Five tips for getting through peer review without pain

Since April 2005 when Libertas Academica launched its first two journals (Cancer Informatics and Evolutionary Bioinformatics) we have published somewhere in the region of 550 articles. Allowing for a small minority of papers not subject to peer review like editorials means that we've undertaken roughly 500 peer reviews.

Because effective peer review is the cornerstone of academic publishing I take a great deal of interest in the peer review process, to the extent that I read almost all the completed peer review reports before they're sent. Having read so many reports, I have noticed some common types of mistakes that authors make. Based on my observations here are some common pitfalls to avoid:

1. Cite the latest research. Peer reviewers will notice this, especially if the research you're not citing is theirs!
2. Write to be read. Polish your manuscript before you submit it. Messy prose can imply a messy rationale for your conclusions. If you want to see just how much greater the impact of spare elegant prose is, compare Samuel Richardson with Ernest Hemmingway. Use headings, page numbering, and figures and tables to illustrate your points. Get a third party to read your manuscript before you submit it to spot any flaws you might have missed. If English isn't your first language consider having your manuscript copy edited by a native speaker before submission.
   
3. Clear figures. Figures should be in high-resolution, non-pixellated files, and any text must be clear. If in doubt, zoom in at 150% and look for pixellation. Ideally use a non-compressed format like TIFF. Be able to produce higher-resolution files if necessary.
   
4. File formats. Submitting files in obsolete or obscure formats like Wordstar, MacPaint or Corel isn't helpful! If you have to use them convert the output to PDFs. Use commonly used formats like MS Office formats, RTF or PDF. Ideally use formats that aren't restricted to a particular program or platform. Submit figures in separate files. No file should be more than 3 MB: if reviewers can't download or view your submission then they can't review it.
   
5. Make sure you provide support for all your conclusions. Obviously.
   

To summarise, the basic suggestion I make is that you should make it as easy as possible for the peer reviewers to assess your paper on its true merits without unintentionally putting barriers in their way. All the errors I've described above are suprisingly common, and depending on their severity they can have a serious impact on the outcome of your peer review. It's important to remember that reviewers agree to undertake reviews as an unrewarded professional obligation. Anything you can do to make their task less onerous is worthwhile.