Thoughts on Writing for Review: A Former JASMS Associate Editor's Perspective

Area of Science:

• Scientific communication
• Manuscript preparation
• Peer review process

Background:

• Extensive editorial experience informs this perspective.
• 40-year academic career including 27 years as Associate Editor for the Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry (JASMS).
• Nearly 14 years of experience at the National Science Foundation.

Purpose of the Study:

• To provide observations and advice on writing for scientific review.
• To offer insights into editor and reviewer expectations for manuscripts.
• To highlight common mistakes to avoid in scientific writing.

Main Methods:

• Perspective piece based on long-term editorial experience.
• Analysis of common issues encountered in manuscript review.
• Focus on guidelines relevant to the Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry (JASMS).

Main Results:

• Identification of key elements editors and reviewers seek in manuscripts.
• Cataloging of frequent errors that hinder publication.
• Generalizable advice applicable beyond JASMS.

Conclusions:

• Adherence to specific journal guidelines and general best practices improves manuscript quality.
• Understanding editor/reviewer perspectives aids authors in successful scientific communication.
• Avoiding common pitfalls is crucial for efficient and effective peer review.