It may be true that nearly every researcher wishes to be published. Though the hard work and learning from a research project are immeasurably valuable, a project isn’t really complete until the scientific world also learns about its findings. But publishing can require considerable effort: The path from manuscript submission to publication can feel long and challenging. This post aims to help fellow researchers in their publishing endeavors by highlighting some key pointers from the “Karger Expert Insights: Navigating the Path to Successful Publication” webinar.

In the webinar, Prof. Kari Syrjänen. MD, PhD, FIAC, Editor-in-Chief of Acta Cytologica, shared valuable guidance distilled from decades of working with the editorial boards of scientific journals.

Step 1: Plan and write with care and integrity.

Often, manuscripts are rejected because the methods are not sufficient, or the interpretation of the results is exaggerated relative to the methods used and results achieved. Researchers should plan studies comprehensively so that the data, methods, and statistics are feasible in relation to the problem under investigation. They should then write the manuscript accurately and honestly, not overstating the results. The conclusions should derive from the results, which in turn should derive from the methods, which should follow from the problem that the study has tested.

Step 2: Choose the best journal for your study.

Let’s say you’re excited and have results you believe will be new and intriguing for a journal’s audience. While the editorial board might also recognize your results’ potential impact, their remit is to select articles that align with the journal’s scope. It might sound obvious, as Prof. Syrjänen stated, but early rejections often result from a manuscript simply not fitting the journal’s aims and scope.

Step 3: Familiarize yourself with the submission requirements.

You may feel overwhelmed as you read through a journal’s guidelines. But, to make sense of these instructions, think like a rock ‘n’ roll star (yes, really!).

The hard rock band Van Halen was known for its meticulous “rider,” which placed precise demands on the venues they performed in. Perhaps the wildest requirement was a bowl of M&Ms backstage – but not just any bowl of M&Ms. The band took it further, demanding that all the brown M&Ms be plucked out first. Sounds ridiculous, right? Turns out, there is logic behind it: The band’s on-stage shows featured complex special effects and setups, all of which required correct assembly according to exact instructions that would ensure the band members’ safety.

When Van Halen arrived at a venue, they would first check the bowl for any brown M&Ms. If they found none, they knew their list of instructions had been carefully read, so they could trust the professionals. If they found brown M&Ms, on the other hand, they instantly knew that this requirement had been ignored, raising the question: Were other details also ignored? Could the band rely on the safety of the pyrotechnics and other crucial equipment?

Editorial board members could be said to be like these rock stars, too, in a sense. If the editors notice that some details from the author instructions were ignored, they may conclude that the submitting author did not study the requirements. That can result in the impression of overall sloppy and negligent work. Editorial board members may then wonder if other aspects of the study were conducted with similar disregard for rules and guidelines. So as a fellow early-career author, my advice is: Take a deep breath, settle down on your favorite chair with a cup of tea or coffee, and read all the guidelines and instructions thoroughly. It might take time but it’s not difficult and it shouldn’t be an obstacle to your successful gig (that is, publication!).

Step 4: Consider some important questions before hitting “submit.”

Finally, consider these insights from Prof. Dr. Kari J. Syrjänen. Regarding reproducibility and repetition, when an article is published, is there only one shot? Imagine producing novel results and nearly completing manuscript preparation when you see that someone else has published the same results. Or imagine you have acquired data that can be used to confirm previous results. Can you offer a manuscript that reports results that have been published previously? You may find Prof. Syrjänen’s answer encouraging: An editorial board generally might consider such cases individually. Reproducibility is a cornerstone of medical science, and any study should be reported so clearly that someone else could build on the methods, gather similar data, and conclude with similar results. I believe this kind of research should be valued as much as the initial reported results.

The best advice for getting published, in a nutshell

Careful planning, choosing the right journal, and adherence to journal guidelines pave the path to successful publication. Manuscript preparation may take some time, but the invested time and thoroughness pay off. Meticulous execution of every step of journal instructions gives the best chances of an excellent publication!

(Featured image declaration: Photo by Sebastian Ervi at https://www.pexels.com/photo/people-in-concert-1763075/)