By Stephen Doster
Getting published can feel like guessing what editors want. To help you navigate the uncertainty, we reached out to five Vanderbilt University faculty who are either current or former science journal editors and published postdoc. Craig Lindsley, Lisa Monteggia, Larry Marnett, Chuck Sanders, and Fred Guengerich have more than half a century of combined experience as editors of well-established journals. Clara McCarthy recently left the Ege Kavalali lab to start her own lab at the Multidisciplinary Institute of Cell Biology, National University of La Plata, Argentina.
Collectively, they pull back the curtain on peer review, sharing concrete ways to turn a draft into a publishable paper. Here’s what we learned.
Common early-career submission mistakes
The number one mistake early-career researchers make is submitting to the wrong journal. Our editors suggest choosing a journal realistically by focusing on the best fit for your work—one that regularly publishes similar studies—and by carefully following its style and submission guidelines. Repeated resubmissions to high-impact journals can waste time and result in months of waiting. Prioritize getting solid work published over endless delays chasing a glossy placement. Strong, rigorous, and reputable journals exist beyond the (perceived) top journals.
Many of Guengerich’s most cited papers are in less than “splashy” journals. “Don’t swing for the fences on every at-bat,” he said. “There are many good solid journals to publish in. You don’t have to constantly try for the glamour publications.”
Getting key elements of a paper right
All elements of a paper—the title, abstract, introduction, discussion, methods, results, and figures—contribute to its overall impact on readers. But to reach readers, you must first get past the journal editors and reviewers.
“The title is the most important thing: In ten words or less, state why people should read/care about this work,” Lindsley said. “Readers search keywords in Google and that is how they find your paper to cite. Your title is THE single most important thing.”
After that, the graphical abstract or table of contents image is what most pulls readers in. Write a concise abstract—concise like a one–minute elevator pitch—that covers what you did and why it is important. Journals no longer charge for publishing in color anymore, so use it to help your figures and tables jump off the page.
“Make your figures as clear as possible,” McCarthy said. “The reader should be able to understand the main results just by looking at the figures, even if they haven’t read the manuscript in depth.”
Outline each section of the paper before you start writing it. Write a draft abstract and a title to help focus on what you want to emphasize. Decide on the figures and tables you want to use, then write a paragraph or two about each to set up the Results section. Then write the Introduction. Finally, write the Discussion.
Turning critique into acceptance
Very few papers are accepted unchanged. Marnett, in his more than two decades as a journal editor, can recall only two submissions that did not require revision. Revisions are almost always inevitable, even for highly cited researchers and everyone interviewed for this piece.
“Rarely have I had manuscripts accepted without revision after the initial submission,” Monteggia said. “Typically, reviewers have questions that require clarification and may request additional experiments to strengthen the conclusions of the study.”
Marnett suggests clearly laying out why you disagree with a particular comment—without being insulting. “The reviewers are standing between my article and publication, so I don’t want to make them a barrier,” he said. “On the other hand, if I feel they are incorrect, I explain why.” Lindsley added that it’s important to respond to all critiques, even when you feel that they are out of scope or unreasonable, and to make the best effort to revise when appropriate. Thank reviewers for their critiques—and address them.
Sanders noted that journals are getting increasingly fussy about data submission standards, statistical rigor, formatting, and more. Even papers that receive an “acceptance in principle” are often followed by one or two extra revisions just to ensure compliance with ever-lengthening journal checklists.
Another key point: “Don’t take rejection personally,” McCarthy said. Rejections don’t necessarily reflect the scientific quality of the work, and even good-quality manuscripts can get rejected because they don’t fit the publishing aim of a particular journal at a particular time.
Behind the curtain: plagiarism, artificial intelligence, and odd submissions
Journals use third-party tools to detect plagiarism (including self-plagiarism, text that is reused by an author from a previous paper) and artificial intelligence-produced images and text. The overwhelming consensus: Don’t plagiarize and don’t use AI.
“You absolutely do not want to risk a retraction,” Guengerich said. Make sure to check all figures developed by other students, postdocs, and collaborators. SOMBS faculty can use Proofig AI at no cost to catch image issues like duplications, manipulations, plagiarism, and AI-generated problems.
The interviewed editors have all experienced odd submissions from authors, and they suggest that you strive to not submit such papers.
“Some of the strangest manuscript submissions are those that are not relevant to the research focus of the journal,” Monteggia said. “At times, it seems authors are submitting an article based on the impact factor of the journal rather than its subject matter.”
Guengerich once declined a manuscript that was repeatedly resubmitted and rejected. “I told the front office to be sure to assign any new papers from that author to me. The author was obviously hoping to get lucky and land some other associate editor who would accept it,” he said. “This process was repeated at least six times before he finally gave up.”
Prooof carefuuly Proof carefully
The final piece of advice is to review your proof carefully. Because it interrupts and delays the process, editors dislike it when authors come back multiple times after approval with further edits or when they request that the publication group allow major edits after peer review and acceptance.
These tips won’t guarantee that your next paper will be accepted, but following them will push you down the road to peer-reviewed publication.
About the featured community members
Fred Guengerich
Tadashi Inagami, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry
Professor of Biochemistry
Associate editor of Toxicology And Applied Pharmacology, 1980–1984
Associate editor of Molecular Pharmacology, 1982–1985
Associate editor of Chemical Research In Toxicology, 1989–2017
Associate editor of Cancer Research, 1985–1989 and 1993–2003
Associate editor of The Journal Of Biological Chemistry, 2006–2022
Deputy editor of The Journal Of Biological Chemistry, 2013–2021
Interim editor-in-chief of The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2015–2016 and 2021
Craig Lindsley
William K. Warren, Jr. Professor of Medicine
University Distinguished Professor of Pharmacology and Biochemistry
Founding editor of ACS Chemical Neuroscience, 2009-2021
Editor-in-chief of ACS Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2020-present
Larry Marnett
Dean emeritus of the School of Medicine Basic Sciences
Mary Geddes Stahlman Professor of Cancer Research
University Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry and Chemistry
Founding editor of Chemical Research in Toxicology, 1988–2013
Lisa Monteggia
Barlow Family Director of the Vanderbilt Brain Institute
Lee E. Limbird Professor of Pharmacology
Professor of Pharmacology
Co-editor-in-chief of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2023–present.
Chuck Sanders
Senior advisor to the dean of the School of Medicine Basic Sciences
Aileen M. Lange and Annie Mary Lyle Professor of Cardiovascular Research
Professor of Biochemistry
Associate editor of Biochemistry, 2004-2015
Interim editor-in-chief of Biochemistry, 2015–2016
Clara McCarthy
New PI at the Multidisciplinary Institute of Cell Biology, National University of La Plata, Argentina
Former pharmacology postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Ege Kavalali