3 Internal Review and Revisions

You have a completed first draft manuscript, describing what you did, what you found, and your interpretation of the results and how they relate to the field. Before you submit to peer review, you’ll need to go through a process of internal review and get sign-off on the final draft from all of your co-authors. Ideally, this is an opportunity to identify any errors, hone your arguments, and ask for specific input from experts on your writing team. Be prepared for several rounds of iteration, as some of your collaborators may have more suggestions to offer.

Below, I make some suggestions for how to approach this stage of the project. Your goal is to make things as straightforward as possible for your co-authors, so they can focus on providing constructive and substantial feedback. Again, make sure to check with your advisers and your writing team to see if they have their own system or preferences for doing internal review.

3.1 Assemble your materials

Review your manuscript, checking to make sure you have all of the essential elements: title, authors and affiliations list, abstract, main text, figures, tables, references. Double-check that the manuscript adheres to your target journal’s author guide. It’s okay if your manuscript doesn’t perfectly meet the guidelines if, for example, you’re over the word limit and you’d like your co-authors to weigh in on how to tighten things up.

Separately, review the supplementary material and check that all of the figures and tables are included and properly formatted (journal guidelines are typically loose).

3.2 Get feedback on your draft manuscript

Work styles will vary. In the EQUIS Lab, the first round of feedback comes from core writing team, which includes the first author, senior (or last) author, and any other key investigators who are deeply involved in the study. We’ll typically do a few rounds of revisions with the core writing team.

Once the core writing team signs off on the draft, it’s time to get feedback from the full co-authorship team. In your email, make sure to say that the core team has already reviewed and approved the current draft. It’s also helpful to give a deadline, typically with at least two weeks to review and provide comment. Do as many rounds of this as needed to address your co-authors’ concerns.

3.2.1 Version control

  • [need this]

3.2.2 Get other information from co-authors

If you haven’t already, this is a good time to ask for:

  • Anyone who should be included in the acknowledgements. This could include, for example, researchers who helped with data prep but who didn’t meet the other ICMJE criteria.
  • ORCIDs. An O
  • Grant numbers and who they’re attached to.
  • IRB protocol number(s), particularly if you’re working with colleagues at other institutions who received human subjects approval from those institutions.
  • Conflicts of interest, if any. You’ll need to declare any conflicts of interest among the authorship team at the time of submissions. You can learn more about conflicts of interest here. [[get a link!]]
  • Suggested peer reviewers.

3.3 Code review

  • what it is, how it might be helpful; as co-authorship criteria?

3.4 Finalize your submission

Ask for any necessary clarifications or final input from your co-authors. Check that your manuscript adheres to your target journal’s author guide. Proofread your manuscript. Once that’s done, it’s time to submit!