an element of freshness, renewal, and vitality in each issue of product;
WORLD NEUROSURGERY 81 [3/4]: 443-446, MARCH/APRIL 2014
Importantly, the reviewers are directed to assess the manuscript regarding a number of key areas. These include: 1) importance, 2) originality of concept, 3) appropriateness of design, 4) soundness interpretation and conclusion, 5) relevance of decision,
www.WORLDNEUROSURGERY.org
445
EDITOR’S LETTER
6) clarity of writing, 7) strength and organization, 8) word economy, and 9) relevance, accuracy, and completeness of bibliography.
TAKE-AWAY ADVICE
I, personally, emphasize the bibliography as a “window” to the authors’ sophistication and comprehension of a topic. This does not necessarily imply a voluminous listing but an intelligent rendering of important relevant paper that provide grounding.
Be thorough from the start.
I favor an inventive and intelligent title that succinctly conveys the thrust and element of the paper. Revisions are required in the majority of manuscripts that are published. Virtually all these revisions are essential and add to the integrity and polish, professionalism, and importance of the given paper. Each reviewer’s comment needs to be carefully and respectfully addressed in the shortest possible timeframe. The authors need to constantly keep in mind that the process is their friend and an effort to refine an ultimate product that will, if published, be an eternal addition to the world’s scientific literature. The content, intelligence, and conveyance will be forever associated with the source both in authorship and publication. Multiple revisions, in general, indicate an effort on the part of the editor to provide opportunity to the manuscript to successfully navigate the critical process because of underlying merit.
DECISION TO PUBLISH In the majority of cases, decisions are made principally on the recommendation of the editorial board and specialty consultants. The editor brings journal composition overview as a final factor. With completion of the peer-review process, a decision to publish is established by a number of major positive factors. These include, perhaps most importantly, the originality of the work combined with the integrity and quality of the manuscript. Important consideration is also given to the journal’s mission, the volume of similar topics, and its relevance to the period. Occasionally, contract space limitations play a role. Origin of a paper, locale and authorship, as well as length are relevant. Contributing negative factors include: 1) a sloppy submission often without care being taken to comply with the journals form, 2) truly excessive length that exceeds the elements of message, 3) an aberrant bibliography, 4) poor design, 5) lack of originality, 6) ungrounded conclusions, 7) poor language, and 8) case reports. It is important to note that most all marquee publications have a rejection rate of 80% or more overall. For WORLD NEUROSURGERY, case reports have a considerably greater attrition. In general, we advise individuals to direct their efforts to other types of manuscripts that have greater potential value to the information base.
FINAL DECISION The final adjudication rests with the editor. The intellectual values, substance, and originality are detailed by the panel. The decision, in general, regarding publishability is clear; however, the relative merit and importance of a paper in relation to others in the process and the journal’s information flow and general composition rests in the editor’s hands. Good papers are rejected for a variety of reasons. All good papers cannot be published in consideration of the realities of space and composition. This problem has been alienated somewhat by the online element; however, composition and the expense is a consideration that is quite limiting.
446
www.SCIENCEDIRECT.com
Be original. Originality is the key to success. Know the literature. Don’t rediscover the wheel. Emphasize the integrity of the manuscript in form, intellectual conveyance, and length. Understand your options for submission and familiarize yourself with each potential journal, its editor, mission, and review process. Conform to reviewer requests and if you strongly object, convey your ideas and arguments lucidly and in a gentile fashion. Make sure that you address each point from each reviewer’s detail. Do not delay your revision. Submit your carefully crafted revision in short order. Most of all, enjoy the process and be patient with it. Finally, I would suggest that all articles in this bibliography be read and considered (1-11).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to thank Rod Faccio, former Managing Editor of Neurosurgery and current Executive Editorial Director of WORLD NEUROSURGERY, for his insightful review and critical comments.
Michael L. J. Apuzzo
REFERENCES 1. Apuzzo MLJ: Mission nearly impossible: thoughts on shepherding a society journal. Neurosurgery 63:1009-1010, 2008. 2. Apuzzo MLJ: Peer-review: a citadel under siege. Neurosurgery 63:821, 2008. 3. Apuzzo MLJ: Individualism and collectivism in the realm of neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 78:555, 2012. 4. Apuzzo MLJ: Acquiring wisdom in the information age. World Neurosurg 79: 595-596, 2013. 5. Apuzzo MLJ: Lux and veritas: approaching the thorny process of peer-review and “peer-review” 2011. World Neurosurg 76:1, 2011. 6. Beall J: Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489:179, 2012. 7. Beall J: Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers (2nd Edition). Available at: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatoryopen-access-publishers-2nd-edition/. Accessed March 6, 2013. 8. Carrol MWL: Creative commons and the openness of open access. N Engl J Med 368:789-791, 2013. 9. Frank M: Open but not free—publishing in the 21st century. N Engl J Med 368: 787-789, 2013. 10. Huag C: The downside of open-access publishing. N Engl J Med 368:791-793, 2013. 11. Wolpert AJ: For the sake of inquiry and knowledge—the inevitability of open access. N Engl J Med 368:785-787, 2013. 1878-8750/$ - see front matter ª 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.01.013
WORLD NEUROSURGERY, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.01.013
Ideas Regarding Developing, Submitting, Reviewing, and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript: An Editor’s Perspective
I
n 1991, I was appointed Editor of Neurosurgey. Later we established NEUROSURGERY/Online and Operative Neurosurgery. This was a position that I was honored to hold for 18 years. In 2009, I was privileged to be appointed Editor-in-chief and Founder of WORLD NEUROSURGERY and WorldNeurosurgery. org. During this combined 24-year period, I have provided oversight to the review of tens of thousands of scientific manuscripts involving literally hundreds of thousands of reviews and subsequent adjudications. These publications, it is safe to say, were and are among the leading scientific publications of the period and played a major role in shaping the field of neurological surgery as it is practiced throughout the world today. Developing, submitting, reviewing, and publishing a scientific manuscript is a complex multifactorial process that encompasses a multitude of perspectives and issues (1-11). The following comments provide a brief and simplified view regarding the overall matter.
by detailed literature review is key. “Rediscovery of the wheel” is a common pitfall of the naive author. Following this review, the essence of a rudimental bibliography can be formulated. One cannot overestimate the importance of the title. It is the marquee statement of the work and conveys many liminaland subliminal messages to the reader. The sectional design of the manuscript is standard by category and conveys a sense of order to the readers. It provides a template for each author’s presentation, and most importantly the design of the research, be it clinical or laboratory, should be rigidly constructed and adhere to accepted standardized methods providing data that is analyzed according to the standard and, when appropriate, statistically validated techniques. Carefully considered statements of inference of data are made only after deliberate contemplation of results. Care should be taken to avoid inappropriate interpretation and exaggeration of inference. This then requires a strong and lucid statement of appropriate conclusion.
The created manuscript should then provide a 1) substantial abstract that Current scientific journals offer a not only provides a sumbroad spectrum of opportunity mary of importance, relefor sharing concepts, ideas, and Scholars at a Lecture, by William Hogarth (1697e1764). vance, and conclusions but information. At Neurosurgery also sparks the interest of and WORLD NEUROSURGERY, the reader; 2) a strong statement of validation of the importance more than 60 separate categories of manuscript types can be of and need for the paper; 3) a clear statement of the approach defined. However, principle-working categories include: 1) Clinical taken to assess the issue or issues at hand; 4) a lucid and studies, 2) Laboratory/Experimental studies, 3) Reviews, 4) Case comprehensible presentation of the collected data; 5) a clear reports, 5) Technical reports, 6) Historical essays, and 7) Clinicostatement of results; 6) the implication of results; 7) the pathological studies. perspective provided by results; and, finally, 8) the importance of A systematic approach is essential for the development of an the results. individual manuscript.
THE MANUSCRIPT
An original concept is the seed of any eventually viable communication. It is essential for the concept’s ultimate success. Following this inspiration, a thorough investigation of the general topic
WORLD NEUROSURGERY 81 [3/4]: 443-446, MARCH/APRIL 2014
A sophisticated manuscript should provide analysis of the topic and present complimentary tables and figures that provide a rapid transmission of “the story.”
www.WORLDNEUROSURGERY.org
443
EDITOR’S LETTER SUBMISSION
society sponsorship;
In 2014, a number of issues attend the decision regarding manuscript submission. They have been examined in WORLD NEUROSURGERY and the New England Journal of Medicine (among others) in some detail (4, 6-11). Obviously, quality work should migrate to high-level, reliable publications in which issues of trust, reliability, and substance of stage are central. Our peer-review journals are a valuable primary resource and an anchor in the storm of what is an information deluge. Peer review is complimented by society sponsorship, which indicates an element of oversight. However, it needs to be considered that sponsorship occasionally impacts journal bias by society mission. The author should be aware of both the society’s and journal’s mission and intent. Association with established publishers offers another layer of oversight.
defined global reach or penetration;
The audience for each journal needs to be considered because society and “political” bias will, in part, define general populace distribution. Familiarity with each editor and his or her administration of decision-making and personal bias, given page limitation and current issues of importance, should also be considered by experienced authors. The review process in journals is quite variable. The concept of peer review is quite vague in its orchestration and implementation. Over the years, we have used independent peer review by a minimum of 6 expert individuals in a panel that is tailored by the editor to exclude biases and provide optimum appraisal for edification of the authors and intellectual protection of both sides of the process. Submissions with significant potential influence or that are controversial may have as many as 12 reviewers. All manuscripts have both general and specialty perspectives rendered before a decision is made. It’s not uncommon that other proclaimed peer-reviewed publications may have only one primary reviewer. However, one must be cognizant of the fact that strict peer review is a costly and tedious process that is the essential grounding of the information base. Authors should be familiar with the composition of editorial boards for each journal and their participation and importance in the process. For the more sophisticated and established journals, editorial board listings represent the tip of the iceberg. Both Neurosurgery and WORLD NEUROSURGERY have employed more than 1200 individual reviewers from various geographic regions, specialties, and perspectives per year. Other factors in submission often involve local perception of a journal’s importance or political factors that may prevail. Institutional and historical bias can play a role in submission. It is key to note that journals over time will show distinct variability in energy, quality of product, and substance, depending on the editor and his or her approach, style, bias, and most importantly dedication to task. Therefore, historical relevance is not always a wise point of decision, and care should be taken to give this issue undue importance. It is noteworthy that recently there has been an escalation in the presence of web-based, open-access publications, many with no oversight or a vaguely defined peer-review process. Frequently, a “pay-to-publish” model exists. Obviously, this is a buyer-beware situation (6-9). Overall, the concept of submission in such venues would not seem to be optimal or desirable. A few comments on assessment of journal importance are in order. Key factors that contribute to both relevance and importance include the following:
444
www.SCIENCEDIRECT.com
the perceived reputation and competence of the editor; the composition of the editorial board; advertising presence and revenues; generated revenues; citation index; historical significance; and association with an established publisher.
THE EDITOR Authors should be cognizant of the role and tasks of the editor and the issues attendant to shepherding a complex scientific journal, particularly one with a society sponsorship (1). Authors should be aware of the challenges of editorial stewardship and its variations according to the situation. A delicate balance exists between the editor and the individuals or institutions that are served: authors, reviewers, publishers, industry, and societies all require attention and provide specific challenges. 1) Author satisfaction with review time, considered propriety of critique, and points of consideration create an emotional climate that can be volatile. 2) Reviewers serve the journals needs without compensation and are individualistic in their styles and capabilities of response depending on the personal burden of time. Their time, willingness, and realistic capability of contribution need to be taken into account. It is often said that the editor is a “beggar” for time and effort, not to mention the issue of submitted manuscripts. 3) Relations with publishers are a constant challenge with deadlines, page allowance, and elements of composition points of focus and often contention. In all cases, the perspective related to the bottom line is central, requiring a give-and-take attitude on both sides to maintain fluidity and the delicate balance between a journal’s overall quality and cost. In some cases, the issue of profit and society royalties can become an issue. Contracts are typically written in 5-year time frames to define relationships. However, often these are hardly “nimble” in accommodation to rapid changes of need. 4) Industry must be courted and given significant attention as their support may at times be crucial for the function and reliability of the professional journal office, not to mention society sponsorships. 5) Societies, like all human organizations, are subject to change in attitude and agendas of those in leadership. These vicissitudes often stress the delicate balance that exists between the political climate that dominates most society leadership groups and the relative “ivory tower” milieu of the journal office and its functionality. Occasionally, personal or faction agendas come into play by “political operatives,” in which the journal and editor become a political football. This situation is more commonly observed in cases of leadership dysfunction. Occasionally, editorial appointments are not immune from the political realm. Such situations are obviously suboptimal and lend operations to tainted bias. The “church” and “state”
WORLD NEUROSURGERY, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.01.013
EDITOR’S LETTER
require separation. At times, strain exists, particularly in areas of resource allocation and appropriations management. 6) The Journal Office, particularly in a quality publication, is an assembly of unique professionals who orchestrate a complex array of tasks and interactions with all the aforementioned. The challenges facing the managing editor are particularly difficult. Hundreds of manuscripts and thousands of reviews are tracked in order while the simultaneous creation of multiple issues is juggled with authors and publishers. This all done while final products are polished and created, particularly in the case of a journal such as WORLD NEUROSURGERY. The finalization of each product represents a small miracle in itself. The identification of individuals who are ready, willing, and capable of functioning in such a complex team is hardly a simple task. They are not readily available. So, the creation of a sophisticated journal office represents a major editorial journal challenge. Once established, keeping the editorial office intact represents another major hurdle as the pressured environment frequently is attended by participant burnout. It is noteworthy that economic and profit-driven motives are causing the assimilation of independent journal office function into publisher’s general operations. This practice clearly lends to homogeneity of product and impacts the quest for freshness of each issue and the individualism that every good editor should seek.
assure and direct the products growth and evolution; and consistently recognize important novel and seminal developments and trends, not only in the field but also in relevant or potentially relevant areas. This being said, the editor must be constantly aware of the everevolving global, socioeconomic, and political climate. In addition, strict familiarity of the technical revolution in information is required. A sense of the vicissitudes of the political climate within and affecting all aspects of neurosurgery is essential. Finally, the editor oversees the peer-review process—The most important task of all.
THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS Proper peer review is a process that varies in concept application from one publication to another (2, 4, 5). Strict peer review with attentive editorial control is an arduous process. It is expensive. However, it is essential to establishing the scientific validity of our information base. The process itself is an academic exercise and an educational activity for all engaged with serious involvement (2, 5).
In my view, a principle act in the exercise is to mitigate bias while assuring a valid review arriving at a “veritas” in a decision that is fair to all, protects the auAs I have noted in the thors and journal, past, the editor’s task while ultimately extends far beyond providing valid data “the desk.” It requires to our scientific inthe development of formation base. As healthy and meaningful previously noted, relationships with auwe have used a thors, reviewers, venminimum of 6 (or dors, publishers, and more) independent society leadership reviewers in a groups, not to mention The Bench (second state), (1758), by William Hogarth (1697e1764). panel developed by a network of general the editor after personal support. It is a careful review of most delicate balance the submission. My approach has been to personally review each of forces. The editor is required to maintain stability to assure a manuscript in the following order: 1) title, 2) authors, 3) abstract, successful publication. The editor must comprehend the existing 4) bibliography, 5) introduction, 6) table and figures, 7) conclusion, climate, deal with its challenges, and foresee the future to maintain a 8) methods, and 9) results. necessary evaluation in proper course. I should add that this is all accomplished in many cases while maintaining clinical, research, The panel is then established to include recognized experts in teaching, and other professional commitments. various geographic regions and perspectives with care taken to Authors should appreciate the primary responsibilities for avoid competitive bias and potential agendas. In virtually all aseditorship: signments, I am personally familiar with the reviewer beyond established work and reputation. Given the current global reach, act to mitigate natural biases that occur in all areas of the peercare is taken to assign at least one reviewer from the country of review process; submission and establish oversight by a continental editor, maintain a broad spectrum of representation of topics, especially if I am not familiar with the authors. themes, and individuals in journal products; provide a personal style, spirit, and energy to the publication and its operation; establish and maintain an element of freshness, renewal, and vitality in each issue of product;
WORLD NEUROSURGERY 81 [3/4]: 443-446, MARCH/APRIL 2014
Importantly, the reviewers are directed to assess the manuscript regarding a number of key areas. These include: 1) importance, 2) originality of concept, 3) appropriateness of design, 4) soundness interpretation and conclusion, 5) relevance of decision,
www.WORLDNEUROSURGERY.org
445
EDITOR’S LETTER
6) clarity of writing, 7) strength and organization, 8) word economy, and 9) relevance, accuracy, and completeness of bibliography.
TAKE-AWAY ADVICE
I, personally, emphasize the bibliography as a “window” to the authors’ sophistication and comprehension of a topic. This does not necessarily imply a voluminous listing but an intelligent rendering of important relevant paper that provide grounding.
Be thorough from the start.
I favor an inventive and intelligent title that succinctly conveys the thrust and element of the paper. Revisions are required in the majority of manuscripts that are published. Virtually all these revisions are essential and add to the integrity and polish, professionalism, and importance of the given paper. Each reviewer’s comment needs to be carefully and respectfully addressed in the shortest possible timeframe. The authors need to constantly keep in mind that the process is their friend and an effort to refine an ultimate product that will, if published, be an eternal addition to the world’s scientific literature. The content, intelligence, and conveyance will be forever associated with the source both in authorship and publication. Multiple revisions, in general, indicate an effort on the part of the editor to provide opportunity to the manuscript to successfully navigate the critical process because of underlying merit.
DECISION TO PUBLISH In the majority of cases, decisions are made principally on the recommendation of the editorial board and specialty consultants. The editor brings journal composition overview as a final factor. With completion of the peer-review process, a decision to publish is established by a number of major positive factors. These include, perhaps most importantly, the originality of the work combined with the integrity and quality of the manuscript. Important consideration is also given to the journal’s mission, the volume of similar topics, and its relevance to the period. Occasionally, contract space limitations play a role. Origin of a paper, locale and authorship, as well as length are relevant. Contributing negative factors include: 1) a sloppy submission often without care being taken to comply with the journals form, 2) truly excessive length that exceeds the elements of message, 3) an aberrant bibliography, 4) poor design, 5) lack of originality, 6) ungrounded conclusions, 7) poor language, and 8) case reports. It is important to note that most all marquee publications have a rejection rate of 80% or more overall. For WORLD NEUROSURGERY, case reports have a considerably greater attrition. In general, we advise individuals to direct their efforts to other types of manuscripts that have greater potential value to the information base.
FINAL DECISION The final adjudication rests with the editor. The intellectual values, substance, and originality are detailed by the panel. The decision, in general, regarding publishability is clear; however, the relative merit and importance of a paper in relation to others in the process and the journal’s information flow and general composition rests in the editor’s hands. Good papers are rejected for a variety of reasons. All good papers cannot be published in consideration of the realities of space and composition. This problem has been alienated somewhat by the online element; however, composition and the expense is a consideration that is quite limiting.
446
www.SCIENCEDIRECT.com
Be original. Originality is the key to success. Know the literature. Don’t rediscover the wheel. Emphasize the integrity of the manuscript in form, intellectual conveyance, and length. Understand your options for submission and familiarize yourself with each potential journal, its editor, mission, and review process. Conform to reviewer requests and if you strongly object, convey your ideas and arguments lucidly and in a gentile fashion. Make sure that you address each point from each reviewer’s detail. Do not delay your revision. Submit your carefully crafted revision in short order. Most of all, enjoy the process and be patient with it. Finally, I would suggest that all articles in this bibliography be read and considered (1-11).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to thank Rod Faccio, former Managing Editor of Neurosurgery and current Executive Editorial Director of WORLD NEUROSURGERY, for his insightful review and critical comments.
Michael L. J. Apuzzo
REFERENCES 1. Apuzzo MLJ: Mission nearly impossible: thoughts on shepherding a society journal. Neurosurgery 63:1009-1010, 2008. 2. Apuzzo MLJ: Peer-review: a citadel under siege. Neurosurgery 63:821, 2008. 3. Apuzzo MLJ: Individualism and collectivism in the realm of neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 78:555, 2012. 4. Apuzzo MLJ: Acquiring wisdom in the information age. World Neurosurg 79: 595-596, 2013. 5. Apuzzo MLJ: Lux and veritas: approaching the thorny process of peer-review and “peer-review” 2011. World Neurosurg 76:1, 2011. 6. Beall J: Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489:179, 2012. 7. Beall J: Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers (2nd Edition). Available at: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatoryopen-access-publishers-2nd-edition/. Accessed March 6, 2013. 8. Carrol MWL: Creative commons and the openness of open access. N Engl J Med 368:789-791, 2013. 9. Frank M: Open but not free—publishing in the 21st century. N Engl J Med 368: 787-789, 2013. 10. Huag C: The downside of open-access publishing. N Engl J Med 368:791-793, 2013. 11. Wolpert AJ: For the sake of inquiry and knowledge—the inevitability of open access. N Engl J Med 368:785-787, 2013. 1878-8750/$ - see front matter ª 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.01.013
WORLD NEUROSURGERY, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.01.013
