1. “Pearls” For Getting Published
In A Peer Reviewed Journal
Hillard M. Lazarus, MD
The George & Edith Richman Professor and
Distinguished Scientist in Cancer Research
Director of Novel Cell Therapy
University Hospitals Case Medical Center
Case Western Reserve University

3. PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
Approach
• Identify target journal: be realistic but “aim higher”
• rejections often improve quality
• strongly consider reviewer comments (but not always)
• Format
• verify guidelines; journals differ
• errors upset many reviewers
• examine manuscripts published in that journal
• Avoid common errors!

4. PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
Approach (con’t)
• Abstract: usually too long (250 words optimal)
• “Prose” versus sub-headings; do not overstate findings
• when possible, provide specifics, not generalities
• Introduction: usually too long: optimal 1 – 1 ½ pages
• set the stage; end with “tantalizing” phrase
• “tell them what you are going to tell them”
• Methods/Patients: often poorly organized and superficial
• logical listing
• include institutions, years, IRB & consent, reagents, etc
• Be careful with statistical section; involve experts

5. PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
Approach (con’t)
• Results:
• frequently too short
• too many tables: redundant with text; combine tables
• Discussion
• Begin with most important finding(s)
• Avoid “this is the first…”; use “this is one of the first…”
• Follow with literature review but how your data differ
• NEVER use “we confirmed”; avoid “me, too”
• NEVER use “… trended to significance” (p=0.08)
• Just as easily trended away than towards significance

6. PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
Approach (con’t)
• Counsel
• seek out expert counsel: “unofficial review”
• intra-institutional, i.e. your center or neighboring center
• friends, colleagues, national experts
• request less formal feedback to ease “burden”
• “Partner”: do not be afraid to add authors who help

7. PUBLISHING “PEARLS”
BEST OF LUCK
WITH YOUR SUBMISSIONS