manuscript submission, revision and galley proof 講員：華 瑜 研究員

Manuscript Submission,Revision and Galley Proof

講員：華 瑜 研究員

Manuscript Submission

Before preparing the manuscript

- Which journal to submit to

- Pay attention to instructions to authors

- Read recently published articles in journals

that you intend to submit manuscript to

Manuscript Submission

Before preparing the manuscript

- Which journal to submit to

- Pay attention to instructions to authors

- Read recently published articles in journals

that you intend to submit manuscript to

Manuscript Submission

Before preparing the manuscript

- Which journal to submit to

- Pay attention to instructions to authors

- Read recently published articles in journals

that you intend to submit manuscript to

- Pay close attention to journal regulations

- Make sure that the manuscript has

all the required elements

During manuscript preparation

Organization of the Manuscript

1. Formatted for 8.5 x 11 inch paper2. Single spacing throughout 3. Two column page format including Summary through Discussion sections.?Title section as well as references, footnotes, figure legends and tables at the end of the manuscript are in single column format. Click here to see an example.4. One-inch left and right margins and 0.25 inch spacing between columns.5. Text typed in Times New Roman, 11 point6. Manuscript is to be arranged in the following order:

(a) title, author(s), and complete name(s) of institution(s) and running title (b) summary (c) introduction (d) experimental procedures (e) results (f) discussion (g) references (h) footnotes (i) figure legends (j) tables (k) figures(l) supplemental data ( if applicable )

7. Number all pages including figures. Please note: Any paper submitted without page numbers will be deleted and you will be asked to resubmit with pages numbers using the online submission system.

- Pay close attention to journal regulations

- Make sure that the manuscript has

all the required elements

During manuscript preparation

Manuscript submission

- For hard copy submission be sure to mail all

the materials that required

- For online submission be sure to

upload all the requirements

Cover Letter

- Identify title and authors of the manuscript

- Identify the novelty of your work

- Identify the category of submission

- Mandatory statements

Manuscript Submission

Dr. James T. WillersonEditor, CirculationSt Luke's Episcopal Hospital/Texas Heart Institute6720 Berner AvenueHouston, TX 77030-2697USA Dear Dr. Willerson: Enclosed please find the original typescript, with one set of original figures, for the manuscript entitled, 'Nongenomic mechanism of cardiovascular actions of glucocorticoid in the nucleus tractus solitarii of the rat' by Samuel H.H. Chan, Chen-Chun Ou, Ling-Lin Wang and Julie Y.H. Chan, for your consideration to be published in Circulation as a Basic Science Reports.

Cover Letter

I declare that all authors have read and approved submission of the manuscript, and that material in the manuscript has not been published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere in whole or in part in any language except as an abstract.

Authorship Responsibility and Copyright Transfer Agreement

Authors Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Acknowledgment Permission

Key Word List

Journal Subject Heads

Related Materials

Manuscript Submission

Editorial board or reviewers can only

be recommend

Only the editor decides

Within 1 - 5 days (electronic submission)

Within 2 - 4 weeks (submission by mail)

Subject is suitable to the journal

Sufficient priority

Acknowledgement of Receipt

Manuscript Submission

Within 3 - 8 weeks

Call or write after 8 weeks

The Editorial Decision

1. Novelty of the study?

2. Is the manuscript suitable for general readers of the journal?

3. Is the title accurate, succinct and effective?

4. Does the abstract properly represent the main body of the manuscript?

5. Does the Introduction adequately set the stage leading to the main question or hypothesis?

Evaluating the manuscript

From a reviewer’s or an editor’s point of view

6. Completion and suitability of experimental designs

7. Validity and significance of the results.

8. Clarity and quality of the illustrations.

9. Is the discussion provides sufficient information?

10. Do the results support the conclusion?

11. Do all elements of the manuscript are in the right sequence?

12. Does the manuscript prepare in correct format?

13. Is the reference citation correct?

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Revisions

Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 80

Rate Reviewer:  (Select 1-100)

Comments to Editor: Review Sheet: General Judgement============================================================1.     Is JBS the proper place for publication?  ___#___ Yes  ______ No2.     Is manuscript:  _____ A. Acceptable in its present form or with minor revisions as noted under comments  __#__ B. Acceptable, if revisions as noted under Comments are made  _____ C. May become acceptable, if suggested experiments are supplemented and/or extensive revisions are made  _____ D. Unacceptable (poor/no originality). Please include reasons under Comments

Specific Assessment (Please check appropriate boxes) Yes/No         1.     Is the title clear and precise?                                 _#_ Yes __ No2.     Is the Abstract descriptive of contents?                 _#_ Yes __ No3.     Are enough details presented in the Methods section?         _#_ Yes __ No4.     Are adequate statistical evaluations of data provided?         _#_ Yes __ No5.     Are the Figures and Tables of suitable clarity and quality? _#_ Yes __ No6.     Is the Discussion section pertinent to the main theme of the article? _#_ Yes __ No                                           

Outright acceptance

- Congratulate yourself

- Only about 3 - 5% of the manuscripts submitted to a good journal are accepted with minor

corrections in style, e.g. grammar, spelling

The Editorial Decision

Outright rejection

- Usually “unacceptable”, “unacceptable in present form”, “low-priority score”

- You are not alone. Most good journals rejectabout 60-80% or more of the submitted manuscripts

The Editorial Decision

Outright rejection

Total rejection: Final decision. No negotiation

More common: some useful data, but with major flaw in experimental design or interpretation

Basically acceptable: lacks a control experiment or poor interpretation of acceptable data

The Editorial Decision

Total rejection

- Do not submit the manuscript anywhere to ruin your reputation

- Salvage usable data, add more experiments before you consider a re-submission

How To Deal with the Situation

More common: Conditional rejection

- Chance of acceptance is not good if you re-submit to the same journal

- Unless you can document that the reviewers have seriously misjudged your manuscript, or you have

undertaken a major overhaul

More common: Conditional rejection

- Use the comments for improvement

- Add extra experiments

- Submit to another journal

Basically acceptable

- Repair and re-submit to the same journal

- State what you have done

- Your chance is good. Worth trying if it is the “best” journal in your field

Revision (“Acceptable”)

- Be very happy that you get a revision

- You are still in the game

- Minor or major revision

- de novo submission

How To Deal with the Situation

Minor revision

- Go ahead and do it

Major revision (reviewers are correct)

- Follow their suggestions

- Re-write

- Re-make figures

- Add experiments

Major revision (reviewers are wrong or unfair)

- Use the comments to improve the manuscript

- Submit to another journal

Major revision (reviewers are wrong or unfair)

- Re-submit with a very polite point-by-point rebuttal

- Never be antagonistic

- Use scientific merits as your weapon

The reviewers can be wrong, but the editor is never wrong!

Major revision (some valid comments, some not)

- Revise those points that you feel acceptable

- Write a rebuttal on those you disagree

- Use scientific evidence to document your arguments

There is no need to accept everything the reviewers suggest

Owing to the amount of work required to address the concerns of the reviewers and the editors, we do not wish to encourage revision. However, if you feel that you can satisfactorily construct a new manuscript that addresses the comments of the referees, we would be willing to process that manuscript as a de novo submission. We have found that the vast majority of such manuscripts are not accepted, and only 10% of all manuscripts are ultimately published.

de novo submission

We have incorporated into our revision (highlighted in blue) all the suggestions by the Editors and the two reviewers. Our point-by-point responses are listed below for your reference.

 Responses to the Editors We wish to respectfully submit that in addition to being an experimental marker for neuronal activation, our group has demonstrated that c-fos plays a functional role in long-term central cardiovascular regulation.

Responses to reviewer’s comments(Rebuttal letter)

Responses to reviewer’s comments(Rebuttal letter)

Responses to Reviewer #1 

(1)  Q: Changes in p38MAPK, ERK1/2 or c-fos expression in the RVLM following ICV infusion of Ang II for 7 days. A: As suggested, we have introduced a new Figure 7 to demonstrate activation of p38 MAPK, ERK1/2 and CREB (Figure 7A), along with c-fos induction (Figure 7B) in ventrolateral medulla 7 days after i.c.v. infusion of Ang II. We also showed that parallel to blunting the pressor response to Ang II infusion (Figure 6A,B), treatment with ERK1/2 or CREB ASON, but not p38 MAPK ASON, significantly blunted the augmented c-fos gene expression (Figure 7B). Finally, together with data from Figure 6C, we demonstrated that upregulation of AT1R gene after c-fos induction (Figure 7C) underlies the long-term pressor response to Ang II in the RVLM. The relevant narration appears on P. 6, Para. 2, Lines 5-9; P. 6, Para. 3, heading and Lines 3-5; P. 10, Para. 2; and P. 11, Para. 1, Lines 4-5.

(2)  Q: Comment on why PKC inhibits ERK1/2 but not c-fos. A: We wish to respectfully point out that PKC ASON indeed blunted c-fos expression. P. 8, Para. 1, Lines 3-4 in our original submission reads, “However, only pretreatment with PKC ASON (100 pmol) significantly antagonized the Ang II-induced c-fos mRNA expression (Figure 3B). ” In fact, it is because of this finding that “PKC” is specified in the title of this article. This information now appears on P. 11, Para. 2, Lines 7-15.

Responses to reviewer’s comments(Rebuttal letter)

Always consider submitting to a better journalafter being rejected

Your revision is an improved manuscript

The Upward Game

Manuscript Submission and Revision

Galley Proofs

The manuscript bears your name – mistakes are your mistakes

1. It is your responsibility to make corrections on the printer’s galleys

2. Correct only the printing errors

3. Not a place to rewrite

4. Notes in proof

5. “Read” – to find missing words “Study” – to find spelling mistakes

6. Learn the standard symbols and conventions for marking galleys

7. Mark errors twice, one in where the error occurs and the other at the margin

8. Check illustrations. Note whether they are reproduced effectively: size of reduction, fidelity

9. Answer the queries and/or remarks

Be a professional!Play the game according to the

roles!

If I had to do it, I might as well enjoy doing it!