Daniel Feerst - Aim and scope and questions for Publishing

1. Aim and scope and questions for Publishing Daniel Feerst

2. Learning Outcomes • Understand the peer review process • Develop a personal publication plan utilising the strategies suggested at the workshop

3. Outline • Explain the BJOT peer review process • Follow your manuscript through the process after you submit it • Understand how and where the key decisions are made • Suggest methods to avoid common problems • Identify key strategies • Enable you to develop your personal action plan

4. Peer review process – screening • Technical check - does it meet the current submission guidelines for its category? • Word count, number of references for category, reporting guidelines, key messages, registration for RCTs • Ethical approval – informed written consent • Age of study

5. Peer review process – screening • Desk review – is it suitable for peer review? • Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor reads abstract and looks at submission • Is it within aims and scope of the journal? • Does it advance knowledge? • Is it current? • Does it have international relevance? • Consider quality

6. Peer review process – screening • Technical check – authors may be asked to address problems • Desk review – • send for review • invite to resubmit in another category • reject without review • Out of scope • Not advancing knowledge e.g. we have published a similar study, poor research, method does not match research question, no international relevance, ethical problems • Desk reject – prompt decision – can submit to another journal

7. Your strategies • Is your study worth publishing ? • Honest reflection on its quality / value • Is a journal article the best option? – consider a conference presentation /non peer review journal • Is the study current now or when it is published? • What does your study add

8. Your strategies • Pick a relevant journal • Check websites of possible publications • Look at Aims and Scope • Look at recent issues, table of contents, OnlineFirst • If you are not sure - email the editor to ask if the journal would be interested • Expect an honest answer

9. to publish articles with international relevance that advance knowledge on research, practice, education and management in occupational therapy BJOT Aims and Scope

10. BJOT Strategic Direction • Focus on topics less well represented in journal • More clinical/client focus • Emphasise research as evidence for practice • Prioritise research and reviews • All submissions should advance knowledge • Craik C (2016) Strategic directions for the British Journal of Occupational Therapy 79 (3)

11. Your strategies • Follow the current submission guidelines for the article category • Read the other material on submitting • For example – confirm work is original, not submitted elsewhere, all authors are eligible to be authors, have permission to reproduce copyright material e.g. figures

12. Peer review process – reviewing • Editor-in-Chief selects potential reviewers • Double blind peer review by at least 2 reviewers • Authors do not know the reviewers • Reviewers do not know the authors or the other reviewer • Information that could identify you is not sent to reviewers

13. Peer review process - inviting reviewers • Reviewers –UK and international are invited – email with the abstract • If they agree they receive the full submission with guidelines on reviewing • Asked to return within 4 weeks • Both reviews are sent to Editor-in-Chief for an initial decision

14. Your strategies • Title and abstract must be well written to assist editors and reviewers • Title should be clear, unambiguous and only include relevant words –shorter is better • Abstract should follow submission guidelines • Include key information – research question / aim /number of participants • Make sure it reflects the study as currently written

15. Peer review process - reviews • Reviewers usually comment on each section of the manuscript • The style varies and they may focus on different aspects of the manuscript • With 2 reviews, most aspects should be covered • The Editor-in-Chief may also provide additional comments • Additional questions for reviewers -

16. Peer review process - questions for reviewers • Is the relevance to international occupational therapy clear? • Does the paper advance knowledge in its area of research? • Do the conclusions relate logically to the aims, results and discussion? • Are further recommendations made and limitations addressed • Do the abstract, key messages and what this study has added summarise the article accurately and concisely.

17. Peer review process – decision • Editor-in-Chief considers reviews and submission • Suitable for publication in the current form • Suitable with minor amendments • Suitable but requires major amendments / additions • Unsuitable • Author receives both reviews, any comments from the Editor-in-Chief and an overall decision

18. Possible outcome • If unsuitable use the reviews to improve and submit elsewhere • Seldom accepted without revisions • Minor revisions – should take a few hours • Major revisions – only suggested if possible e.g. one or two of- • Update literature • More justification / detail of method • Reconsider the analysis, too many tables / quotes • Develop the discussion / implications for practice

19. Responding to reviewers’ comments • Authors should expect revisions – they are an opportunity to improve your manuscript • Build in time and energy for revisions • Show you have considered all the reviewer comments and in relation to each comment, either • Revise as requested or • Justify why not • Provide a table with an account of your responses • Resubmit revised article as soon as possible -2 months

20. Your strategies • Avoid common problems throughout the manuscript • Introduction /literature review • Method • Results/findings • Discussion • Key findings / what they study has added

21. Your strategies - literature review • Think of the reader – tell the story • If BJOT - no need to explain occupational therapy • Focus on recent, key literature • Use research articles and reviews • Not textbooks or conference presentations • Clearly identify the gap in the literature /rationale for study / research question/s

22. Your strategies - method • Follow a logical order – very important if study has several phases or is part of a larger study (cite it) • Explain what you did – link to research question • Some justification for choices – referenced • Explain validity and reliability / trustworthiness • Needs to be replicable

23. Your strategies - results / findings • Start with participants • Link to research question • Present in same order as method • Present key results – not everything • Sensible use of tables, figures, diagrams • Do not repeat information in tables in the text – highlight key points

24. Your strategies - discussion • Again present in same order as method and results • Discuss key points not everything • Identify implications for practice and further research • Discuss limitations • Conclusion • Check abstract, key findings and what this study has added do match

25. Peer review process – reviewing a resubmission • The same reviewer/s will be asked to review again • Not all are willing to do this • If the reviewers / Editor-in-Chief still do not think the manuscript is suitable –it may be rejected or further revisions recommended • Again revise and provide an account of your responses

26. Strategies for your action plan • Decide if your study is worth publishing • Pick a relevant journal for your study • Follow the submission guidelines carefully • Remember the importance of title and abstract • Avoid common problems throughout the manuscript • Expect revisions, do them promptly, demonstrating how you responded to the reviewers

27. Good Luck !