“Pearls” For Getting Published In A Peer Reviewed Journal

1. “Pearls” For Getting Published In A Peer Reviewed Journal Hillard M. Lazarus, MD The George & Edith Richman Professor and Distinguished Scientist in Cancer Research Director of Novel Cell Therapy University Hospitals Case Medical Center Case Western Reserve University

3. PUBLISHING “PEARLS”Approach • Identify target journal: be realistic but “aim higher” • rejections often improve quality • strongly consider reviewer comments (but not always) • Format • verify guidelines; journals differ • errors upset many reviewers • examine manuscripts published in that journal • Avoid common errors!

4. PUBLISHING “PEARLS”Approach (con’t) • Abstract: usually too long (250 words optimal) • “Prose” versus sub-headings; do not overstate findings • when possible, provide specifics, not generalities • Introduction: usually too long: optimal 1 – 1 ½ pages • set the stage; end with “tantalizing” phrase • “tell them what you are going to tell them” • Methods/Patients: often poorly organized and superficial • logical listing • include institutions, years, IRB & consent, reagents, etc • Be careful with statistical section; involve experts

5. PUBLISHING “PEARLS”Approach (con’t) • Results: • frequently too short • too many tables: redundant with text; combine tables • Discussion • Begin with most important finding(s) • Avoid “this is the first…”; use “this is one of the first…” • Follow with literature review but how your data differ • NEVER use “we confirmed”; avoid “me, too” • NEVER use “… trended to significance” (p=0.08) • Just as easily trended away than towards significance

6. PUBLISHING “PEARLS”Approach (con’t) • Counsel • seek out expert counsel: “unofficial review” • intra-institutional, i.e. your center or neighboring center • friends, colleagues, national experts • request less formal feedback to ease “burden” • “Partner”: do not be afraid to add authors who help

7. PUBLISHING “PEARLS” BEST OF LUCK WITH YOUR SUBMISSIONS