Manuscript Master Class

I am a frequent reviewer for many analytical science journals, and I love to read a well-organized and well-written manuscript about an interesting study that could be useful to others. I prefer to help authors improve their work rather than recommending rejections, and I appreciate truly applicable work more than “novel” research conducted just for the sake of publication. My favorite recommendation is to “accept as is,” but I’ve experienced this pleasure too few times as a reviewer (or author!) in my career. Moreover, I used to say “yes” to all review requests, but I’ve had to become more selective lately because the task has too often become a time-consuming grind.

Manuscript Master Class

Getting your work published in a high-quality, peer-reviewed journal isn’t easy. But if you follow these 40 tips, you could at least avoid common errors that frustrate reviewers.

By Steven Lehotay

I am a frequent reviewer for many analytical science journals, and I love to read a well-organized and well-written manuscript about an interesting study that could be useful to others. I prefer to help authors improve their work rather than recommending rejections, and I appreciate truly applicable work more than “novel” research conducted just for the sake of publication. My favorite recommendation is to “accept as is,” but I’ve experienced this pleasure too few times as a reviewer (or author!) in my career. Moreover, I used to say “yes” to all review requests, but I’ve had to become more selective lately because the task has too often become a time-consuming grind.

To help reduce reviewer fatigue from submissions requiring too many revisions, I would like to share some common problems that I encounter in manuscripts. For a review of the basics, you can refer to several excellent tutorials about scientific publishing by Kamat et al. (1–4). If you follow the advice, you will save a lot of time and reduce frustration for all involved (the editors, reviewers, readers – and yourself). Realize that everyone is busy – and most journals are inundated with submissions – so a lack of time is not an acceptable excuse for substandard effort in preparing manuscripts.

Beginning with the assumption that the work meets the scientific and ethical standards of the journal, I share the following common examples of mistakes to avoid, including some tips for publishing success.

To the letter

1. Follow the author instructions for the journal. After all, the ability to follow instructions is expected from professionals.
2. Use page numbers and line numbers in the manuscript. As a reviewer, I am annoyed if I can’t easily refer to page and line numbers for revisions.

To the point

3. Devise the shortest title possible without using acronyms to convey the purpose and main aspect of
the study.
4. The abstract must be a single paragraph capturing the highlights of the work within the journal’s word limit.

Reflective referencing

5. Read the literature! Choose high-quality papers. Don’t just cut and paste random references from online search services.
6. Look through the references from notable papers to find the original work to cite.
7. Cite good review articles when available rather than several articles on the same topic.
8. Include citations from the journal to which you’re submitting (or submit to the journal that you cite the most in your manuscript).
9. Avoid application notes and websites if peer-reviewed papers are available.
10. Double check the numbering and accuracy of all references before submission, know the difference between first and last names, and remove the superscript “a” and/or “*” from author names when cutting and pasting.

Review (and revise) before submission

11. Unless you want to irritate reviewers, read closely and revise your own manuscript at least three times before submission. Ask trusted colleagues to review it, too.
12. Eliminate obvious grammatical errors, even if you’re not writing in your native language. Word processing software typically marks misspelled words, ungrammatical sentences, and poor diction. So, pay attention to the highlights and fix mistakes.

Form and structure

13. Write the first draft from an outline, not rambling text.
14. Organize the work in focused sections and paragraphs, and then remove trivialities and redundancies.
15. Be concise and just give pertinent background information in Introduction, relying on citations to previous work. Unless the article is a review or tutorial, most readers already know the background and subject matter (sometimes better than you).
16. Don’t exaggerate the importance of the topic or novelty of your work.
17. Avoid repetition of marketing hyperbole from vendors.

Attention to acronyms

18. Define and use acronyms properly. Don’t capitalize words when defining an acronym unless the word is normally capitalized.
19. Once defined, always use the acronym afterwards – and don’t define acronyms if they aren’t used again.

Make it easy on the reader

20. State the aim of the study clearly in the last paragraph of your introduction (“Our intent for conducting this work was…”). Do not give a summary of what was done – save those points for the abstract and conclusions.
21. Most readers just look at the abstract and tables/figures in publications. Put effort into presenting the most interesting aspects of the work into figures with clearly labeled axes, units, lines, symbols, error bars, and legends that can be seen from a distance (no reader wants to use a magnifying glass).
22. Captions should contain enough information for the reader to understand what is presented without having to study the text, including the number of replicates.

Save time and space

23. In the text, don’t merely repeat information given in figures and tables, but explain the results if needed. Simply refer to the clearly presented figures and tables and let the information speak for itself. 
24. Conserve journal space by presenting only useful information to the reader in tables, and combine similar tables when possible by using landscape layout.
25. Don’t include calibration equations.
26. Use supplemental information for long tables listing analytical parameters.
27. Avoid too many significant figures; few analytical methods can actually distinguish 80.1% from 80.2% recovery, or 2.5% from 2.4% RSD, or 187.5 from 187.6 ng/g. Give results to the nearest integer or two significant digits (e.g., 80% recovery with 2% RSD, and 190 ng/g).

Experimental not protocol

28. In “Experimental”, list the information needed for a professional analyst to repeat the study – especially unique aspects.
29. Do not include trivialities that all readers already know, such as how to prepare solutions, information found in instrument manuals, calculation of recoveries, etc., or put those details into supplemental information.

Concentrate on concentrations

30. Always give equivalent sample amount in the final extracts (for example, g/mL) and amount analyzed (for example, injection volume). A surprising number of authors don’t track sample equivalents properly (usually co-extracted water in the sample is the culprit), which introduces biases.
31. Comparisons of detection limits should consider the relative amounts of equivalent sample analyzed.
32. Refer to concentrations in the original sample (for example, ng/g), not in the final extracts (for example, ng/mL unless the sample is measured in volume), and be clear about what is meant in any case.
33. Don’t use ppb or ppm for concentrations because those aren’t SI units that distinguish between weights and volumes.

Simple little things

34. It should be “quantification” not “quantitation;” “weighed” not “weighted;” “min” not “minutes;” “s” not “sec” (always use SI units); “method” not “methodology” unless “study of methods” is intended.
35. Mass spectrometry involves analyte “identification” not “confirmation” unless a second analysis specifically confirms the results of the first.
36. Give “rcf” or “× g” in centrifugation because “rpm” is centrifuge dependent.
37. “tR” represents retention time, not “RT” (which usually means room temperature!)
38. Don’t start sentences with numerals.
39. “Non,” “ultra,” “micro,” and other non-words need to be part of a longer word or hyphenated.

And finally...

40. Nothing is “proved” in science, only “demonstrated/supported” – or not.

In preparing this article, I went through approximately 50 reviews that I’ve conducted so far this year, and every manuscript had at least one of the problems listed above. I hope that authors, particularly those who aren’t native English speakers, read this list before and after writing their manuscripts. Perhaps journals should include a checklist of common referee comments in their guides to authors, which could ease and speed the publication process, and improve the quality of papers overall.

I shall conclude with one final piece of advice. Don’t be afraid to stand up for your good work if reviewers and editors don’t recognize its value. Use facts and rational arguments to rebut wrong or even hostile comments. I’ve had to defend my submissions against mistaken criticisms by referees on many occasions, and I could give some preposterous examples.

The goal of some reviewers is to reject manuscripts, and the power of anonymity can give such reviewers a great deal of nerve to make ridiculous comments. Victoria Samanidou recently touched on this issue in The Analytical Scientist (5), and editors will remain unaware of problems with certain reviewers, if authors don’t call attention to improper comments. For example, scientific journal standards for publication do not require use of certain regulatory validation protocols, but I’ve known authors to accept reviewer comments asking them to follow specific protocols, even though the author used another scientifically acceptable approach. All authors will periodically encounter this type of frustration, and we must try to ensure that scientific reason and fairness prevail. That said, authors must also accept that journals are not obligated to publish their work – and editors make the final decisions.

Steve is a Lead Scientist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Regional Research Center in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, USA.