What reviewers want: how to make your article more appealing to peer reviewers (Editorial)

Abstract

It is the bane of the life of all researchers in health psychology and behavioural medicine; after spending many weeks, months and even years preparing a research article from inception to submission only to have it rejected by journal editors on the advice of some ‘sniffy’ reviewers. We have all received that ‘rejection’ letter, and the accompanying sinking feeling. Even the knowledge that the work of the most eminent minds in the field has been rejected at one stage or another, which my Ph.D. supervisor was at pains to point out after I had had my first manuscript declined, is no consolation. Reflecting on the (numerous) rejection letters I have received from journal editors during my career as a health psychology researcher, and on my experience as a reviewer, editor and editorial board member of numerous scholarly peer-reviewed journals in the field, I have identified a number of tips and ‘tricks of the trade’ that would have been of considerable benefit to me when I was an early-career researcher preparing articles for submission to journals. Such advice could have saved me a lot of time in helping me to get my journal submissions in the right shape first time and a lot of anguish over subsequent rejection letters. Knowing what journal editors and, in particular, peer reviewers are looking for is extremely important when preparing manuscripts for publication. The purpose of this editorial is to outline the tips and recommendations based on my experience and those of others, so that researchers, particularly those less familiar with writing articles for publication, especially in a specialist ‘review’ journal like Health Psychology Review (HPR), can benefit from the advice I wish I had had when I was embarking on my research career. I will outline the importance of: a lucid statement of aim or purpose from the very beginning of your article; a similarly overt statement of contribution and novelty of your work; comprehensiveness in the reporting of your methods; making sure that your claims are evidence based; ensuring your manuscript is well structured; and providing a clear summary of your findings and conclusions and how they relate to practice and future research. Along the way I will make reference to articles published in HPR that amply illustrate ‘good practice’ for each of these issues. The guidelines focus on review articles but, in most cases, they could equally apply to empirical articles and reports of original research submitted to Psychology & Health, for example, or other journals in the field. Finally, I propose a disclaimer: following these suggestions is not a guarantee that your article will be published, but they may just help reduce your chances of rejection. Doing original research well and having new and original idea are the most important elements to getting published; these recommendations may just help you across the line.