Publishing research in
a peer review journal:
Strategies for success
Christine Craik, Editor-in-Chief
Learning Outcomes
 Understand
 Develop
the peer review process
a personal publication plan utilising the
strategies suggested at the workshop
3
Outline
 Explain
the BJOT peer review process
 Follow your manuscript through the process after you
submit it
 Understand how and where the key decisions are made
 Suggest methods to avoid common problems
 Identify key strategies
 Enable you to develop your personal action plan
4
Peer review process – screening
 Technical
check - does it meet the current submission
guidelines for its category?
 Word
count, number of references for category, reporting
guidelines, key messages, registration for RCTs
 Ethical approval – informed written consent
 Age of study
5
Peer review process – screening
 Desk
review – is it suitable for peer review?
 Editor-in-Chief
or an Associate Editor reads abstract and
looks at submission
 Is it within aims and scope of the journal?
 Does it advance knowledge?
 Is it current?
 Does it have international relevance?
 Consider quality
6
Peer review process – screening
Technical check – authors may be asked to address problems
Desk review –
 send for review
 invite to resubmit in another category
 reject without review
 Out of scope
 Not advancing knowledge e.g. we have published a similar
study, poor research, method does not match research
question, no international relevance, ethical problems
 Desk reject – prompt decision – can submit to another journal


7
Your strategies
 Is
your study worth publishing ?
 Honest
reflection on its quality / value
 Is a journal article the best option? – consider a
conference presentation /non peer review journal
 Is the study current now or when it is published?
 What does your study add
8
Your strategies
 Pick
a relevant journal
 Check
websites of possible publications
 Look at Aims and Scope
 Look at recent issues, table of contents, OnlineFirst
 If you are not sure - email the editor to ask if the journal
would be interested
 Expect an honest answer
9
BJOT Aims and Scope
 to
publish articles with international relevance that
advance knowledge on research, practice, education and
management in occupational therapy
10
BJOT Strategic Direction
 Focus
on topics less well represented in journal
 More clinical/client focus
 Emphasise research as evidence for practice
 Prioritise research and reviews
 All submissions should advance knowledge

Craik C (2016) Strategic directions for the British Journal of
Occupational Therapy 79 (3)
Your strategies
 Follow
the current submission guidelines for the article
category
 Read
the other material on submitting
 For example – confirm work is original, not submitted
elsewhere, all authors are eligible to be authors, have
permission to reproduce copyright material e.g. figures
Peer review process – reviewing
 Editor-in-Chief
selects potential reviewers
 Double blind peer review by at least 2 reviewers
 Authors do not know the reviewers
 Reviewers do not know the authors or the other
reviewer
 Information that could identify you is not sent to
reviewers
Peer review process - inviting reviewers
 Reviewers
–UK and international are invited – email with
the abstract
 If they agree they receive the full submission with
guidelines on reviewing
 Asked to return within 4 weeks
 Both reviews are sent to Editor-in-Chief for an initial
decision
Your strategies
 Title
and abstract must be well written to assist editors
and reviewers
 Title should be clear, unambiguous and only include
relevant words –shorter is better
 Abstract should follow submission guidelines
 Include key information – research question / aim
/number of participants
 Make sure it reflects the study as currently written
Peer review process - reviews
 Reviewers
usually comment on each section of the
manuscript
 The style varies and they may focus on different aspects
of the manuscript
 With 2 reviews, most aspects should be covered
 The Editor-in-Chief may also provide additional comments
 Additional questions for reviewers -
Peer review process - questions for reviewers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Is the relevance to international occupational therapy clear?
Does the paper advance knowledge in its area of research?
Do the conclusions relate logically to the aims, results and
discussion?
Are further recommendations made and limitations
addressed
Do the abstract, key messages and what this study has added
summarise the article accurately and concisely.
Peer review process – decision

Editor-in-Chief considers reviews and submission
Suitable for publication in the current form
 Suitable with minor amendments
 Suitable but requires major amendments / additions
 Unsuitable


Author receives both reviews, any comments from the Editorin-Chief and an overall decision
Possible outcome
If unsuitable use the reviews to improve and submit elsewhere
 Seldom accepted without revisions
 Minor revisions – should take a few hours
 Major revisions – only suggested if possible e.g. one or two of




Update literature
More justification / detail of method
Reconsider the analysis, too many tables / quotes
Develop the discussion / implications for practice
Responding to reviewers’ comments
Authors should expect revisions – they are an opportunity to
improve your manuscript
 Build in time and energy for revisions
 Show you have considered all the reviewer comments and in
relation to each comment, either



Revise as requested or
Justify why not
Provide a table with an account of your responses
 Resubmit revised article as soon as possible -2 months

20
Your strategies
 Avoid
common problems throughout the manuscript
 Introduction
/literature review
 Method
 Results/findings
 Discussion
 Key
findings / what they study has added
Your strategies - literature review
 Think
of the reader – tell the story
 If BJOT - no need to explain occupational therapy
 Focus on recent, key literature
 Use research articles and reviews
 Not textbooks or conference presentations
 Clearly identify the gap in the literature /rationale for
study / research question/s
Your strategies - method
 Follow
a logical order – very important if study has
several phases or is part of a larger study (cite it)
 Explain what you did – link to research question
 Some justification for choices – referenced
 Explain validity and reliability / trustworthiness
 Needs to be replicable
Your strategies - results / findings
 Start
with participants
 Link to research question
 Present in same order as method
 Present key results – not everything
 Sensible use of tables, figures, diagrams
 Do not repeat information in tables in the text –
highlight key points
Your strategies - discussion
 Again
present in same order as method and results
 Discuss key points not everything
 Identify implications for practice and further research
 Discuss limitations
 Conclusion
 Check abstract, key findings and what this study has
added do match
Peer review process – reviewing a resubmission
 The
same reviewer/s will be asked to review again
 Not all are willing to do this
 If the reviewers / Editor-in-Chief still do not think the
manuscript is suitable –it may be rejected or further
revisions recommended
 Again revise and provide an account of your responses
Strategies for your action plan
 Decide
if your study is worth publishing
 Pick a relevant journal for your study
 Follow the submission guidelines carefully
 Remember the importance of title and abstract
 Avoid common problems throughout the manuscript
 Expect revisions, do them promptly, demonstrating
how you responded to the reviewers
27
Good Luck !
Follow us on Twitter: @BJOTeditor
COT member access to BJOT: login to www.cot.co.uk then go to
http://www.cot.co.uk/bjot/online
Christine Craik: [email protected]
For information on submissions or becoming a reviewer: [email protected]