EDITORIAL
Appeals William Lineaweaver, MD
A
nyone who submits manuscripts to be considered for publication in medical journals knows that there are three possible outcomes: acceptance, request for revision, and rejection. The last outcome is by far the most common. For an example at hand, this journal receives approximately 1200 submissions a year, and publishes about 240 manuscripts per year. Annals is a journal with modest (but growing) stature relative to circulation and impact factor; yet 80% of manuscripts submitted to it are rejected. Rejection is a sad editorial function, somehow similar to drowning litters of kittens. All submissions at least have the virtue of representing valued work brought to the aspiring conclusion of print. Most submissions have additional virtues that, while compelling to some degree, are not fully realized or are not competitive enough to displace other works considered by the editors. The best that the editorial process can do is offer comments that convey respect and constructive critiques giving the contributors meaningful suggestions for reconsidering their work. Undoubtedly, however, many of the editorial comments must seem cursory, misguided, or obscure. Perhaps, the most unsatisfying criticisms and editorial remarks are those that contain spelling and grammatical errors while discussing spelling and grammatical shortcomings of a manuscript under review (versions of “thees arthurs kant spel gud”). Editorial replies may seem flawed, but they contain flaws within a process of judgment, and therefore live apart from the material under judgment. Authors have different responses to rejection. William Faulkner perhaps spoke for all victims of editorial rejection when he described his reaction to the dismissal of his novel Flags in the Dust: I was shocked. My first emotion was blind protest, then I became objective for a moment, like a parent who is told that its child is a thief or an idiot or a leper; for a dreadful moment I contemplated it with consternation and despair . . ..1
Following this first shock, however, authors have a number of possible actions to consider. Some may abandon forever the trials of composing and submitting. Some may revise and expand the work for submission to another journal. Others may abandon the rejected work but derive concepts and insights for future projects. Under some circumstances, however, an author may choose to contest an editorial decision by way of a direct communication to the editor. My own experience with this tactic has resulted in at least 2 satisfying reversals. In 1980, 2 colleagues and I reported initial evaluations of aortoiliac catastrophes (including ruptured aneurysms and an aortoenteric fistula) by the relatively new technique of computed axial tomography (CAT). Our original submission was rejected and the reviewers commented that CAT scans were impractical under such dire circumstances. We replied that CAT scans were efficient and safe for patients suspected of such lesions, and that the scan provided important information localizing the lesions and distinguishing between patients who required emergency surgery and ones who could undergo elective surgery after preoperative medical preparation. Our argument prevailed, and our paper entered the early literature on CAT scans and vascular emergencies.2 Some years later, I had the opportunity of discussing gastrointestinal flaps with a faculty colleague, Dr. Harry Oberhelman, who published some of the first studies functionally describing gastrin hypersecretion by transplanted antrum tissue.3 He helped me analyze published series of experimental and clinical gastric antrum flaps with the conclusion that these operations were physiologically unsound. I wrote a review of these papers, and submitted it only to have it returned as “worthy as a comment rather than a lengthy discussion. It would be worthwhile as a letter to the editor but probably not as a review article.” With physiological indignation, I replied that the review itself addressed the increasing number of gastric flap cases appearing in the literature without serious discussion of the function of a transplanted antrum; and that the review offered a basis for abandoning gastric flaps in favor of jejunal flaps for pharyngeoesphogeal reconstruction. My reply was considered by the editor who proceeded to publish the review largely intact.4 Periodically, I receive communications from authors who raise questions about rejections of their works. I invariably think of the 2 episodes I described above as I pull manuscripts and critiques for another reading. These appeals have led to acceptances, further direction for revision, and repeated rejections with more detailed discussion of problems with the manuscripts. Each reappraisal, however, is a valuable exploration of the editorial process as well as the material at hand. I therefore regard appeals of rejections with interest and respect for the authors' commitments to their work. Such appeals are educational for editors and authors alike. REFERENCES 1. Lineaweaver W. Rejection (editorial). Microsurgery. 2006;26:129–130. 2. Lineaweaver W, Clore F, Alexander R. Computed tomographic diagnosis of acute aortoiliac catastrophes. Arch Surg. 1982;117:1095–1097. 3. Dragstedt L, Woodward ER, Oberhelman H, et al. Effect of transplantation of antrum of stomach on gastric secretion in experimental animals. Am J Physiol. 1951;165:386–398. 4. Lineaweaver W. Physiological implications of gastric transplantation for reconstruction of the cervical esophagus. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;32: 553–558. Received December 26, 2014, and accepted for publication, after revision, December 26, 2014. From the JMS Burn and Reconstruction Center, Central Mississippi Medical Center 1850 Chadwick Drive, Suite 1427, North Tower, 4 West Jackson, MS 39204. Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared. Reprints: William Lineaweaver, MD, 1850 Chadwick Drive, Suite 1427, North Tower, 4 West Jackson, MS 39204. E-mail: [email protected]. Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN: 0148-7043/15/7403–0273 DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000472
Annals of Plastic Surgery • Volume 74, Number 3, March 2015
www.annalsplasticsurgery.com
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
273
Appeals William Lineaweaver, MD
A
nyone who submits manuscripts to be considered for publication in medical journals knows that there are three possible outcomes: acceptance, request for revision, and rejection. The last outcome is by far the most common. For an example at hand, this journal receives approximately 1200 submissions a year, and publishes about 240 manuscripts per year. Annals is a journal with modest (but growing) stature relative to circulation and impact factor; yet 80% of manuscripts submitted to it are rejected. Rejection is a sad editorial function, somehow similar to drowning litters of kittens. All submissions at least have the virtue of representing valued work brought to the aspiring conclusion of print. Most submissions have additional virtues that, while compelling to some degree, are not fully realized or are not competitive enough to displace other works considered by the editors. The best that the editorial process can do is offer comments that convey respect and constructive critiques giving the contributors meaningful suggestions for reconsidering their work. Undoubtedly, however, many of the editorial comments must seem cursory, misguided, or obscure. Perhaps, the most unsatisfying criticisms and editorial remarks are those that contain spelling and grammatical errors while discussing spelling and grammatical shortcomings of a manuscript under review (versions of “thees arthurs kant spel gud”). Editorial replies may seem flawed, but they contain flaws within a process of judgment, and therefore live apart from the material under judgment. Authors have different responses to rejection. William Faulkner perhaps spoke for all victims of editorial rejection when he described his reaction to the dismissal of his novel Flags in the Dust: I was shocked. My first emotion was blind protest, then I became objective for a moment, like a parent who is told that its child is a thief or an idiot or a leper; for a dreadful moment I contemplated it with consternation and despair . . ..1
Following this first shock, however, authors have a number of possible actions to consider. Some may abandon forever the trials of composing and submitting. Some may revise and expand the work for submission to another journal. Others may abandon the rejected work but derive concepts and insights for future projects. Under some circumstances, however, an author may choose to contest an editorial decision by way of a direct communication to the editor. My own experience with this tactic has resulted in at least 2 satisfying reversals. In 1980, 2 colleagues and I reported initial evaluations of aortoiliac catastrophes (including ruptured aneurysms and an aortoenteric fistula) by the relatively new technique of computed axial tomography (CAT). Our original submission was rejected and the reviewers commented that CAT scans were impractical under such dire circumstances. We replied that CAT scans were efficient and safe for patients suspected of such lesions, and that the scan provided important information localizing the lesions and distinguishing between patients who required emergency surgery and ones who could undergo elective surgery after preoperative medical preparation. Our argument prevailed, and our paper entered the early literature on CAT scans and vascular emergencies.2 Some years later, I had the opportunity of discussing gastrointestinal flaps with a faculty colleague, Dr. Harry Oberhelman, who published some of the first studies functionally describing gastrin hypersecretion by transplanted antrum tissue.3 He helped me analyze published series of experimental and clinical gastric antrum flaps with the conclusion that these operations were physiologically unsound. I wrote a review of these papers, and submitted it only to have it returned as “worthy as a comment rather than a lengthy discussion. It would be worthwhile as a letter to the editor but probably not as a review article.” With physiological indignation, I replied that the review itself addressed the increasing number of gastric flap cases appearing in the literature without serious discussion of the function of a transplanted antrum; and that the review offered a basis for abandoning gastric flaps in favor of jejunal flaps for pharyngeoesphogeal reconstruction. My reply was considered by the editor who proceeded to publish the review largely intact.4 Periodically, I receive communications from authors who raise questions about rejections of their works. I invariably think of the 2 episodes I described above as I pull manuscripts and critiques for another reading. These appeals have led to acceptances, further direction for revision, and repeated rejections with more detailed discussion of problems with the manuscripts. Each reappraisal, however, is a valuable exploration of the editorial process as well as the material at hand. I therefore regard appeals of rejections with interest and respect for the authors' commitments to their work. Such appeals are educational for editors and authors alike. REFERENCES 1. Lineaweaver W. Rejection (editorial). Microsurgery. 2006;26:129–130. 2. Lineaweaver W, Clore F, Alexander R. Computed tomographic diagnosis of acute aortoiliac catastrophes. Arch Surg. 1982;117:1095–1097. 3. Dragstedt L, Woodward ER, Oberhelman H, et al. Effect of transplantation of antrum of stomach on gastric secretion in experimental animals. Am J Physiol. 1951;165:386–398. 4. Lineaweaver W. Physiological implications of gastric transplantation for reconstruction of the cervical esophagus. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;32: 553–558. Received December 26, 2014, and accepted for publication, after revision, December 26, 2014. From the JMS Burn and Reconstruction Center, Central Mississippi Medical Center 1850 Chadwick Drive, Suite 1427, North Tower, 4 West Jackson, MS 39204. Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared. Reprints: William Lineaweaver, MD, 1850 Chadwick Drive, Suite 1427, North Tower, 4 West Jackson, MS 39204. E-mail: [email protected]. Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN: 0148-7043/15/7403–0273 DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000472
Annals of Plastic Surgery • Volume 74, Number 3, March 2015
www.annalsplasticsurgery.com
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
273
