| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Editorials |
1 Department of Pathology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA;2 Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Children’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA;3 Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI.
aAddress correspondence to this author at: Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Health System, Room 2G332, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5054. Fax 734-763-4095; e-mail annesley@umich.edu.
| The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Scientific publication is an important indicator of a researcher’s productivity. Scientists must publish the results of their work to inform their peers of their findings, support grant and funding applications, and enhance their potential for promotions. Therefore, the pressure to publish is high. Scientists usually look for prestigious journals, i.e., those with high impact factors and a fair review process, in which to publish their work.
Meanwhile, journal editors are engaged in competition to attract and select the best papers and strive to keep their journals interesting, while staying within a limited page allotment. The editors of Clinical Chemistry are interested in attracting articles that have high potential interest and impact in novel technologies/applications, biochemical markers, proteomics, molecular diagnostics, and clinical and epidemiologic studies. Papers are selected on the basis of current and potential future importance to our field, novelty, relevance to the audience, and clarity of presentation. Although many researchers are quite capable of designing excellent scientific studies, we have found as editors that not all are capable of clearly articulating their findings in a well-formulated scientific paper. Clinical Chemistry currently accepts approximately 15% of submitted original reports. Although common reasons for rejecting papers include lack of novelty or a poorly designed study, it is important to emphasize that papers that present their findings most clearly have a definite advantage in the peer review and decision-making process.
In our editorial experience, we find that about a third of submitted papers fail to fulfill at least one journal requirement as described in the Information for Authors (1) and the detailed checklist for manuscript preparation. Common mistakes include having too many references, incorrect reference formatting, incorrect units, and inclusion of supplemental files and figure legends in the main text of the paper. Even after peer review, roughly two-thirds of
Guidance in Manuscript Preparation
authorship
outline
order of manuscript preparation
title
abstract
introduction
materials and methods
Analytical details.
Human/Animal subjects.
Diagnostic studies and clinical trials.
Statistics.
results
discussion
references
figures
tables
Responding to Reviewers’ Comments
advice for non–english-speaking authors
Conclusions
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
