You learn how to publish through an iterative process of writing, feedback, and mentorship. Early on, I gained experience by co-authoring papers, revising drafts based on mentor feedback, and observing how seasoned investigators structured arguments and interpreted findings. I also learned a great deal by reviewing papers for journals—seeing what makes a manuscript clear, compelling, and rigorous from the other side of the process. Over time, I developed an instinct for identifying the core message of a paper and how to position it effectively despite being a methodologist with little clinical insight. Today, it’s essential to recognize that publishing is not just about the mechanics of writing and formatting—it’s about understanding the scholarly conversation in your field and finding your voice within it. Learn to figure out your style. I have a “formula” now for my papers, and they are quite consistent despite the variability in topics.
How do you select journals?
Journal selection is strategic and should be tailored to the manuscript’s purpose and audience. I consider:
- Scope and audience: Who needs to see this work? Will it reach clinicians, researchers, or trainees?
- Prestige vs. fit: While impact factor still matters for promotion in many institutions, I prioritize journals where the content and readership align well with the work.
- Review timelines and publication lag: Some journals have long backlogs; others provide quicker decisions. These factors are especially important for junior authors or time-sensitive data.
- Open access options: Increasingly important for funder mandates and broader dissemination. Given the new changes in public availability of NIH funded research, this is an important area to consider.
- Precedent and tone: I look at whether similar papers—methodologically or topically—have been published there.
Essential things to know when submitting manuscripts:
- Tell a clear story: Your manuscript should have a central message, well-supported by data. Avoid overcomplicating the narrative. I often pursue “1 message, 1 manuscript” style. It can be tempting to overpopulate with data and findings.
- Format meticulously: Follow author instructions exactly. Even minor formatting issues can irritate overburdened editors and reviewers.
- Anticipate questions: Address potential weaknesses transparently and strengthen the framing of your contributions. Some of my limitation sections are longer than the rest of the discussion.
- Be thoughtful about authorship: Agree early on contributions and order. Follow ICMJE or institutional guidelines. As you age…give those authorship opportunities to others!
- Craft a strong cover letter: While many journals are no longer requiring these, in high impact publications it can be useful to concisely explain why your study matters and why it fits the journal.
- Rejection is part of the process: Even senior academics get rejected. Learn from the feedback and keep moving forward. I bragged early on that I had never had a manuscript rejected. My mentor’s response was “you clearly are not targeting better journals.” Great point. Now I brag about how my manuscripts are rejected by the best journals.
- Stay organized: Track submissions, reviewer comments, and version changes. This will save time, especially during resubmissions or for progress reports.
Nuances in today’s publishing landscape:
- Reviewer burnout: The peer review ecosystem is under significant strain. Reviewer fatigue has led to longer turnaround times and, in some cases, superficial or inconsistent feedback. Editors are increasingly transparent about these challenges. As an author, it’s important to be patient and responsive. As a reviewer, being constructive and timely is a professional responsibility. Recognizing the burden others carry should reinforce the value of collegiality and reciprocity in academic publishing. You want good reviews? Be a good reviewer!
- Predatory and scam journals: The proliferation of low-quality or fraudulent journals continues to grow, often mimicking legitimate open-access models. These entities may lack peer review, editorial oversight, or academic integrity. Key signs include:
- Unsolicited email invitations with exaggerated flattery
- Poorly written websites or lack of transparency about fees
- Dubious indexing claims
- Editorial boards with unfamiliar or fabricated names
Always check journal credentials through trusted sources. If in doubt, consult mentors or colleagues before submitting.
- AI in publishing—promise and responsibility:
AI tools like ChatGPT and others are increasingly being used to assist with manuscript writing, idea generation, data summarization, and even literature reviews. These tools can enhance productivity and clarity, especially for non-native English speakers or early-career scholars. However, their use requires judgment and transparency:
Appropriate uses of AI include: (I used AI to generate the lists below!)
- Generating or improving outlines and organization
- Rewording or clarifying text for improved readability
- Checking grammar and consistency in tone
- Summarizing existing literature (with verification)
- Drafting boilerplate language (e.g., data availability statements)
What to avoid:
- Fabricated citations: AI may generate references that do not exist. Always verify every citation through trusted databases (PubMed, Scopus, etc.).
- Undisclosed assistance: Some journals now require authors to disclose if AI was used in manuscript preparation. Failure to do so may raise ethical concerns.
- Overreliance: AI lacks scientific judgment and nuance. It should never substitute for your own critical thinking, data interpretation, or understanding of context.
Best practice: If AI tools are used, they should supplement—not replace—your scientific expertise. Always proofread, fact-check, and revise with intellectual ownership. A good rule of thumb: if you wouldn’t be comfortable defending a sentence during peer review, don’t let AI write it unchecked.
Final thoughts:
Publishing remains a cornerstone of academic success, but the environment has evolved. Navigating it successfully today requires not just good science and writing, but also intent, integrity, and a commitment to contributing meaningfully to your field. Mentorship, collaboration, and continual learning remain essential—as does protecting your time and energy in an increasingly crowded and pressurized publishing ecosystem.