Notes on Publishing for Impact: Barbara Cheifet, chief editor of Nature Biotechnology
Rice CS, Rice Ken Kennedy Institute:
Dr. Cheifet completed her PhD in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at Yale University, after which she spent seven years at Genome Biology, including four years as Chief Editor, before joining Nature Biotechnology at the beginning of 2022 and becoming Chief Editor at the end of that year. Nature Biotechnology publishes new concepts in technology and methodology related to biological, biomedical, agricultural and environmental sciences as well as publishing commentary on the societal aspects of biotech research.
Lot of great information in this very unique 30 minute lightning talk (12 min presentation + 18 min Q&A) that many of us spent a lot of time navigating and discovering as (former) grad students or (i’m guessing) even early career faculty about finding the right venue, submitting, editing, and reviewing.
Here are the top ten tips that Barbara has for us:
1. Aim high, but realistically
Before submission, read papers that the journal is publishing and compare your paper to what they are publishing. Does the quality of your submission align with that of other papers in the journal? Find best home for paper to the appropriate audience, even if it is a lower impact journal.
2. Become familiar with journal content
Would your paper contents be considered in the scope of the journal? Read papers in journals you are considering - how does yours compare? Do you think your paper meets the journal’s requirements?
3. Make sure cover letter is addressed to the right journal
Occassionally, cover letters are addressed to another journal by mistake (possibly rejected). Also, don’t just paste the abstract… explain the motivation for the study, why will readers be interested, pinpoint the advancement and novelty, and give key references. Tell why readers are should pay attention.
4. Don’t worry about formatting of paper
Formatting will be fixed later.
5. Don’t be afraid to suggest reviewers
Some people will better understand the impact of your work. But:
- Don’t suggest your friends or collaborators.
- NBT never invites excluded reviewers (but don’t exclude everybody in the field).
- NBT check for copublications.
6. Make sure data is deposited
This includes data, software, methods, code, ethics, and approvals. Not submitting these delays the publication process. If there are restrictions on code, make sure that is clear to the editors
7. Respond in detail to all reviewers comments
Make it clear where to changes have been made (track change versions). It is fine to disagree, but support your arguments with facts and references. Make sure that any editor’s comments have been addressed.
8. NBT are happy to discuss revision plan
Have the editors be on the same page with you during revision.
9. Make well thought out and supported appeals
The majority of appeals are not successful. But the successful ones are well thought out and supported. In the appeals, the authors need to detail reasons why reviewers are wrong. Editors are always happy to talk about an appeal.
10. Feel free to email an editor and ask them about status etc.
You have right to ask. Editors are trying to work with you.
Audience questions
Barbara succintly answers a lot of questions (in no particular order).
As an editor, how do you read a paper?
Very different from what researchers usually do. Instead of looking at details of methodologies, figures, data, judge the overall message of the paper and whether it fits well with the journal. Those details are left for the reviewers.
How does NBT "judge" a paper?
For NBT, they look at the novelty in both the technology and application side. There needs to be an appropriate balance between novel technology and application. But sometimes stronger technology can be in place of weaker application, and vice versa.
How many submissions does NBT get per week?
Around 50. 20% make it to review. Around 15-18% acceptance.
What to place in supplemental?
Depends on the story and the message of the paper. Supplements can be massive because reviewers are coming to ask for more and more things. These items will be requested on a case to case basis. However, main results should be on main text. If there are additional experiments, then add it in supplemental mostly to satisfy the reviewer.
Publications seem to have similar writing styles. Is this due to the authors or the editors?
Both. Authors look at what has been submitted in the path and write in appropriate tone/style. Editors then edit line by line.
Can you comment on reproducibility of proprietary code/dataets?
Reviewers can request to review it, and editors will make sure these code/datasets are protected.
Will NBT immediately say no to a paper based on the cover letter?
No, generally NBT will read the full paper in length.
What if two submissions are similar and of similar quality?
Generally both are submitted both of them to reviewers. Reviewers judge which one is accepted/rejected.
Since submission to publication process takes a while, what if something is in review and something similar is published elsewhere?
NBT will continue to move forward with paper.
What do you think of BioArxiv?
Barbara thinks it is great. We all know that publishing is slow. From editorial standpoint, they only look at what’s published/peer reviewed.
How do they assign papers to editors?
Most editors will have particular areas of expertise. If none have expertise, they will randomly distribute based on workload.
Path to being an editor?
Barbara realized that she isn’t good at working on the benchtop. She likes reading across disciplines and spending time deep diving into research areas.