SO YOU'VE HIT ROCK(Y) BOTTOM: USING REJECTION TO ENHANCE SCHOLARSHIP DISSEMINATION
Gary Beck Dallaghan,University of Nebraska Medical Center,Omaha,NE; Rebecca Tenney-Soeiro,Perelman School of Medicine, Univ of Pennsylvania,,; Beth B. Emrick,West Virginia University Charleston Division,,; Mary E. M. Rocha,Baylor College of Medicine,,; Stephen M. Weimer,Tulane University School of Medicine,,; Eve R. Colson,Yale School of Medicine,,; Nathan S. Gollehon,University of Nebraska,,; Lynn Batten,University of South Alabama,,; Caroline R. Paul,University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,,; Alanna Higgins Joyce,Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine,,; Carrie A. Phillipi,Oregon Health & Science University,,; Jennifer Trainor,Northwestern University,,; Julie L. Kantor,Florida International University,,

Rationale:

Dissemination of scholarship is a critical component of an academic career.  However, achieving publication can be challenging and sometimes demoralizing.  After submitting a piece de resistance, one can be met with a string of rejections. The COMSEP Research and Scholarship Taskforce believes most manuscripts can be published if the study was well-designed.  Success requires identifying diverse potential venues for publication, strategically submitting to a journal (the “right fit”), and responding effectively to reviewer critiques. 



Objectives:

Using Annesley's tips, this interactive workshop will meet the following objectives:

  1. Identify journals appropriate for your work
  2. Identify alternative avenues for publication
  3. Evaluate the editor and/or reviewers’ responses
  4. Edit portions of an article based on reviewer feedback
  5. Process “rejection” to enhance your overall academic career


Methods and Content:

Introduction:  Why attend this session?  Is it to be prepared for when they submit a manuscript? Is it to better understand why their work was rejected? In pairs, participants will be asked to reflect on how rejection impacted them.  Workshop leaders will share personal anecdotes. (30 minutes). 

Reasons for Rejection:

Identifying Journals:  Finding the right journal requires research. We will outline how to identify appropriate journals and strategies to ensure one’s work is a good fit. (15 minutes).

Alternative Avenues:  In the digital age, alternative methods of publication are readily accessible.  We will discuss various methods of publication, how to check for "predatory" journals, and address the pros/cons based on promotion and tenure expectations. (10 minutes) 

#1-10 Reasons:  Reasons for rejection have been published (Guyett et al, Meyer et al).  Participants will use the items from Bordages' list to discuss and to generate a list of how to avoid them in the future. (15 minutes followed by 15 minute large group debrief).            

Break

Editor/Reviewer Comments:  Critically responding to reviewers is time consuming, yet vital.  Examples of reviewer comments with unedited manuscripts will be used to rewrite portions of the manuscripts.  Groups will be assigned: Introduction, Methods, Discussion. Groups will have 50 minutes to revise their section and 20 minutes to present to the large group. (80 minutes).

Phone a Friend:  Once your manuscript is revised, what options are there for informal peer review?  This time will be spent brainstorming to identify possibilities and how the RSTF could provide assistance.  (30 minutes).

Wrap Up:  15 minutes

References:

Annesley TM. Clin Chem 2011; 57(4):551-554.

Bordage G. Acad Med 2001; 76(9): 889-896.

Guyatt GH, Haynes RB. J Clin Epidemiology 2006; 59:900-906.

Meyer HS, et al. Acad Med 2017; epub ahead of print.