Tips for Starting and Publishing Research

Editor in Chief Dr. John Patrick T. Co presents practical tips on designing interesting research questions, writing strong manuscripts, and effectively responding to peer review comments.

Interested in learning more about Pediatrics Open Science? Read our author guidelines and submit your manuscript.  

Questions submitted during the session:

1. I am a stand-alone pediatrician doing behavioral health and autism work—how do I find a writing group?

Consider:
a. Looking toward your specialty/subspecialty societies for people with common interests, especially individuals interested in scholarly activity. Perhaps you can form a group and support each other.
b. Establishing an affiliation/appointment at an academic medical center that could provide access to individuals with appropriate backgrounds.
c. Reaching out directly to investigators at other institutions that have expertise in the areas you are interested in. You need to be clear what you are asking from them (mentorship, generating ideas, reviewing draft manuscripts, etc.) and what you would be offering them (authorship, acknowledgment, etc.)

2. The importance of connecting with people who have already published or have experience was mentioned. Could you please share some practical advice on how to approach these individuals, how to spark their interest in your research idea?

a. Be clear on why you are asking that specific person. Are there specific articles or other scholarly activities that sparked your interest in reaching out to the individual? 
b. Be clear as to what you are asking them to do and how much time it will take. Be respectful of their time. Be honest with what you need, balanced with being realistic as to how much a busy person would be capable of doing to support you.

3. How do you become part of ongoing research projects, especially for someone just starting out?

a. Having a mentor is helpful for learning about what projects faculty are working on.
b. Meet with faculty to learn about their interests and for them to learn about yours.
c. Many research groups have regular meetings for group members to present their work to each other. 
d. Be clear why a specific project would be meaningful for your career development to participate in and what you can contribute to the project.

4. What is your suggestion for the author order on publications?

The first author is typically regarded as the person on the team that led the study overall in terms of conceptualization, execution, writing, etc. The last author is often one of the more senior people on the team that helped guide the project at a higher level. For the other members of the study team that meet authorship criteria (http://www.icmje.org), often the ones that were more responsible for executing the study would be put closer to the first author, with more senior authors often being placed closest to the last author.

5. Does inclusion of AI affect the editors' decision to accept/reject a manuscript?

Authors should follow journal specifications regarding what the journal requires to be disclosed around AI use. Use of AI would not be in itself be a cause for automatic rejection of a manuscript. Editors and reviewers will not only want transparency in terms of how the authors used AI, but they will also want to feel confident that it was used appropriately (i.e., that the AI was “trustworthy” in terms of the specifics it generated and that the authors carefully reviewed all AI-generated material).

6. How do you identify predatory journals?

a. Check if a journal is indexed in MEDLINE and the Web of Science. 
b. For open access journals, check to see if it has been approved by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and PubMed Central.
*Please note that newer journals like Pediatrics Open Science need time to reach specific criteria for a and b.
c. Check that the journal has a registered ISSN. 
d. Consider using the Think. Check. Submit. checklist to assess a publication.

7. How do you deal with reviewers that have conflicting recommendations?

You should respond to all comments made by reviewers, including recommendations that are conflicting. You should state why you agree/disagree with the specific recommendations and make the necessary edits to address the recommendations you agree with. If you identify multiple ways to address a recommendation, state which one you feel is best and make the edits consistent with that approach. You can consider mentioning the other options as possibilities and say that you can modify the manuscript based on the editor’s preferences.

8. Would results that are inconclusive have a chance for publication as compared to a definite yes or no?

It would depend on why the study was “inconclusive.”  Well-designed studies with results that show no statistically significant differences between comparison groups can still be valuable contributions to the literature, as long as the study was properly designed and the study was adequately powered to support the study’s conclusions. 

9. Is it harder to publish negative studies in general?

Well-designed studies with results that show no statistically significant differences between comparison groups can still be valuable contributions to the literature, as long as the study was properly designed and the study was adequately powered to support the study’s conclusions. 

10. What can be covered under narratives and what are the differences from reviews?

The term “narrative” can have several meanings. Some journals have an article type for narratives where the author is writing more of a story related to a specific topic. There also is a type of review called narrative reviews (see reference below), which some would say allows researchers to describe what is known about a subject in a more subjective way. Many would consider narrative reviews as lower on the hierarchy of types of reviews. Systematic reviews are typically considered to be higher on the hierarchy of reviews, given they tend to follow more explicit, rigorous criteria (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) and are considered more objective. Some journals publish reviews, others don’t. For those that do, some would want the review to be either a systematic review or meta-analysis.

Sukhera J. Narrative Reviews: Flexible, Rigorous, and Practical. J Grad Med Educ. 2022 Aug;14(4):414-417. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1. PMID: 35991099; PMCID: PMC9380636.

11. How do we decide doing an IRB? Where do we go to investigate getting an IRB if we’re not at a university hospital?

Journals typically require IRB approval in order for a manuscript to be accepted for publication. For Pediatrics Open Science, all studies that involve human subjects must be approved or deemed exempt by an official institutional review board; this should be noted in the Methods section of the manuscript.

You should consult your IRB as to whether your study needs formal IRB review vs. meeting criteria for exemption from needing IRB review. If the IRB says the study meets criteria for exemption, you should ask whether they can send you a communication stating this vs. their communication to you sufficing, so you can be clear in your manuscript submission how IRB review/approval/exemption was approached. If you don’t have access to an IRB, you could consider engaging a commercial IRB to assess your study. 

12. How do journals decide on the frequency they publish articles? (i.e. monthly, quarterly, few times a year)

This would be based on several factors, including the journal’s scope (i.e. wider scope may attract more submissions that meet the journal’s bar for publication), page limits (though less relevant now that articles are often published electronically vs. on paper), journal staffing (i.e. how much administrative support is there to review and publish articles), and the journal’s stage of development (i.e. newer journals may initially publish at a lower frequency and/or few articles).

13. Which journal should I submit to?

Many authors automatically look to the most prestigious journals in their field. However, instead of relying purely on prestige and impact factors, authors should look at the audience of the journal to ensure that their research is reaching the correct people who need to see it. 

Authors should also balance their desire to have their articles published in a more prestigious journal with the fact that such journals often have lower acceptance rates. Authors should look at recent issues of the journals to see if they have accepted articles that are overlapping with theirs in terms of topic and methods. For instance, it may be that a journal has recently published an article on a topic similar to that of the manuscript you have prepared. If the findings are largely the same, the journal may be hesitant to publish it unless there is something different about it that adds to the literature. For instance, was the study done in a different setting or with a different population compared to existing studies? Does the journal you are interested in publish qualitative research? 

Authors should also consider what other unique requirements their paper needs. Do you need open access license options? Do you need English language editing support? Do you want fast turnaround times? Look for these elements when looking at potential journals. 

If you have doubts about the suitability of your manuscript with a specific journal, you can submit a pre-submission inquiry to the journal’s editorial team to get some feedback. Please note, though, that even if a journal says your manuscript is within scope and welcomes you to submit, that does not guarantee acceptance or that the manuscript will be sent for peer review. It may be that after reading the full submission, the editorial team doesn’t send it for review because of a concern about the study design, sample, writing, etc.