EHP publishes several different types of peer- reviewed papers, including commentaries, reviews, and research articles. It also publishes papers that discuss case studies of patients or communities with a clearly established link to environmental exposures and health. The journal welcomes papers related to issues of environmental health policy or risk assess- ment (EHP 2010). Letters to the editor and editorials are not peer reviewed but are subject to editing and review by EHP editors. Toxicol Sci deals with all areas of toxicol- ogy, including descriptive, mechanistic, inter- pretative, translational, and theoretical studies. Toxicol Sci is interested in statistical or mecha- nism-based approaches to risk assessment and new methods in toxicology. This journal cov- ers original research, timely reviews, forums, policy, and regulatory and controversial issues (Toxicol Sci 2010). JPET covers a broad field involving inter- actions between chemicals and biological sys- tems from pharmacological and toxicological perspectives. JPET publishes papers related to mechanistic, molecular, cellular, animal, and human investigations. Papers submitted to JPET should take a mechanistic approach to be of interest to a broad range of toxicologists and pharmacologists (JPET 2010). CRT encourages research articles that address all aspects of the chemical bases of toxic responses. It emphasizes rigorous chemi- cal standards and encourages the application of modern techniques of chemical analysis to toxicity mechanisms. CRT publishes peer- reviewed articles, reviews, perspectives, com- munications, chemical profiles, and letters to the editor (CRT 2010). Innovation. All of the journals stressed the importance of demonstrating the nov- elty of the findings. Authors must make it clear in the manuscript, particularly in the “Discussion,” how the research introduces a new or novel concept or how the current work differs from research that has been pre- viously published. Failure to do so is one of the most common reasons for rejection. EHP considers whether a paper adds to the “weight of the evidence” in a particular field. If the research is an extension of already exist- ing literature, authors should make it clear how the current findings confirm or support previous results in a different study popula- tion or over a longer period of time, or con- firm findings using a new or different study design, experimental model, data and sample collection method, or analytic technique. At EHP, papers have a relatively high likeli- hood of being rejected without review if they address a study question in a small or poorly characterized study population or use a less reliable or less valid data collection method or analytic approach than in previously pub- lished studies. Experimental design and methodology. All top-tier journals are interested in papers that are “well motivated.” In the introduction of their papers, authors should take particular care to describe the scientific rationale for conducting the research. Toxicology journals prefer to see clearly stated hypotheses and experiments designed to address those hypoth- eses. The “Discussion” should be organized around the hypothesis and how the results of the experiments support the original hypoth- esis. Top-tier journals are rarely interested in descriptive papers with little rationale. Authors of experimental research papers should take special care in developing and explaining the experimental design of the research. A section providing details concern- ing the statistical analyses is also important. Consulting a statistician for advice about the design and statistical analysis of the data before starting the research is highly recom- mended. In addition, some authors do not use the most up-to-date methods or proce- dures that are relevant to the experiments. Often papers are rejected because the ana- lytical procedures are insensitive and would probably not be able to detect subtle changes at relatively low exposure levels or concen- trations. Authors should keep in mind that methods developed for use in one species may not work in another species. Sometimes emphasis differs among envi- ronmental health science journals such as EHP and toxicology journals regarding exposure levels or concentrations in laboratory animal or in vitro studies. Toxicology studies frequently investigate dose-related effects of chemicals in animal models or in vitro models. Often, mechanistically based studies employ relatively high doses or concentrations that may not be environmentally relevant. Environmental health science journals are interested in experi- mental dose-related effect studies but empha- size that the doses or concentrations should be environmentally relevant. In reporting the results of experimental research, it is usually a good strategy to Evaluation criteria for publishing present the findings in the sequence that the experiments are described in the methods sec- tion. The narrative in the text should present the data in a logical and straightforward man- ner. It is crucial that the narrative accurately describe the results portrayed in the tables and figures. Tables and figures should be con- structed so that they are easy to read and com- pare the information with the description in the text. There is also an increasing tendency for authors to use several panels in a single figure, perhaps because it is easier to see all the data in one place, or because authors are trying to reduce the total number of figures in the paper. Regardless of the reason, if the reviewer cannot understand or see the images in the figures, they are unlikely to respond to the paper in a positive manner. One of the major reasons that journals reject papers is the poor quality of the data. It is difficult to provide a compelling expla- nation of the results and a supportable set of conclusions if there is high variability, missing or inadequate controls, or internal inconsis- tencies in the data set. Many journals do not place a high prior- ity on studies with negative results. Editors and reviewers reason that the negative results could be based on improper experimental design, inappropriate doses or exposure con- ditions, high variability in the data, or a small number of subjects. In some cases, however, reporting negative data can be as important as a study with positive data. A well-designed and executed negative study can provide valu- able insight for future research and, in some cases, demonstrate that a dominant theory or paradigm may be erroneous. The burden of demonstrating the quality of a negative study is clearly on the authors. Finally, it is crucial to maintain a degree of objectivity in reporting and discussing the data. Papers are often rejected because the authors overinterpret their results, attributing causality where there is only association or discussing trends as if they were profound and highly significant findings. The “Discussion” Table 1. A brief summary of top journals in environmental health sciences and toxicology, 2009 characteristics.a Journal EHP Characteristic JPET Toxicol Sci CRT Date publication started 1972 1909 1981 1988 Sponsoring organizationsb NIEHS ASPET SOT ACS No. of papers received 1,286 1,200–1,500 877 — No. of papers accepted 205 456–570 263 — Acceptance rate 18% 38% 33% ~ 50% Publication frequency Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Impact factorc 6.12 (6.19) 4.31 (4.09) 4.44 (4.81) 3.49 (3.74) Online availabilityd Open access Open access Charge Charge aData were provided by the editors of CRT, EHP, JPET, and Toxicol Sci in 2009. bAmerican Chemical Society, American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Society of Toxicology. cData were provided by the editors at the time of the workshop in 2010; the values in parentheses represent current impact factors (ISI 2011) . dOpen access journal articles are freely available, and charge articles are available for a fee. Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 119 | number 7 | July 2011 897