A panel discussion on the publication process was held at the 2005 ABO Conference. Jane Kennedy (University of Washington) discussed how to produce high quality research, Mike Bamber (University of Georgia) discussed how to respond to reviewer's comments, and Anne Magro (University of Oklahoma) discussed how write a good review. The session was moderated by Kim Sawers (University of California – Riverside). Although space limitations preclude including all of the thoughtful guidance provided by the panelists, a few highlights are listed below:
Professor Kennedy recommends following the three-paragraph approach suggested by Bill Kinney in his 1986 TAR article. That is, before beginning your research study, write three paragraphs that answer the following: 1) what problem or issue will be addressed, 2) why is the problem or issue important, and 3) how will you address the problem and what do you expect to find. Professor Kennedy observed that common pitfalls resulting in rejected papers are small incremental contribution (study fails the yawn test), design issues (caused by collecting data before carefully thinking through the study), and not getting adequate feedback before submitting the manuscript to the journal.
Professor Bamber re-iterated the importance of getting feedback before submitting the manuscript initially, and also before submitting a revised manuscript. Putting the revised manuscript aside and re-reading it a week later, as well as circulating to it colleagues, helps to ensure that the manuscript has not lost its focus through the process of addressing the reviewers' comments. The theme of Professor Bamber's discussion was that the journal editor and reviewers are your friends. The journal editor is in the business of accepting papers. He recommends that you assume that reviewers are as intelligent as you are, and address their comments accordingly. If they don't understand something it must be because your manuscript did not convey it clearly.
Professor Magro continued with the notion that your role as a reviewer is to be a friend to the authors. She emphasized that a friendly review is clear, constructive and non-confrontational. It recognizes that some issues are merely a matter of taste and, therefore, not crucial for the authors to address. A friendly review focuses on the big issues, i.e., those that will increase the likelihood of publication if addressed, or those that preclude publication. For problems identified, it discusses the issue, why it is a problem and, if possible, provides ways to address it. Finally, Professor Magro suggests setting the review aside for a few days, and then editing it to make sure it has the proper tone, i.e., don't do to others as they have done to you.
