CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Academic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open AccessPublishing and Scholarly Communication

Going Beyond “Not Enough Time”: Barriers to Preparing Manuscripts for Academic Medical Journals

Open access
Oshiro, June, Caubet, Suzanne L., Viola, Kelly E., Huber, Jill M.·2020·Teaching and Learning in Medicine
DOI 10.1080/10401334.2019.1659144PMC PMC6904427
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Phenomenon: Many researchers have difficulty transforming raw data into publishable full-length manuscripts. Among studies presented at professional meetings, registered as clinical trials, or declined from specific journals, nonpublication rates are estimated to range from 25% to 60%. We aimed to characterize major barriers to manuscript preparation, beyond lack of time, for academics from a broad range of specialties at a tertiary academic medical institution. We explored whether major barriers evolved with increasing publishing experience. Approach: We surveyed registrants of 12 noncompulsory workshops on scientific publishing (April 2009–November 2015). Survey respondents indicated how many of their coauthored papers were accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals in the past 5 years and stated what they found most difficult about preparing a manuscript, other than lack of time. Two investigators performed a content analysis of the reported barriers; mean agreement between coders was 98% (SD = 2%), and the mean Scott π coefficient for interrater reliability was 0.81 (SD = 0.26). We used a multimethod analytic approach to determine whether the perceived barriers varied with level of publishing experience. Findings: Surveys were returned by 201 of 256 registrants (79%). Thirty-eight percent of respondents had lower publishing experience (0–4 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the past 5 years), 26% had medium experience (5–10 papers), and 35% had higher experience (>10 papers). Many respondents (57%) listed multiple barriers, but 5% listed zero barriers. The content analysis of the 370 reported barrier items identified 8 categories covering 38 concepts. The most common concerns (i.e., organization, writing, following journal format, defining the article scope, disliking writing, responding to reviewers) were not affected by author experience level. However, significantly more academics with higher experience expressed concerns about data presentation. Insights: Academics commonly reported barriers such as uncertainty about how to organize content, difficulty with developing succinct text, and frustration about meeting journal-specific formatting requirements. Greater experience in scientific publishing did not appear to mitigate these barriers. Academic institutions can provide targeted support for persistent challenges to scholarly productivity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10401334.2019.1659144

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Oshiro J et al. found that publication success rates were significantly higher among academics with greater research experience compared to those with less experience.

    “Oshiro J et al., found that publication success rates were significantly higher among academics with greater research experience compared to those with less experience (29).”

    From Research Publication Challenges Faced by Dentists in India: A Narrative Review of Multilevel Barriers (2026) · cites this paper as [29]

  • In a study by Oshiro J et al., nearly 25% of participants cited organising content as their main difficulty, and 15% reported struggling with writing clearly and effectively.

    “In a study by Oshiro J et al., nearly 25% of participants cited organising content—such as deciding whether certain material belonged in the introduction or discussion—as their main difficulty. Similarly, 15% reported struggling with writing clearly and effectively (29).”

    From Research Publication Challenges Faced by Dentists in India: A Narrative Review of Multilevel Barriers (2026) · cites this paper as [29]

  • Participants in a qualitative study conducted by Oshiro J et al. expressed concerns about editorial bias and inconsistent reviewer expectations.

    “Participants in a qualitative study conducted by Oshiro J et al., expressed concerns about editorial bias and inconsistent reviewer expectations.”

    From Research Publication Challenges Faced by Dentists in India: A Narrative Review of Multilevel Barriers (2026) · cites this paper as [29]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 42 · Cited by 32

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. [1]Drury NE, Maniakis-Grivas G, Rogers VJ, Williams LK, Pagano D, Martin-Ucar AE. The fate of abstracts presented at annual meetings of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland from 1993 to 2007. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 42(5): 885– 9. 22466698
  2. [2]Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Swiontkowski MF, Sprague S, An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84-A(4): 615– 21. 11940624
  3. [3]Autorino R, Quarto G, Di Lorenzo G, De Sio M, Damiano R. Are abstracts presented at the EAU meeting followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals? A critical analysis. Eur Urol. 2007; 51(3): 833– 40; discussion 40. 17084516
  4. [5]Jones CW, Handler L, Crowell KE, Keil LG, Weaver MA, Platts-Mills TF. Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: Cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2013; 347: f6104. 24169943 PMC3812466
  5. [6]Riveros C, Dechartres A, Perrodeau E, Haneef R, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med. 2013; 10(12): e1001566; discussion e. 24311990 PMC3849189
  6. [8]Okike K, Kocher MS, Nwachukwu BU, Mehlman CT, Heckman JD, Bhandari M. The fate of manuscripts rejected by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(17): e130. 22992859
  7. [9]Armstrong AW, Idriss SZ, Kimball AB, Bernhard JD. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008; 58(4): 632– 5. 18249470
  8. [10]Silberzweig JE, Khorsandi AS. Outcomes of rejected Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology manuscripts. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008; 19(11): 1620– 3. 18693043
  9. [12]Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990; 263(10): 1405– 8. 2304220
  10. [13]Scherer RW, Ugarte-Gil C, Schmucker C, Meerpohl JJ. Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(7): 803– 10. 25797837 PMC4458220
  11. [14]Ajjawi R, Crampton PES, Rees CE. What really matters for successful research environments? A realist synthesis. Med Educ. 2018. PMC6120529 30043516
  12. [15]Ariail J, Thomas S, Smith T, Kerr L, Richards-Slaughter S, Shaw D. The value of a writing center at a medical university. Teach Learn Med. 2013; 25(2): 129– 33. 23530674
  13. [16]Miedzinski LJ, Davis P, Al-Shurafa H, Morrison JC. A Canadian faculty of medicine and dentistry’s survey of career development needs. Med Educ. 2001; 35(9): 890– 900. 11555228
  14. [17]Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA. 2003; 290(4): 495– 501. 12876092
  15. [18]Hartling L, Craig WR, Russell K, Stevens K, Klassen TP. Factors influencing the publication of randomized controlled trials in child health research. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004; 158(10): 983– 7. 15466687
  16. [19]Duracinsky M, Lalanne C, Rous L, Dara AF, Baudoin L, Pellet C, Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: Results of the DIAzePAM study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017; 17(1): 96. 28693492 PMC5504731
  17. [20]Timmer A, Blum T, Lankisch PG. Publication rates following pancreas meetings. Pancreas. 2001; 23(2): 212– 5. 11484924
  18. [21]Sprague S, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P 3rd, Cook DJ, Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-A(1): 158– 63. 12533587
  19. [24]Artino AR Jr., Durning SJ, Sklar DP. Guidelines for reporting survey-based research submitted to Academic Medicine. Acad Med. 2018; 93(3): 337– 40. 29485492
  20. [25]Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantiative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed: Sage Publications, Inc; 2014.
  21. [26]Freelon D. ReCal OIR: Ordinal, interval, and ratio intercoder reliability as a web service. Int J Internet Sci. 2013; 8(1): 10– 6.
  22. [27]Freelon D. ReCal: Intercoder reliability calculation as a web service. Int J Internet Sci. 2010; 5(1): 20– 33.
  23. [28]International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors 2018 [Available from: http://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html [ Accessed 11/20/2018].
  24. [29]Eisen AE, Douglas C. A model for postdoctoral education that promotes minority and majority success in the biomedical sciences. CBE—Life Sciences Education 2018; 16(ar65): 1– 11. PMC5749967 29196426
  25. [30]Ross RG, Greco-Sanders L, Laudenslager M. An institutional postdoctoral research training program: Increasing productivity of postdoctoral trainees. Acad Psychiatry. 2016; 40(2): 207– 12. 25876090 PMC4607540
  26. [31]Rørstad K, Aksnes DW. Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position – a large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. Journal of Informetrics. 2015; 9(2): 317– 33.
  27. [32]Sauber CM, Stee LM, Jenkins SM, Lovejoy MJ. Submission and peer review frequencies before acceptance: An analysis of submissions by Mayo Clinic Section of Scientific Publications, 2006. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication; 9 10-12; Vancouver, BC, Canada 2009 p. 52– 3.
  28. [33]Charon R The patient-physician relationship. Narrative medicine: A model for empathy, reflection, profession, and trust. JAMA. 2001; 286(15): 1897– 902. 11597295
  29. [34]LaDonna KA, Taylor T, Lingard L. Why open-ended survey questions are unlikely to support rigorous qualitative insights. Acad Med. 2018; 93(3): 347– 9. 29215376
  30. [35]Reader S, Fornari A, Simon S, Townsend J. Promoting faculty scholarship - an evaluation of a program for busy clinician-educators. Can Med Educ J. 2015; 6(1): e43– 60. 26451230 PMC4563620
  31. [37]von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(4): 344– 9. 18313558
  32. [39]Schimel J Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded Oxford University Press; 2011.
  33. [40]Gastel B, Day RA. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 8th edition: Greenwood; 2016.
  34. [41]Zeiger M Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 2000.
  35. [42]Morrison DC, Papasian CJ, Russell SW. Writing for Biomedical Publication. Buellton, CA: Grant Writers’ Seminars and Workshops, LLC; 2012.
  36. [43]Pololi L, Knight S, Dunn K. Facilitating scholarly writing in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19(1): 64– 8. 14748862 PMC1494689
  37. [44]Brandon C, Jamadar D, Girish G, Dong Q, Morag Y, Mullan P. Peer support of a faculty “writers’ circle” increases confidence and productivity in generating scholarship. Acad Radiol. 2015; 22(4): 534– 8. 25636974
  38. [45]Bussey-Jones J, Bernstein L, Higgins S, Malebranche D, Paranjape A, Genao I, Repaving the road to academic success: The IMeRGE approach to peer mentoring. Acad Med. 2006; 81(7): 674– 9. 16799297

Authors
Oshiro, J., Caubet, S. L., Viola, K. E., & Huber, J. M.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Oshiro, June
ORCID
Venue
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-09-18
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
71-81
ISSN
  • 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8015
DOI
10.1080/10401334.2019.1659144
PMC
PMC6904427
OpenAlex
W2974332053
Cited by
32
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Teaching and Learning in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Mayo Clinic
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000135)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
manuscript preparation, barriers to publication, scholarly publishing, data presentation, peer review, research productivity
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Manuscripts as Topic, Middle Aged, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Surveys and Questionnaires, Societies, Medical, Writing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review