Journal editors and peer reviewers represent the ultimate gatekeepers in the publication of high-quality scholarly works. Yet, for authors with English as a second language who are trying to get their research published in SCI-indexed, high-impact, English-language journals, there are many hurdles related to the basic structure of the manuscript that confront them. Journal editors are becoming burdened with an ever-increasing number of manuscript submissions from non-English speaking authors, worldwide. Reviewers do not wish to be burdened with papers that are poorly crafted. A good author’s editor, while working on behalf of the author, really manages the best interests of all stakeholders in balance (author, editor, peer reviewer). This presentation will explore these dynamics and highlight the value of various forms of editorial review prior to manuscript submission. Editores de periódicos e revisores por pares representam os guardiões supremos na publicação de trabalhos científicos de alta qualidade. No entanto, para autores com o inglês como segunda língua, que estão tentando publicar nos periódicos indexados no Science Citation Index (SCI), de grande impacto, em língua inglesa, enfrentam muitas dificuldades relativas à estrutura básica do manuscrito. Os editores de periódicos estão ficando sobrecarregados com uma quantidade cada vez maior de submissões de manuscritos de autores não falantes de inglês, no mundo todo. Os revisores não gostam de ser encarregados de artigos mal-elaborados. Um bom editor, enquanto trabalha em benefício do autor, na verdade, conduz no melhor interesse de todos os envolvidos (autor, editor, revisor por pares). Esta apresentação explorará essas dinâmicas e realçará o valor de várias formas de revisão editorial anteriores à submissão do manuscrito. Los editores de revistas y revisores representan los guardianes últimos en la publicación de trabajos académicos de alta calidad. Sin embargo, para los autores en que el inglés es su segunda lengua, que están tratando de conseguir que su investigación sea publicada en revistas indexadas en SCI, de alto impacto, en inglés, hay muchos obstáculos que enfrentan relacionados con la estructura básica del manuscrito. Los editores de revistas están siendo sobrecargados con un número cada vez mayor de comunicaciones manuscritas de autores de habla no inglesa, en todo el mundo. Los revisores no quieren hacerse cargo de trabajos que están mal diseñados. Un buen editor de autor, al mismo tiempo que trabaja en beneficio del autor, realmente gestiona los mejores intereses de todas las partes interesadas en equilibrio (autor, editor, revisor). Esta presentación explorará esta dinámica y pondrá de relieve el valor de distintas formas de revisión editorial antes de la presentación de manuscritos.

1. Can an Author’s Editor Help Expedite Peer Review
of the Manuscript They Edit?
Presented by:
Donald Samulack, PhD
President, U.S. Operations
Cactus Communications / Editage
Helping Authors Get Published
Help

2. The World Is so Flat
…It’s Starting to Curl!

3. Survival of the Fittest
Science Research
• Territory size shows the proportion of all scientific papers published in 2001 written by authors living there.
• The number of scientific papers published by researchers in the United States was more than three times as many as
were published by the second highest-publishing population, Japan.
Source: http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display.php?selected=205 (April 15, 2013)

4. Survival of the Fittest
Science Growth
• This map shows the growth in scientific research of territories between 1990 and 2001. If there was no increase in
scientific publications that territory has no area on the map.
• In 1990, 80 scientific papers were published per million people living in the world, this increased to 106 per million by
2001. This increase was experienced primarily in territories with strong existing scientific research. However, the United
States, with the highest total publications in 2001, experienced a smaller increase since 1990 than that in Japan, China,
Germany and the Republic of Korea. Singapore had the greatest per person increase in scientific publications.
Source: http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display.php?selected=206 (April 15, 2013)

5. There Is a Tsunami Coming
Current and projected publication trends
Source: Royal Society of London, Knowledge, Networks, and Nations, 2011

6. There Is a Tsunami Coming
Source: http://sciencewatch.com/grr/building-bricks (April 15, 2013)

7. The Research Dilemma
“Unfortunately, neither the researcher’s fascination
with their work, nor their desire for a clear-cut recipe
for success in publishing is of much help in actually
getting published.”
—Benson and Silver, 2013 (What Editors Want)

8. Success = Pleasing the Gatekeepers
Anything you do that makes the job of the
Journal Editor or the Peer Reviewer easier,
makes the manuscript more attractive!

9. Journal Editor and Reviewer Bias
•
•
•
•
•
•
By-line bias
Institutional bias
Geographic bias
Language bias
Research integrity and ethics bias
Methodology bias
• By the time the journal editor and/or the reviewer has
read the title and the abstract, bias has set in!
• Bias is unfortunately a by-product of scientific scrutiny.

10. Bias Surrounding Research Integrity
Q: How do East-Asian submissions compare with those from
other non-English speaking countries?
– In terms of compliance with ethical guidelines –
1.9%
18.5%
East Asian submissions better
East Asian submissions worse
44.4%
35.2%
Submissions from all non-English-speaking
countries similar
I don't know
A survey of 54 journal editors of
English-language US and European journals

11. Quirks of the English Language
You don’t have to be really smart to read this. In the
dno’t
raelly smrat raed tihs.
Elgnsih language it doesn't matter in what oredr the
English lugnagae deosn't mttaer waht order
ltteers are in a word. The only iprmoatnt thing is that
letters
wrod.
olny important tihng taht
the first and last letters are positioned in the right
frist
lsat ltteers
pneiostiod
rghit
pclae. The rest of the letters can be jumbled and you
place.
rset
lrtetes
jmulebd
can still read it without problem. This is because the
sitll raed wiuthot porbelm. Tihs bcuseae
huamn brain does not read every letter by itself, but
human barin deos
raed ervey lteter istlef,
lokos for sncetnene and luganage petatnrs.
looks
sentence and language patterns.

12. Common Reviewer’s Criticisms
Importance of the Topic
• Rehash of established facts
• Insignificant research question
• Irrelevant or unimportant topic
• Low reader interest
• Little clinical relevance
• Not generalizable
Study Design
• Poor experimental design
• Vague/inadequate method description
• Methods lack sufficient rigor
• Failure to account for confounders
• No control or improper control
• No hypothesis
• Biased protocol
• Small sample size
• Inappropriate statistical methods,
or statistics not applied properly
Adapted from: Byrne DW. Publishing your medical research paper. What they don’t teach in medical school. Baltimore: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins; 1998.

13. Common Reviewer’s Criticisms
Overall Presentation of Study and Findings
• Poor organization
• Too long and verbose
• Failure to communicate clearly
• Poor grammar, syntax, or spelling
• Excessively self-promotional
• Poorly written abstract
Interpretation of the Findings
• Erroneous or unsupported conclusions
• Conclusions disproportionate to results
• Study design does not support inferences made
• Inadequate link of findings to practice
• Uncritical acceptance of statistical results
• Failure to consider alternative explanations
• Unexplained inconsistencies
• Inflation of the importance of the findings
• Interpretation not concordant with the data
• Inadequate discussion
Adapted from: Byrne DW. Publishing your medical research paper. What they don’t teach in medical school. Baltimore: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins; 1998.

14. Looking for Solutions
• The pending impact of the publication tsunami, administrative
challenges of manuscript triage, growing burden of peer
review, and inefficiencies in journal production processes
necessitate studies on how to make the process more efficient.
• While we can’t “fix” the tsunami – and we are probably only
experiencing the first swell – we can look up-stream to build
efficiencies in pre-submission and pre-peer review processes.

15. Looking for Solutions
• What is the role of professional editing services (author’s editors)
in helping non-native English-speaking (NNES) authors get their
work published?
• Is there a place for manuscript screening services?
• Is there a rationale for commercialization of peer review?
• Where should efforts be placed?

16. Research by Editage
• First, we looked for weaknesses in how journals structure their
“Instructions for Authors” in an attempt to identify how journals
should communicate these instructions more effectively.
o Best Poster at the Council for Science Editors meeting in
Montreal, Canada in May, 2013 (a copy of the poster can be found at our
booth)
• More recently, we asked whether there were any specific errors
peer reviewers most frequently point out in manuscripts of nonnative English-speaking (NNES) authors that an author’s editor
could/should fix before manuscript submission; the premise
being that if these could be fixed before submission, then the
burden on the peer reviewer would be lessened, and the process
expedited.

17. Study Design
Study design and execution by Shazia Khanam and Clarinda Cerejo at Editage; accepted for publication in Learned Publishing (ALPSP).
Awarded “Best Poster” at the ISMTE/EASE conference in Brussels, Belgium in September, 2013.

18. Study Results (Slide 1 of 3)
Study design and execution by Shazia Khanam and Clarinda Cerejo at Editage; accepted for publication in Learned Publishing (ALPSP).
Awarded “Best Poster” at the ISMTE/EASE conference in Brussels, Belgium in September, 2013.

19. Study Results (Slide 2 of 3)
Study design and execution by Shazia Khanam and Clarinda Cerejo at Editage; accepted for publication in Learned Publishing (ALPSP).
Awarded “Best Poster” at the ISMTE/EASE conference in Brussels, Belgium in September, 2013.

20. Study Results (Slide 3 of 3)
Study design and execution by Shazia Khanam and Clarinda Cerejo at Editage; accepted for publication in Learned Publishing (ALPSP).
Awarded “Best Poster” at the ISMTE/EASE conference in Brussels, Belgium in September, 2013.

21. Study Conclusions (1 of 2)
• An author’s editor, in addition to checking the grammar, writing
quality, and style of manuscripts they edit, should point out
instances of incomplete and unclear reporting, especially in the
Methods and Results sections. This is crucial for the study to be
able to be replicated by other research groups.
• Special attention should also be paid to ensure that figures and
tables are consistent with (but not redundant to) the information
presented in the text.

22. Study Conclusions (2 of 2)
• Further, an author’s editor should provide the author tips to
improve the overall structural organization of the Results and
Discussions sections.
• A qualified author’s editor helping an author address these
aspects before submission will allow the peer reviewer to focus
on the validity of the science and novelty of the study.
• Thus, an author’s editor can indirectly help expedite the peer
review process.

23. Contact Information
Helping Authors Get Published
Donald Samulack, PhD
President, U.S. Operations
Cactus Communications / Editage
donald.samulack@editage.com
Cactus Communications Inc.
1 Neshaminy Interplex, Suite 206
Trevose, PA 19053
USA
T: +1-267-332-0051 ext. 104
F: +1-267-332-0052
www.editage.com.br
Dr. EddyTM personifies our efforts to support
authors with good publication practices.
He can be found at Editage Insights.
(www.editage.com/insights/tutorials)