Lee should consider and discuss alternative expla- nations for the findings. Some journals, including EHP, expect authors to include a discussion of the potential limitations of the study. Impact. All journals are concerned about the potential impact of the research on their respective fields. One way to measure influ- ence is the impact factor, which is the total number of citations divided by the number of papers published over a certain period of time (usually 2 or 5 years). The higher the impact factor, the greater the presumed impact of the journal. Innovative papers reporting novel findings or methods, or certain types of papers, such as review articles, are often highly cited and are therefore of interest to most journals. Editors and reviewers often look to see if the paper is a “least publishable unit,” a paper that contains all of the parts of a paper but in fact reports little new information or is a derivative of something already published else- where. Editors and reviewers frequently have to make a judgment call about the potential impact of submitted papers. Papers that are well motivated and designed and that report novel results are rarely rejected. Instructions to authors. Every journal provides detailed instructions for preparing manuscripts, usually online. Instructions for acceptable length, number of words or page limits, format for text and references, prepara- tion of tables and references, and the use of sup- plemental materials should be followed closely. Papers are sometimes returned to authors for failing to follow the instructions to authors. For assistance in writing manuscripts, the authors might consult style guides by the American Medical Association (2007) or the American Chemical Society (Coghill and Garson 2006), or The Elements of Style (Strunk and White 1999). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2010) has published guidance for writing and edit- ing biomedical publications. Day and Gastel (2006) have published a book on how to write and publish a scientific paper. Zeiger (2000) has published a step-by-step guide to writing a biomedical manuscript and provides lots of examples and exercises for both nonnative and native English speakers. Claxton (2005a, 2005b) has reviewed the issues of scientific authorship and scientific fraud. In addition, Claxton (2007) reviews the conflict of interest and bias for toxicologists. Frequently, papers are written by authors for whom English is a second language. In addition to making a paper difficult to read by the larger scientific community, imprecise phrasing or improper word use can lead to misinterpretations of the authors’ intent or meaning. In such cases, journals often send the paper back to authors with instructions to seek editorial assistance in preparing the 898 manuscript. Professional editorial companies or consultants may be used but can be costly. Groups such as AuthorAid (2011) provide online services for networking, mentoring, resources, and training for researchers, espe- cially those in developing countries. Ethics. Top-rated journals require assur- ances that animals used in research have been treated humanely and in accordance with university or institute guidelines to alleviate pain and suffering. If humans are involved, authors must indicate that the research was approved by an appropriate institutional review panel, board, or equivalent. Research involving human subjects must comply with all laws and regulations in the country where the work is being conducted, including requirements for obtaining informed consent. Journals are interested in publishing new work, so contributions must be original works and not published previously or simultaneously submitted to another journal. Reproduction of materials from previously published materials is sometimes allowed, for example, in review articles or commentaries, but authors must document that they have acquired permission or resolved all copyright issues. Failure to do so could result in rejection of the paper. One of the most difficult issues for jour- nals to deal with is actual or perceived com- peting financial interests. The concern is that the design, execution, or reporting of results could be skewed or biased by individuals or groups that support the research financially. There is concern that a controlling author- ity may interfere with the free flow of infor- mation in the scientific community. Some journals, including as EHP, have developed a policy requiring authors to declare any actual or potential financial conflicts of interest before the paper will be reviewed. Disclosure of competing interests does not imply that the research itself is questionable, and the deci- sion to accept a paper is not based solely on a declaration concerning a competing interest. Journals are increasingly faced with the problem of scientific misconduct, including data fabrication or plagiarism. Authors should also be aware that most journals routinely use software to detect plagiarism, and some jour- nals screen all papers for plagiarism—the use of previously published ideas or results with- out appropriate attribution. Some authors may not be aware that recycling large seg- ments from introduction and discussion sec- tions of previously published papers by the same laboratory or group is a form of self- plagiarism. Journals may return papers to the authors without review if a significant amount of self-plagiarism is detected. Authors also should know that documented instances of plagiarism and allegations of data fabrication may be brought to the attention of the host university or organization. Summary and Recommendations to Potential Authors Publishing research in peer-reviewed scien- tific journals can be a difficult and frustrating experience, especially for younger scientists. Although some graduate schools offer courses in scientific writing, most students learn how to write from mentors. Students should look for opportunities to enroll in courses offering sci- entific writing and, perhaps, look for mentors willing to take the time and effort to train their students in this important job skill. Universities should be more proactive in offering scientific writing as part of the core curriculum. Mentors should consider teaching students how to write to be as important as teaching them how to design and conduct research. In many respects, journal editors often function as mentors to authors who submit their papers. Based on their collective experi- ences, the following general recommendations should be considered by future authors. Make sure that the topic is within the scope of the journal. Some good toxicological papers may not be acceptable in an environmental health science journal. Epidemiological or observational studies in humans have a low probability of being accepted in a toxicology journal. Ecological studies dealing strictly with wildlife or environmental observations are generally not suitable for toxicological or environmental health journals. Learn the dif- ference between public health research and environmental health research. Go to the jour- nal you are interested in and examine the types of papers that have been published in the past. Pick an important problem to study. Journals are not interested in “me too” papers that do not advance the field or discipline. Make sure that the paper can demonstrate the innovativeness of the findings and the impact of the results. One of the major reasons for rejecting a paper is that it provides a limited advance beyond work already published. Be extremely careful in preparing the manuscript. Sloppy, poorly written papers are almost never accepted. Take care to pro- vide the proper motivation or rationale for the study. Take time to explain the methods, remembering that this section is intended to help others understand what you did and, possibly, reproduce your work. Remember that one major reason for rejecting a paper is that the data are of poor quality. For exam- ple, experimental studies with highly variable data sets or that lack appropriate controls are rarely accepted. Write the results section in clear terms, and make it easy to refer the find- ings to the methods section. Tables and fig- ures should be helpful aids in understanding the findings, not a maze to be navigated. The “Discussion” should address the rationale or ovlume 119 | number 7 | July 2011 • Environmental Health Perspectives