Publication Support Case Studies: Five Routes to Compliant, Timely Publication

Each publication support case study below describes a common challenge, the approach taken and the result. Together they cover authorship, publication ethics, peer review timelines, German research-integrity requirements and pharma publication planning [1, 3].

Challenge. Two postdoctoral researchers both expected first authorship, and a department head expected to be listed without a direct contribution. [1]

Approach.

• Mapped every contributor’s work using the CRediT taxonomy.

• Applied the ICMJE criteria and DFG Guideline 14 to decide authorship.

• Proposed shared first authorship, marked with a footnote, and moved the department head to the acknowledgements.

• Recorded the decision in a signed authorship agreement.

Result in this scenario. A signed agreement that every author approves before submission, and a contribution statement the journal can check against its criteria. Our guide to authorship criteria for research papers sets out the same method. [1, 3]

Challenge. The manuscript lacked a complete conflicts of interest statement, did not describe the funder’s role and had no data availability statement. [2]

Approach.

• Collected ICMJE disclosure forms from every author.

• Described the funder’s role in design, analysis and writing.

• Added a data availability statement that matched the journal policy.

• Checked text overlap with the authors’ earlier conference abstract.

Result in this scenario. A manuscript that can clear the journal’s technical and ethics checks first time, so the clock starts on peer review rather than on queries. [1, 2]

Challenge. After two desk rejections in four months, the author needed a publication before a fellowship deadline. [1]

Approach.

• Reassessed journal selection against scope, article type and published decision times.

• Prepared a complete submission package with all checklists.

• Drafted a point-by-point response letter once reviews arrived.

• Accepted an offered transfer to a partner journal with the existing reviews.

Result in this scenario. A transfer with existing reviews avoids a fresh review cycle, which is usually the biggest single time saving. Our submission-to-publication flowchart shows where the weeks go. [2]

Challenge. The group had received a fast-acceptance invitation from an unfamiliar journal, and its research data were spread across personal drives. [3]

Approach.

• Checked the journal’s peer review policy, indexing and editorial board, and identified it as unsuitable.

• Shortlisted reputable journals with appropriate quality and visibility.

• Organised research data, code and documentation for ten-year archiving in the institutional repository.

• Drafted a data availability statement following the FAIR principles.

Result in this scenario. Submission to a reputable journal, with data documented and archived in line with good scientific practice (see the DFG Code on good scientific practice). [3]

Challenge. Results from two phase III studies were due within a year, with no agreed publication plan, author group or congress strategy. [4]

Approach.

• Ran a gap analysis and defined key scientific messages.

• Built a publication plan covering congress abstracts, primary manuscripts and plain language summaries.

• Set up a steering committee and GPP-aligned authorship and disclosure processes.

• Aligned the timeline with EU results-disclosure obligations.

Result in this scenario. An approved, tracked publication plan in place before database lock, with clear roles and deadlines for every output, and authorship and disclosure handled in line with GPP 2022. [1, 4]

The same principles recur in every scenario [1, 2, 3, 4]:

Each publication support case study shows that most publication problems are preventable with early planning, transparent documentation and deliberate journal selection.