As each click ratchets us ever closer to the supposed Nirvana of seamlessly integrated and universally accessible biomedical content, so it becomes ever easier for the journal editorial team to spot duplicate publication.

Even if you did manage to slide past the Editor, it is probable that at least one of the reviewers, each selected for their expertise in the subject area of your submission, will recognize your manuscript.

And then what?

Journal Editors are becoming increasingly militant in their responses to duplicate publication. These responses range from contacting the author's Department Head, up to one Editor who plans to publish the name and affiliation of any offending authors in the journal!

There are, of course, several perfectly legitimate and scientifically responsible strategies for researchers to mine their data and consequently increase their publication flow. But "copy and paste" should never be a part of that.

Please refer to the August issue of Publish or Perish! for a more detailed article on "Slice and Dice" Strategy to Publications for additional information.

An increasing number of biomedical journals are offering authors an "accelerated track" to publication. This is especially true in those fast-paced and experimental specialties such as oncology and AIDS, but we are finding fast track options now being offered in an increasing number of journals in other specialties.

Most journals have clear criteria for acceptance into their fast track option, which in most cases is reserved for cutting edge research or new findings that have the potential for having a significant impact on the practice of medicine.

How well even the best journals implement this policy is, in itself, the subject for research. In an article in CMAJ, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the authors tracked the impact of two "accelerated" articles from each of The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, and contrasted these with other, non-accelerated articles from the same issues. At best the researchers found that the journal editors were inconsistent in their choice of articles for their fast track. Full text of the article can be found here.

One major issue for authors to consider is that many journals will not accept full original research articles or reviews into their accelerated review process, instead reserving this process for shorter reports/communications. While it may be understandable that the length of the review time correlates closely to article length, it certainly reduces the utility of the accelerated track.

We should also consider the difference between "accelerated review" and "accelerated publication." In most cases, it is the "Accept-to-Publish"* component of the total publication lead time that is the largest contributor to the waiting game. With the advent of full-text online, most major journals now have the capability for making accepted articles available online as soon as they have been finally accepted. If they choose to exercise this capability, the article will enjoy many of the benefits of rapid publication without impacting the publisher's lead time for production of the archival print issue. Perhaps more publishers and editors will recognize the importance of this, and accelerate the availability using the online first strategy.

Finally, we have noted at least one journal where the incoming Editor has abolished the accelerated track as apparently too cumbersome for the journal to implement within its current systems. Perhaps this apparent trend will be short-lived, or at least a transition until the online submission and peer-review processes really take hold.

Go ahead, put yourself in the Editor's position for a moment. Think how you respond to a badly-written letter or brochure. Or a simple e-mail that is almost unreadable because of typos and grammatical errors? And worst yet, perhaps one that should never have darkened your in-bin?

Why, then, do some authors continue to fall into the same trap when they submit their manuscript for consideration for publication by a medical journal?

First - target your journal carefully. Make sure that the content of your submission fits the journal's Aims & Scope. If you are unsure, a quick e-mail to the Editor or Managing Editor might help confirm suitability.

Second - follow the Instructions to Authors. Every journal has a set of instructions, and most are available on their Website. Failure to follow these simple guidelines is considered the simplest and fastest way to get your manuscript rejected long before peer review.

Third - ask your colleagues to give your manuscript a critical and constructive review.

And finally - even if English is not the author's first language, use of whatever spell- or grammar-checking software that is integrated into your word processor will help correct many errors. There are a growing number of commercially available medical spell-checkers, and also a small but significant number of small, Internet-based groups that will edit or proofread your draft manuscript for a small sum.

Please also refer to our article "How to Get Happily Published," planned for the August 2002 issue.