The dos and don’ts of publishing: navigating the publication process.

​

Norah Spears

​

Professor of Reproductive

Physiology,

University of Edinburgh

​

Co-Editor-in-Chief;

Reproduction & Fertility

Early Career session – Fertility 2025

The dos and don’ts of publishing: navigating the publication process.

​

Norah Spears

​

Professor of Reproductive

Physiology,

University of Edinburgh

​

Co-Editor-in-Chief;

Reproduction & Fertility

Co-Editor-in-Chief; Reproduction & Fertility

​

Editorial Board Member, handling manuscripts; Reproduction

​

Editorial Board Member, advising on review topics;

Editorial Board of Current Opinion in Physiology

​

Guest Editor for special editions; Current Opinion in Endocrine and Metabolic Research; Biology of Reproduction

What does an Editor-in-Chief do?

What does a handling, Associate Editor do?

Plan for session:

​

First part: talk - Navigating the publication process:

• Tips on how to write a paper
• Submission to a journal
• How to prepare for journal submission
• What happens following submission
• How to deal with the response from the journal
• Thoughts/discussion on the future of publishing

​

Second part: small group discussions on dealing with difficult reviewer comments

Paper writing

Most important advice? Write a good manuscript!

Take the reader through your research.

​

You do the work, so that they find it easy to read.

​

Don’t wait until the end to reveal your key message - you’re not writing a “who done it”!

Who should be an author?

​

Usually, people now follow guidelines such as:

ICJME (International committee of medical journal editors)

Authors should have:

• Made substantial contributions to conception/ design/acquisition/analysis of work;

AND

• Drafted, reviewed or critically analysed work

AND

• Approved final version of submitted manuscript

AND

• Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of work

OVERALL

​

• Write clearly and simply

​

• Your paper should tell a story,

with a beginning, a middle and an end.

Don’t just provide a mass of data!

​

• Get feedback on clarity of writing from other(s)

​

• If need be, get help from native English speaker

TITLE

• Informative, but concise
• Get potential reader’s attention
• Don’t use abbreviations
• Don’t pose a question – answer it!

Anaphase B precedes anaphase A in the mouse egg

WHICH TITLE(S) WORK AND WHICH DO NOT?

ABSTRACT

​

• Details of format/structure will be journal-specific
• Take care to write clearly!
• People usually write last, often in hurry while getting ready to submit

But abstracts are important!

• Can make difference between your manuscript being reviewed or not, or later your paper being read or not

​

Graphical abstracts – do think about making one!

INTRODUCTION

• What is the point of the paper?
• What is the question you set out to answer? Why is that important?

​

METHODS

• Enough detail to fully understand what was done

​

RESULTS

• Enough detail to fully understand what was found
• Important that those close to your field can actually follow – make sure they are understandable,

don’t cram in!

• What is the message you want to get over from each figure?
• State results – don’t interpret

​

DISCUSSION

• Recap main points
• Interpret, put in context of literature
• Strengths and limitations
• Where next for the area?

​

Manuscript ready?

Submission to a journal

What journal to submit to?

• Impact factor
• Specialised or more general
• Does open access matter to you?
• Cost

​

Fine to enquire prior to submission

​

• Selecting a journal

​

Beware of predatory journals

​

Look at journals you are citing

​

Aim for the best journal possible

– but be reasonable

Once decided on journal, before submission:

What is precise format that journal requires?

Read journal’s instructions to authors carefully!�

Do you need to deposit any of your data?

​

Write a cover letter – why should the Editor-in-Chief want to have your manuscript reviewed?

When writing cover letter, perhaps think about writing for lay audience!

​

Suggest (some but not too many) potential reviewers

What will happen at the journal, following submission?

• Publisher’s office will check if all requirements are fulfilled – if you missed things, there will be delay

​

• Will then go to Editor-in-Chief (perhaps with colleagues): decision on whether or not to send to handling Associate Editor for review
• Is it interesting?
• Is it novel?
• Does it fit remit of journal?
• Does it look scientifically sound? (papermills)

Use your letter to the Editor to make that decision easier for the Editor – and of course to make it more likely to be a positive one!

What does the Editor seek

To receive the highest impact

and highest quality manuscripts in the field

​

To review them, rigorously, fairly and rapidly

Publish them quickly and in high quality

​

That they be cited as frequently as possible

Some Responsibilities of the Editors-in-Chief

• Screen all submission
• Assign Associate Edtors
• Review all reviews and recommendations of AEs
• Make final decision on all manuscripts
• Resolve conflicts
• Identify and resolve ethical issues
• Deal appropriately with unsatisfied authors

​

Responsible for content of Journal:

Highest quality – most relevant

Some Responsibilities of the Editors-in-Chief

Plagiarism

Image manipulation

Multiple submission of the same manuscript

Honorary authorship

Paper mills

Ethical Considerations

If Editor-in-Chief thinks that a manuscript is worth considering,

What happens next?

Associate Editor will:

• Check manuscript – does it look scientifically robust? Any obvious flaws?

​

• Invite reviewers

Currently, this is a long process, until AE finds enough reviewers

What will happen at the journal, following submission?

Reviewers SHOULD:

• Read manuscript carefully
• Provide an unbiased report

​

• Depending on journal, they may be asked to comment on novelty and potential interest in field, or may be told to focus specifically on scientific rigour

What will happen at the journal, once reviewers reports are in?

Associate Editor will:

• check manuscript – does it look sound? Any obvious flaws?
• Invite reviewers

(Currently, this will involve repeat of process)

• Once reviewer reports are in, assess reports and make their Editorial report to Editor-in-Chief

What do they think overall?

What do they make of discordant reports?

What decision would they recommend, and why?

What is the final step at the journal?

Editor-in-Chief

Decision

• Is it interesting?
• Does it fit remit of journal?
• Does it look sound? (papermills)

​

• Back to Editor-in-Chief for final decision
• Do they agree with handling Editor’s assessment?
• Send decision letter to authors

Back to you …………….

• Accept as is, or with straightforward, minor revisions
• Major revisions required before can be accepted

– will almost certainly involve re-review

• Rejection (or perhaps ‘Reject and Resubmit’)

​

What do you do if the news is not good

Wait before re-reading carefully

Difficult to read objectively when first get unwelcome news

Can you query a decision?

• YES!
• We all know that reviewing process can be flawed
• But case will have to be strong and clear
• Plus will need to be evident that you have considered your manuscript’s flaws
• My advice: Query only where convinced you have that strong case

If journal gives decision of reject:

Why?

• Remit. Should have happened at earlier timepoint
• Insufficient novelty. Consider journal where remit centres on scientific robustness (usually open access)
• Insufficient ‘interest’. Hard to argue (who decides!)
• Again, consider journal with different remit
• Scientifically flawed. Would be hardest to accept, but make sure that you give yourself time and space to consider if valid points are raised.

If journal is asking for major revisions:

• This will be the focus of the second part of the morning, but for now, just to make the point that if
• you think that you can make a strong case that changes requested are problematic / biased / unfeasible you should explain this robustly (you may wish to contact the Editor-in-Chief to discuss in advance of resubmission)
• You will be lucky to get more than one ‘major revision’ round, so make the most of your chance, think through things carefully

​

Resubmission: response to reviewers’ comments

At resubmission, in addition to all points relevant to initial submission, need to address reviewers’ comments.

​

IMPORTANT DOCUMENT!

You are writing one document that is for all of:

Editor-in-Chief

Handling Editor

Reviewers

​

Spend time making this as clear and straightforward to follow as you can.

Resubmission: response to reviewers’ comments

Reviewer’s comments confusing, unclear?

Considering ordering them, eg numbering list, grouping separate comments that address the same point.

​

Not sure of Reviewer’s point?

Begin your response by re-wording, explaining how you have understood it – making clear that this is what you have done

​

Reviewer’s comments very detailed, not giving context?

Provide the context for the Editorial team, making it easier for them to assess

​

In short, do all you can to make document easy to follow!

Resubmission: response to reviewers’ comments

Make sure that you acknowledge feedback that was helpful – thank the reviewer!

​

Trickiest task: responding to a point that you consider invalid. You need to get your response over clearly, while also doing so politely, in a way that does not offend the reviewer!

Acceptance

After pausing to celebrate, there is still more to do …

​

• Make sure you check final files and proofs carefully – that is the version that will be in the public

​

• Spread the word

e.g. use social media, update your lab’s website

​

• Enjoy your published paper!

• If work is worth doing, then it is worth publishing.

• A scientific reputation is difficult to maintain, easy to lose and even more difficult to restore.

• Publication is forever, and, as a scientist, you are what you write.

Important conclusions about scientific publishing

The revolution in publication

• Longer, more complete articles

​

• Massive increase in the number of journals

​

The future of publishing – what changes lie ahead?

• Impact factors – is it healthy that they rule our lives?!

​

• Pre-publication of data e.g. BioArchives – the way forward? (e-Life)

​

• Should reviewers be anonymous? Should reviews be published with the papers?

​

• If a manuscript is reviewed then should the paper be published come what may? (eLife)

​

• Should all papers be open-access?

​

• Submit research plan – if journal accepts then it commits to publishing

Early Career session – Fertility 2025

The dos and don’ts of publishing: navigating the publication process.

​

Norah Spears

​

Professor of Reproductive

Physiology,

University of Edinburgh

​

Co-Editor-in-Chief;

Reproduction & Fertility

Early Career Day – UKEV Forum 2022

Any questions?

Discussed during session:

​

Retraction watch:

https://retractionwatch.com/

Well worth a look from time to time, interesting stories about papers that should never have been published

​

Calling out of a particularly bad predatory paper (‘Get me off your fucking mail list’!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advanced_Computer_Technology

​

Training on reviewing manuscripts – free! (compulsory for early career Reproduction & Fertility reviewing panel members)

https://webofscienceacademy.clarivate.com/learn/courses/128/reviewing-in-the-sciences

​

​