How to get published in

Nature –
an ex-editor’s perspective
24.10.21

Dr Jane Rees
Head of Research & Partnerships Development
University of Liverpool
jane.rees@liverpool.ac.uk
 What we will cover today
Learn more about how ‘top’ science journals work – how publishing
decisions are made and by whom.

Seeing things from the editors perspective -top tips on what science
editors are looking for – and equally what drives them to reject
manuscripts before publication.

Gain a better understanding of how to communicate complex material

to a non-specialist audience – and why the elevator pitch is so
important

An over-view of the publishing process, including appeals.

Questions and sharing publishing experiences welcome

 Communication is critical to scientific
progress

• Gregor Mendel discovered genetic inheritance worked in discrete units

(genes).
• 40 reprints of his presentation to the Society for the Study of Natural Science
of Brunn in 1865 were published.
• Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published 6 years
before.
• Whilst Mendel had read Darwin, Darwin died in 1882 still favouring ‘blending’
inheritance. Mendel’s work was ‘lost’ for 35 years.
• Moral of the story – get your message out to the widest possible
audience. Interdisciplinary audiences are important for ‘big’ scientific
findings where impact crosses disciplinary boundaries. 
 What is needed for success?
• ‘Top’ journals are only interested in the scientific impact of your
results- Fancy re-writing won’t make an incremental paper strong
enough, but poor writing may mask the true impact of the work.

• The ambition for impact needs to be in incorporated right from

conception stage - into every research grant.

 Will the best case scenario provide an answer

to an important question?
 Have you included relevant high risk-high gain
work-packages into your grant?
 Be strategic, be nimble, and ask what is next
big question.
 You have a different game to play when
submitting to a ‘top’ multidisciplinary journal
NATURE SCIENCE NEW ENGLAND MOST SPECIALIST
JOURNAL OF JOURNALS
MEDCINE
Impact factor – Impact factor – Impact factor- Lower Impact
49.96 47.73 91.25 factors
75% rejected prior 80% rejected 10% rejected Very low rejection
to specialist review prior to specialist prior to specialist rate prior to
review review specialist review
7% overall 7% overall 5% overall
publication rate publication rate publication rate
Staff editors Staff editors Staff editors Academics
make decisions and academic pass to acting as
editorial board physician specialist editors
make decisions editorial team make decisions
for decisions
 Your first big hurdle is the editor…so how
should you communicate with them?
At Nature:
• ~ 170 biology manuscripts submitted a week

• ~70% are rejected without review after editor

assessment, usually within 7 days

• ~ 9 are published each week (5% success rate)

• Staff editors cover vast areas of science and are not specialists but
‘scientifically literate general readers’

• Editors need to minimise the time they spend on manuscripts they are
going to reject, so decisions can be made in as little as 10 minutes!
 What are staff editors wanting to see?

• Fit with journal

• Scientific Impact

 Within the field – what is new and does resolve an important

question in the field?

 Outside the field - interest to a wider scientific, applied or policy

audience.

Staff editors will send manuscripts they feel fit these criteria out to
specialist reviewers to assess technical validity of manuscript
 Unpacking scientific impact:
novelty, generality, validity.
Novelty compared to state of play in field
 Did the findings answer a major question in the field?
 Was it an unexpected result that will take the field in a new
direction, adding both to knowledge AND conceptual framework?
 Will the results lead to major practice or policy change?
 Can be a lower bar in ‘hot’ areas of current debate.

Generality of result to other systems and real world

 Are the data sufficient to make a general conclusion without
provisos, not just an incremental finding?
 Do the data support an unambiguous conclusion?
 Are theoretical models backed-up with experimental data?
 Are real world conditions sufficiently replicated e.g. in vitro data
backed up with in vivo data?
 Unpacking scientific impact:
novelty, generality, validity.
Validity of claims in manuscript – (for specialist peer reviewers)

 Extrapolation beyond the data, are the claims convincing?

 Are claims discussed appropriately in context of previous

literature?

 Confounding variables and correlation-causality issue

 Sample size and proper controls

 Correct statistical analysis

 Sufficient methodological detail for reproducibility

 Open data
 Your audience goes beyond the editor…..
• Write for an audience with varying levels of specialist
knowledge: editor, referees, journal readers. Respect their
intelligence without overestimating their knowledge of the field

• Help the ‘scientifically literate general reader’

 Convey context to allow advance to be assessed
 Make motivation for the questions you are asking clear
 Define specialist terms and provide comparison points
 Interpret the impact of your data on the field

• Plan narrative to tell a clear, accurate,

concise story, excluding irrelevant data,
keep the story as simple as it can be.
 Structure for selective reading and test
before you submit!
• Structure content in each paragraph to allow selective reading so non-
specialists to follow story without getting bogged down by details.
 Start with accessible ‘bigger picture’ for everyone, then progress to more
specialist detail to convince specialists
 At the sentence level, express in the main clause what is new/interesting to
all, and relegate specialist information to subordinate clause.

•Write in the active voice, ( ‘we show’ rather than ‘it is shown’). Helps distinguish
author’s research from background, and cuts word count.

•Revise as critical reader – Writing is iterative process. For maximum readability 15-20
words per sentence, 150 words per paragraph.

• Internal peer review – If a non-specialist cannot understand the impact of your

research you aren’t communicating it clearly enough.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/ebooks/english-communication-for-scientists-14053
993/contents
 How to grab the editors attention…

Staff editors will read the covering

letter and abstract first – make
them continue reading by
emphasizing context, motivation
and impact of research in
these sections

For journals with prescribed abstracts, wider impact may

have to be communicated elsewhere in manuscript, but don’t
leave it out!
Getting the message through
 Getting the covering letter right
• 1-2 pages max

• Reference any pre-submission discussions with editor

• Reference (and supply) any supporting unpublished

manuscripts

• Give brief background, question addressed, main results, and

impact in way that can be understood by scientifically literate
general reader

• Fit findings in context by quoting literature – make it current

and influential to emphasize readers will be interested!

• Suggest independent referees, and exclude people in a

reasonable manner (not entire fields/institutions)

• Show to somebody outside your field before submitting

 Getting the abstract right
• Hook to pull readers in

• Comply with journal rules, but where possible don’t just summarise
your results

• Best are stand-alone, accurate summaries of the research impact

• Good structure is context, question, main answers, impact

• Can hint at future impact as long as sufficiently focussed

• Words matter ….’confirm, review, suggest’ can sound incremental, be

as assertive in language as data allow
 Context/question Results/methodology Impact
GENERAL CONTEXT- basic
introduction, comprehensible to any
scientist.
DETAILED CONTEXT- more detailed
context, comprehensible to scientists in
related disciplines.
PROBLEM ADDRESSED. 1 sentence
stating general problem being
addressed by this study.
MAIN FINDING.1 sentence with main
result “here we show”.
DETAILS AND ADVANCE IN
UNDERSTANDING - expanding results
emphasizing addition to previous
knowledge.
IMPACT OF RESULTS -puts the results
into a more general context.
WIDER PERSPECTIVES -broader
perspective, comprehensible to any
scientist, can speculate on future
impact.
300 words max.
www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta
During cell division, mitotic spindles are assembled by
microtubule-based motor proteins1, 2. The bipolar organization of
spindles is essential for proper segregation of chromosomes, and
requires plus-end-directed homotetrameric motor proteins of the
widely conserved kinesin-5 (BimC) family3. Hypotheses for
bipolar spindle formation include the 'push−pull mitotic muscle'
model, in which kinesin-5 and opposing motor proteins act
between overlapping microtubules2, 4, 5. However, the precise
roles of kinesin-5 during this process are unknown. Here we
show that the vertebrate kinesin-5 Eg5 drives the sliding of
microtubules depending on their relative orientation. We found in
controlled in vitro assays that Eg5 has the remarkable capability
of simultaneously moving at 20 nm s-1 towards the plus-ends of
each of the two microtubules it crosslinks. For anti-parallel
microtubules, this results in relative sliding at 40 nm s-1,
comparable to spindle pole separation rates in vivo6.
Furthermore, we found that Eg5 can tether microtubule plus-ends,
suggesting an additional microtubule-binding mode for Eg5. Our
results demonstrate how members of the kinesin-5 family are
likely to function in mitosis, pushing apart interpolar microtubules
as well as recruiting microtubules into bundles that are
subsequently polarized by relative sliding. We anticipate our
assay to be a starting point for more sophisticated in vitro models
of mitotic spindles. For example, the individual and combined
action of multiple mitotic motors could be tested, including
minus-end-directed motors opposing Eg5 motility. Furthermore,
Eg5 inhibition is a major target of anti-cancer drug development,
and a well-defined and quantitative assay for motor function will
be relevant for such developments.
The post-submission process explained
 Peer Review - How are referees chosen?
• Technical/specialist expertise

• Broad knowledge of field

• Independence from authors and their institutions

• Previous record of fair/constructive reviewing or reviewing a

related manuscript

• Availability under time constraints

• Sensible author exclusions are honoured

• Names from database, author suggestions, literature, new

referees
 How are decisions made?
• Reviewers often disagree

• Editors ultimately decide what is published

- often have to overrule negative or positive
reviewers, especially when issues are
editorial rather than technical

• Peer review is not a democracy; it is scientific

arguments that matter, not the number of votes
 Main reasons for rejection
• Out of scope of journal

• Insufficient impact – too incremental an advance

• Salami slicing – give the editor enough of the story

• Unclear writing - written for too specialist an audience or

imprecise use of English

• Inadequate use of feedback – respond to ALL reviewers

comments, even only to avoid misunderstandings
reoccurring. Never resubmit to another
journal without revising...it’s a small world.
 The decision letter

• Outright rejection, suggesting publication elsewhere

• Rejection with a ‘open door’ – allowing new

submission date

• Deferring decision until authors have had a chance

to respond to the reviewers’ comments – keeping
original submission date

• Accept
 Can you appeal a rejection from a
‘top’ journal?
•Don’t accept a decision if you feel the reviewers
have got it substantially wrong

• All appeals are considered, and seen by original

editor and at least one other

• Only a few appeals ultimately succeed

• Successful appeals generally involve new

information or pointing out actual errors or
misunderstandings
 What does not help…..

• Celebrity endorsements
• Hype
• Abuse
• Offering cosmetic changes
• Guessing referees, followed by personal attacks
 What may help…..

• Remind editor of case for publication – background,

question, answer, impact

• If appeal based on misunderstanding, take some of blame

and offer to make clearer in re-write

• Cut and paste each reviewer comment and provide a

response, do not miss any out, each requires scientific
response or polite rebuttal.
 Thanks for listening!

Any questions to ask or publishing experiences to share?

Jane.rees@liverpool.ac.uk