ENTtoday: Do you have any tips about how to make sections of a paper—methods, results, discussion, conclusion—as strong as they can be?
Dr. Selesnick: The introduction should justify to the reader why the research question is important, and what the practice gap is in clinical medicine that the authors are trying to fill by this hypothesis-driven study.
Explore This Issue
May 2024For clinical research, defining the methods and the group being studied is very important. Is the study being performed prospective or retrospective? A case series, cohort study, or randomized control trial? Are inclusion and exclusion criteria well defined? The methodology should be clear to the reader—clear enough that if the reader wanted to, s/he could reproduce the study. All of the information needs to be there. And of course, the methods must be able to produce data that can answer the research question.
The results are a reporting of the data accrued by following the methodology. The statistical tests employed should be appropriate for the data presented and the research question being addressed. It’s important that the tests have been used properly and that the authors can present their results clearly, either through text, tables, and/or figures.
The discussion should take the results and put them into the context of the existing literature. How do the results fit in with what we already know? The discussion should also address the external validity of the data. Is it applicable not just to this group of patients, but to people in different parts of the world? Finally, the authors should also point out limitations, because even the best study will have some flaws and potential sources of bias.
The conclusion should follow directly from the data analysis, and should not overreach.
ENTtoday: Can you describe the journal’s peer-review process?
Dr. Selesnick: High quality, prompt, unbiased peer review is the foundation of a strong scholarly medical journal. At The Laryngoscope, every submission will be reviewed by an associate editor and the editor-in-chief. Those that merit serious consideration for publication will also be evaluated by external reviewers whom we invite to assess the work. If, however, a paper clearly isn’t relevant or focused or high quality enough to be considered for publication, we aren’t going to ask external reviewers to devote their time to it. The majority of submitted papers undergo external peer review.
The peer review process is intended to make the paper better, even if it doesn’t get published in The Laryngoscope. Hopefully, the comments provided would help the authors if they submit the paper to another journal.
ENTtoday: What advice do you have for authors who may need a little help or guidance with their paper?
Dr. Selesnick: If they have mentors at their own institutions who are experienced in scholarly publishing, reach out to them. Also, The Laryngoscope has excellent author information links on our homepage (www.Laryngoscope.com) for those who might need additional guidance.
ENTtoday: Any advice for those interested in becoming a reviewer or associate editor?
Dr. Selesnick: If someone is interested and knowledgeable, s/he can contact our managing editor, the non-physician leader of the journal, at laryngoscope@gmail.com. You will be asked to provide a letter and a curriculum vitae.
The associate and section editors are leaders in the field, and experienced reviewers, and are invited to serve in those positions.
ENTtoday: Any final thoughts?
Dr. Selesnick: I’d like to emphasize that, big picture, The Laryngoscope is only as strong as the submissions we receive and the peer review we provide. In 2023, the journal had more than 4,500 reviews, assessing more than 3,400 original and revision submissions. The publication process is not the work of an individual or even the executive leadership team. It’s really the work of the whole community, and the result is invaluable for the field of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery.