From the experiments to the publication: story of a manuscript

In one of my previous posts, I wrote about what being a scientist looks like, and I said that the final product of a researcher work is the publication of a paper. But how long is the path to publication?

We said that a new hypothesis based on the current knowledge on a topic is formulated, then appropriate experiments are performed more than once to confirm their results, and cording on them a theory is developed.

Usually, all this work is not done by an individual, but it the result of the joint work of more researchers of the same of more groups, sometimes also from different parts of the world. Each one contributes according to their specific knowledge to the design and execution of the experiments and the interpretation of the results.

Once the experimental part has been completed, all the data must be put together to develop the theory: the results are written down and presented in the context of other published works, and the authors have to explain their meaning, relevance and when it applies their practical application. In this first phase, the document is called manuscript, and it is submitted to a specialized journal for its evaluation.

Now a process called peer review starts.

The editor of the journal receives the manuscripts and performs the first assessment, deciding whether or not the topic of the manuscript is in line with the subject of the journal. If the first assessment is negative, the editor will suggest the authors submitting the manuscript to another journal. If the first assessment is favourable, the author will choose two or three expert scientists in the field, who will be asked to analyse the manuscript and evaluate its validity, in one word to be the reviewers.

What do the reviewers actually do? They read the manuscript and assess it in many ways, making sure that

the basis of the work is justified by what is already known in the field
the experiments are appropriate to answer the research questions and properly performed both from the technical and theoretical point of view
the manuscript includes all the details necessary to reproduce the experiments
data are properly analysed
results are clearly and properly presented (tables and graphs)
the theory is directly supported by the results and consistent with the results of other scientists (if the new results are in contrast with previously published works the authors must be able to provide a plausible explanation).

Reviewers must comment on both the positive and negative aspects of the manuscript, explaining every point of their evaluation that will be sent back to the editor. Reviewers can also suggest repeating some of the experiments with some modification or performing additional experiments.

Once the editor receives the reports from all the reviewers, he decides on the manuscript’s fate. The editor can decide to

reject the manuscript for publication in their journal if the reviewers have detected flaws under several points of view
not to accept the manuscript and suggest the authors to follow the reviewers’ suggestion to improve their work in order to resubmit it later
ask the authors to complete their work according to the reviewers’ suggestion in order to publish the paper
publish the paper as it is, without any modification if the reviewers have found it favourably and have found it to have no flaws.

In cases 1) and 2) the authors can choose to ignore the editor’s assessment and to submit the same manuscript to another journal.

In cases 2) and 3), after having done all the required modification, the manuscript will be resubmitted to the journal and the peer review process will start again

The case described at point 4) is the least common in Biomedicine, but it still can happen.

When we read a paper we are therefore sure that the experiments were performed properly and that the results were analysed and interpreted consistently.

However, a paper can be retracted after its publication by the authors themselves or by the journal. This happens when the author realized that an error was committed (in either good or bad faith), or either when a scientific fraud is unveiled (made up or manipulated results).

The task of the researchers is to develop theories as closest as possible to reality and to describe natural phenomena as most realistically and plausibly as possible. Scientific publications are therefore our best attempt to explain nature and its mechanisms.

In science, however, every theory is true until proven otherwise: it is possible that at a distance of time, thanks to more modern techniques or to more potent computing systems, new papers can be published proven wrong or amending previews theories. And this is how knowledge progresses.

Image from freesvg.org

Bibliography

Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias, Manchikanti L. et al., Pain Physician 2020, https://www.painphysicianjournal.com/linkout?issn=1533-3159&vol=18&page=E1

The life-cycle of your manuscript: From submission to publication, Chaitow S., Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies 2019, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2019.09.007

Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide, Kelly J. et al., EJIFCC 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/