Publishing in The Lancet

Naomi Lee
Senior Editor, The Lancet
10 February 2017
1823: ‘to inform, to reform, to 2017: ‘best science for better
entertain’ lives’
Pre-acceptance
A family of print and 2015 Impact Factor: 44.0
online
journals

24.7 23.4 21.3

The Lancet – what we publish
 Blue: (Leaders), Comment, Correspondence, ADR, World report,
Perspectives, Obituaries
 Red: Articles, Clinical picture
 Green: Reviews, Seminars, Series, Hypothesis, Essay
Case Report, Public health, Viewpoint
 http://www.thelancet.com/authors/lancet/authorinfo
 http://ees.elsevier.com/thelancet
 Submitted paper 100

Rejection by Deputy Assigned to Editor 75

Editor

Rejection or cascade Pre review

25

Rejection or cascade Peer review 12

Rejection or cascade Negotiation 8

Revised paper

Rejection or cascade Accepted 4-5

The Lancet office:
London Wall
Why publish?
• Communicate new ideas and information
• Contribute to new leads and connections for future scientific work
• Influence behaviour: clinical practice, health policy
• Educate

Advances in science
• Seldom made by a single researcher or scientific paper
• Made by many scientists reviewing and discussing the scientific findings
and the scientific literature
Quality and integrity of the scientific literature
Is dependent upon high-quality research and of honest, high-quality
reporting of the results

New Interpretation and

research publication

Fraud and misconduct in research and publication of research seriously

affect the scientific record
REduce research Waste And Reward Diligence

PDFs, ppts,
videos, links, etc

www.rewardalliance.net
Reporting problems
• Studies designed without reference to existing evidence - 50%
• Inadequate steps to address bias - 50%

• Inadequate statistical power

• Planned study outcomes not reported – 50%
• Findings inadequately discussed in the context of the current
evidence
• No adverse events reported/lack of focus on harm
• No consideration of the limitations
• Claim an effect for non-statistically significant results
• Claim of a significant difference despite lack of statistical test
• Causal language or causal claim
What do editors look for?
• Does the topic or article type fall within the scope of the journal?
• Are the results (both positive and negative) important and timely?
• Does the study have a sound hypothesis and design?
• Is it appropriately statistically powered?
• Robust methodology, fully reported?
• Is the study analysed properly?
• Are missing data handled appropriately?
• Is the interpretation a fair reflection of the results?
• For trials: does study have a protocol?
• For trials: are main analyses presented protocol-defined?
• For trials: are non-protocol (exploratory) analyses signposted?
• For trials: is it registered?
• For trials: quality of life?
What do we do after submission?

• Editorial

• Editing

• Publishing

• Promotion
What’s new in academic publishing?
• Digital publishing – audience v. relevancy

• Open access

• Academic social networking

• Post publication peer review

• Fake news
Why is surgery special?
• Surgeons are the gatekeepers of surgical innovation

• Funding and resources

“a Lancet can be an arched
window to let in the light or it
can be a sharp surgical
instrument to cut out the
dross, and I intend to use it in
both senses” Thomas Wakley
My tips?
• Get expert advice at the outset
• Protocol, trial registry, reporting standards

• Write a short cover letter

• Avoid subjective language

• Get in touch
Naomi Lee Bill David Elena Becker-
The Lancet Summerskill Collingridge Barrosa
The Lancet The Lancet The Lancet
Oncology Neurology
 Thank you

naomi.lee@lancet.com
Top 10 countries for research
By submissions, 2015

685 457 281 130 130 120 118 116 92 88

36 34 10 7 5 5 5 4 4 3
By acceptance