The Laryngoscope is the country’s oldest and largest otolaryngology peer-reviewed journal and has been the leading source of information on advances in the diagnosis and treatment of head and neck disorders since its launch in the late 19th century. Having a paper published in The Laryngoscope is a goal and point of pride for researchers in the field of otolaryngology.
Explore This Issue
May 2024However, the journal’s popularity and selective nature mean that only a small portion of submissions will be selected for publication. What do The Laryngoscope editorial board and reviewers look for in a research paper, and how can you give your research the best chance of being accepted for publication?
The Laryngoscope’s Editor-in-Chief, Samuel H. Selesnick, MD, FACS, Professor and Vice Chair of Otolaryngology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, sat down with ENTtoday to share insights from his tenure with the journal. He discussed the journal’s strengths, the acceptance and publication process, and what qualities make a good research paper. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)
ENTtoday: What makes The Laryngoscope different from other journals?
Dr. Selesnick: First of all, its size. It is the largest journal in terms of contributions to the literature in the field, but the quality of the accepted papers is the focus of the journal. With that, there’s a low acceptance rate for papers. The challenge is to publish more studies that meet the acceptance criteria. Ultimately, keeping the bar high in terms of quality benefits the readership of the journal in all areas including clinical, translational, and basic science research.
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. — Samuel H. Selesnick, MD, FACS
That’s one of the reasons for our discussion today—I want to impart to potential authors what we think a quality manuscript looks like. Some aspects of quality have to do with the design of the study, and some are found in the writing of the manuscript.
ENTtoday: What are the different types of submissions accepted by The Laryngoscope?
Dr. Selesnick: The overwhelming majority of submissions are evidence-based clinical original research. We also publish systematic literature reviews, and a small number of case reports and “how I do it” articles. The literature reviews examine existing research, and through a structured and rigorous analytic process, can make conclusions based on a large number of studies. In 2023, we received 1,700 original report submissions, and 175 literature review submissions.
ENTtoday: Is there one type of article that gets rejected more than others?
Dr. Selesnick: Case reports and “how I do it” submissions must have an important message to be accepted by The Laryngoscope .
ENTtoday: What makes a good, high-quality paper?
Dr. Selesnick: Some of the things I’m going to mention may sound intuitive to clinical researchers, but it’s surprising how often the journal receives submissions that don’t follow basic tenets of quality research. To start with, the research question must be novel, relevant, and based on a hypothesis that attempts to answer a specific query.
ENTtoday: Is the biggest challenge that the research question lacks focus?
Dr. Selesnick: Yes, that is one of the bigger challenges. The importance of a good hypothesis can’t be overstated.
It’s surprising how often the journal receives submissions that don’t follow basic tenets of quality research. — Samuel H. Selesnick, MD, FACS
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.
For 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.