278 Building trust in science: How authors build confidence in scientific integrity during the review process.

Abstract A published peer-reviewed manuscript is often viewed as the end of a research project and is considered tangible evidence of sound science. Publishing a manuscript requires entering a relationship with unknown reviewers, but because reviewers are usually anonymous, clear communication is imperative. The peer-review process actually begins long before the submit button is pressed. Perhaps the most important steps for creating credibility for the science presented in a manuscript are the objective statement and materials and methods. A successful peer-review outcome requires a research trial with a clearly stated objective to directly communicate to the reviewers the information they can expect in the manuscript. It also provides an explanation why data are presented in a certain way and just as important why data were not presented in a certain way. The objective is the first impression of your work and sets the tone for the rest of the document. It should be clear, concise, and near the beginning of the introduction. Materials and methods should be thorough, detailed, and adequate for any scientist to replicate. Materials and methods should address each table or figure. Most journals provide instructions to authors on what is required in the Materials and Methods section. The objective and the materials and methods section provide credibility to a manuscript and allow a reviewer to comprehensively evaluate the merit of the work. It is important to consult instructions to authors prior to submission to ensure all required sections have been included and to avoid immediate rejection. A cover letter and suggested reviewers are often required during the submission process. The cover letter should be short and professional and, in a sentence or two, describe the scope of the work. Careful consideration should be given when suggesting reviewers- they should be an expert in the field but not pose a direct or implied conflict of interest. Quality suggested reviewers can substantially expedite the review process. Once a manuscript has been evaluated by peer-reviewers a recommendation will be made to the editorial board. Recommendations may be accept, reject, or revisions are required. Rarely are manuscripts accepted after the first submission. If revisions are required, a report of the editorial suggestions will be provided. Authors should address each point by providing context for the original statement and highlighted revisions are required. Providing line numbers where the original statement and revised statement is greatly appreciated because it allows for quick evaluation of each revision. Multiple revisions using the same process may be necessary. Overall, a clearly defined objective and detailed materials and methods are necessary for successful publication of a manuscript. Remaining polite and professional throughout the process will provide a more enjoyable experience for both the author and editorial group.