There is no secret to getting your research published in a science journal.

Rather, the key to receiving that sought after acceptance letter lies in a well-planned approach, grounded in good communication skills and writing aimed at a broad audience.

“If you expect magic tricks, I have to disappoint you,” Dr. Bodo Stern, former scientific editor for Cell, told the audience at the April 7 luncheon, Strategies for Publishing Your Research, at the University Club on the University of Rhode Island Kingston campus.

The event was sponsored by Rhode Island NSF Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) and organized by the URI Center for Human Services, which provides programming for professional development.

Instead, Dr. Stern, now director of Research Affairs at Harvard University’s FAS Center for Systems Biology, offered science faculty, staff and graduate students from across Rhode Island common sense methods for publishing success based on his insider’s view of the process.

“What I can promise is, I can teach you what a scientific editor is trained to do, and how that translates into some do’s and don’ts as an author,” Dr. Stern said.

Why publish?

The timeworn cliché dictates, “publish or perish,” but publicizing results of scientific work holds greater meaning, particularly when it comes to publicly funded research.

“We need to tell the public what we have done with the money,” Dr. Stern said. “We scientists have a responsibility to communicate our results to the public.”

Consequently, he said, write papers as broadly as possible so the audience extends beyond a scientist’s immediate field or discipline. Also, think in terms of how to grab the reader’s attention.

Quoting the tenets of storytelling master Ira Glass of National Public Radio, Dr. Stern said, one, great stories happen to the people who can tell them and, two, mystery is the important ingredient of every great story.

A scholarly introduction should give enough information to hook the reader, but not serve as the catchall for every last bit of information. Make readers appreciate why the question is being addressed, but encourage them to continue further and discover why the mystery is worth solving.

However, unlike the classic detective yarn, don’t wait until the ending for the big reveal. Give the results early and then move onto proving the point. When using figures, make sure they are self explanatory and easy to understand.

“Write your paper so that a science proficient, non expert such as an editor can understand the logic and importance of your findings,” advised Dr. Stern. “Get feedback on the paper from colleagues outside the field. They can flag problems with clarity that insiders may not spot.”

Finding acceptance

Editors are the gatekeepers and determine whether to review a paper; the decision to publish a paper is based on reviewer comments. Editors are interested in both the significance of the scientific advance and the potential interest to scientists across multiple fields.

“In your cover letter, describe the key results in broad terms and convey why your paper is important for general readership, and which fields may find the results of interest,” Dr. Stern said.

Keep in mind, too, that the cover letter is for the editor’s eyes only, so be bold about the critical implications of the findings.

Additionally, if unsure about whether a paper is appropriate for a journal, make a pre-submission inquiry and ask an editor for advice. However, be prepared to accept the advice sought even though it may not be what you hoped to hear.

Remember, Dr. Stern said, paper authors do have something editors want: “Every big discovery starts with proof that is on somewhat shaky ground. As an editor, you want that story, stories that start new fields and get cited. And, if you want those stories, you have to take risks.”

New to the process

Often times, people think journals only look to the same stable of authors. But, the reality is experienced authors know the editors and are more comfortable working and talking with them, so they get published more frequently.

It is important to understand the terms of the process, such as an invitation for resubmission, which is a letter that clearly states the journal would be happy to consider a revised manuscript.

“The level of editorial enthusiasm can vary dramatically,” explained Dr. Stern. “Minor revision means one or two additional experiments, it’s interesting but too preliminary, or interesting, but significant gaps exist.”

Responses should provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer comments, outlining how those issues will be addressed with additional data. Be transparent and provide the editor with information needed to make a publication decision.

“You don’t have to have done the experiments and you don’t have to brush it under the table,” Dr. Stern said. “You can say, this is great, but it will take a year and I can’t include that in the paper.”

Accepting rejection

Dr. Stern displayed a cartoon on the projector screen, showing a conversation between two figures:

“I donated a kidney to an editor once,” said one.

“What happened?” asked the other.

“It was rejected.”

If rejected, wait at least 24 hours with any response. And, once responding, stick to the facts, use literature and scientific reasoning to support any contention. Be respectful, but assertive, and ask an editor to take a clear position rather than hide behind the reviewers.

And, said Dr. Stern, “Recognize that there is usually something to learn from every criticism. You may not agree with the editors about their judgment on your paper, but recognize that they have some card you cannot see … confidential comments to the editors, other papers. Learning when to let go and send the paper to another journal is a good skill to develop.”

Helpful hints

• Other good skills to hone include networking with editors, meeting and talking to them when the opportunities arise. Discuss findings with editors at conferences or through pre-submission inquiries.

• Journals always are interested in finding new areas to explore — find out what fields are of interest. Know that new journals are looking for submissions and typically more risk friendly. Also, review papers for journals where you want to publish.

• When reviewing papers, evaluate technical quality and significance. Be constructive and explicit. Involve people in your lab in the review process and acknowledge the help. Make sure your confidential comments to editors are not diametrically opposed to what you say to the authors.

• Once you do get published, get the word out. Work with your college or university’s communication office on a press release and add the final author version to your website.

Something for everyone

Rhode Island NSF EPSCoR fellow Rose Martin, who is pursuing her Ph.D. in biology at URI, said Dr. Stern’s presentation made her feel much more comfortable about publishing. She also was unaware that it was acceptable to contact editors prior to submission to determine whether a manuscript was a good fit.

“As someone new to the process of scientific publication, I find that submitting manuscripts and fielding requests for revisions or rejections can feel confusing and frustrating,” she said.

Veteran professor Dr. Dan McNally, who teaches environmental science at Bryant University, said he was intrigued to hear Dr. Stern’s insights about the future of online publishing and the value in being able to locate follow-up papers faster and cheaper.

The publishing trend toward a tiered system of journals from the same publisher also drew Dr. McNally’s interest. He noted, “This would provide more options to get good research published.”

Dr. Sunshine Menezes, executive director of the Metcalf Institute for Marine & Environmental Reporting at the URI GSO, said she was struck most by Dr. Stern’s advice to approach scientific manuscripts as mystery stories.

“Everyone likes a good mystery, and journal editors are no different, apparently,” Dr. Menezes said. “This approach is useful beyond scientific publications, and is also very applicable to scientific communication, in general.

“Public audiences and the press are much more interested in a good, broadly intriguing mystery than in an overly long, narrowly technical recitation of facts.”

Story by Amy Dunkle