Manuscript Writing and the
Peer-Review Process
Compiled from
Prof Josephine Mauskopf and
Prof. Daniel Mullins
Outline
● Study Design
● Authorship Guidelines
● Journal Selection
● Adhering to standard formats
– Following good writing practice
– Following journal instructions
● Peer-Review Process
The Value of Peer-Review
● Peer-review makes you look better
– My worst paper was accepted without any
revisions requested
– My best paper
● Required three rounds of extensive revisions
● Was rejected by the first journal with the first round of
comments
● Was significantly (positively) influenced by the peer-
review process
Study Design
● A good paper starts with good research methods
and credible data
– Research methods must be current and complete and well-
supported
(e.g. probabilistic sensitivity analysis, linear versus non-linear
relationship between variables)
– Need to anticipate and incorporate changes in accepted
research methods
– Analysis should be evidence-based
(i.e. based on reliable data)
Authorship
● Follow journal guidelines
● Contribution to
– Conceptualization of research
– Interpretation of results
– Responsibility for the paper
● Generally requires writing or heavy editing sections
– First author
– Second author
– Senior author
– Acknowledgement versus authorship
– No courtesy authorship
Choosing the Target Journal
● Who do you want to read the paper – practitioners or
researchers
● Who do you want to review the paper – practitioners
or researchers
● Journal impact factor
● Is the paper of interest to the journal
– Read old issues
– Check journal mission statement
– Perform a PubMed search for similar publications
– Consider the journals listed in your references
Follow Good Writing Practice: I
● Editors and reviewers find it easier to assess your paper if the
paper is
– Well organized
– Well written
● Follow standard format
– Abstract
– Background
– Methods
– Results
– Discussion
– Conclusions
● Make sure Discussion is not mixed in with Results
● Start the peer-review process by having a colleague give you
informal peer-review
Follow Good Writing Practice: II
● The introduction is critical
– In 3 or 4 paragraphs you need to provide enough
background to show
● that you are familiar with the literature
● why your paper is an important addition to this literature
– To answer the “so what” question, provide
● A general description of the importance of the topic
● A quick review of the literature to show what is missing and
why this matters
● A brief summary of how your paper is going to fill this gap
Follow Journal Instructions
● Editors get irritated if you do not do this!
● On-line submissions are increasingly the rule
● Follow author guidelines
– Abstract word limits and format
– Paper word limits
– Reference format
– Tables and Figures instructions
– Blinded and un-blinded copies
– Disclosure of financial support
– Copyright release forms
Know the Peer-Review Process
– Editor in Chief does initial review for scope and major methods
flaws
– Editor in Chief assigns co-editor
– Co-editor does second review for “so what” and major methods
flaws
– Co-editor chooses reviewers
– Reviewers send reviews
– Co-editor makes first decision
– Editor in Chief reviews and confirms first decision
– If revise and resubmit – the revised paper goes back to the co-
editor who probably sends it back to the reviewers
– Final decision by co-editor if reviewers and co-editor are satisfied
with the revisions
– Editor in Chief approves decision by co-editor
Delays in the Peer Review Process
● Avoidable:
– Paper is incomplete (e.g. missing Abstract or Conclusion)
– Paper does not conform to journal style
● Unavoidable:
– Hard to find reviewers – you can suggest reviewers with
your submissions
– Reviewers may be late with reviews
– A reviewer may suggest a further expert review is needed
Getting sent out for review
● To get through the editors initial review the paper
needs to:
– Be in line with scope of the journal
– Use appropriate methods
– Be well written
– Give sufficient detail so that reviewers can
understand/evaluate
● Methods
● Data sources
● Values
– Answer the “So What” question
Getting to Revise and Resubmit
● The literature cited in the introduction and discussion must be
comprehensive and include likely reviewer’s papers
● The need for the paper must be clearly stated
● The methods must be current and appropriate for the study question
and must be clearly described
● The data must have credible sources and be appropriate for the
methods and conclusions
● The analysis should not be biased either for or against a product or
procedure
● Accept that there is an element of luck in the assignment of editors
and reviewers that may make a difference
Responding to the Reviewer Comments
● This is one of the most important steps in the process
● Responding to the reviewer comments will make your paper
much better than the one you submitted so treat the comments
as “value-added”
● Do not be upset by the comments – sometimes they seem
insulting but they are always helpful
● Never, never ignore any comment from a reviewer
– If the reviewer does not understand what you have done it is your error –
clarify the text
– If the reviewer does not like what you have done – change it if possible – if
not possible to change it acknowledge his/her suggestion in the discussion
and say why this is not done
Responding to the Reviewer Comments
(cont’d)
● Reply letter
– Write the “response to reviewer” letter before
making the changes to the manuscript
● Helps you plan out exactly what you need to do to
answer each and every comment
● Should include a shortened version of each comment
along with your response to the comment
● Remember: reviewers need to find something
to say in their review so there always will be
some changes requested
Some Do’s and Don’ts
● Do’s
– Have a current literature review
– Be within the recommended word limit
– Make sure methods and data source are
transparent, e.g. a table is included with all model
inputs for an economic model
– Make sure tables and figures can be interpreted
without looking at the text in the main body of the
paper
Some Do’s and Don’ts
● Don’ts
– Write the abstract at the last moment
– Misinterpret published papers to suit the paper
conclusions
– Have inconsistent data in the text, tables and
abstract
– Over (or under) exaggerate results
