Submitting a research manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal can be a daunting, mysterious endeavor. The speaker in this AMTA-Pro podcast, Dr. Shannon de l’Etoile, provides a step-by-step explanation of the peer review process to help increase the likelihood of favorable reviews  Prospective authors will learn how to select an appropriate journal for submission and how to apply general author guidelines relevant to most peer-reviewed journals. Podcast listeners will also learn about the mechanics of scientific writing and gain insight into the expectations of reviewers in peer-reviewed journals for manuscript content; including scientific rigor, appropriate analysis and presentation of data, and meaningful interpretation of findings.


Getting Your Research Published

AMTA-Pro Podcast April, 2019

Shannon K. de l’Etoile, PhD, MT-BC

— + —

By submitting a research manuscript for publication, an author is attempting to make a significant contribution to the advancement of the profession.  To that end, journals utilize rigorous peer-review processes that serve to ensure the validity, quality, and originality of the research.  For individuals with limited publication experience, such processes can be overwhelming or unclear. Consequently, authors may submit manuscripts that do not meet journal guidelines, or may not know how to interpret or respond to reviewers’ comments; and thus may receive unfavorable reviews.  Ultimately, authors of creditable research with compelling findings must know how to effectively communicate this information so that reviewers can fairly assess it in light of the journal’s mission.

This podcast provides a step-by-step explanation of the peer review process to help increase the likelihood of favorable reviews  Prospective authors will develop knowledge and skills regarding how to select an appropriate journal for submission, as well as apply general author guidelines that are relevant to most peer-reviewed journals.  Participants will also gain insight into reviewers’ expectations for manuscript content; including scientific rigor, appropriate analysis and presentation of data, and meaningful interpretation of findings.  Finally, prospective authors will learn about the mechanics of scientific writing, so that their research efforts are clearly conveyed.

The guidelines in this AMTA-Pro podcast are ideal for graduate students who intend to publish, as well as new music therapy faculty who are building their tenure portfolios.  Clinicians interested in research publishing will also benefit from this information. The presenter is a current and past member of the Journal of Music Therapy editorial review board, and has served on the Music Therapy Perspectiveseditorial review board.  Further, this individual also frequently provides guest reviews for journals in related disciplines, and as a music therapy faculty member, regularly advises graduate student theses and dissertations.

Discussion Outline

1. Definition of Peer Review

2. Pre-Submission Considerations

3. Peer Review Process

4. Reviewers’ Expectations

5. Responding to Peer Review

References

Browner, W. S. (2012a).  Authorship.  In Publishing and presenting clinical research (3rded.) (pp. 137-144).  Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Browner, W. S. (2012b).  Choosing a journal and responding to reviewers.  In Publishing and presenting clinical research (3rded.) (pp. 169-178).  Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Cooper, H.  (1998).  Synthesizing research:  A guide for literature reviews(3rded.).  London:  Sage Publications.

Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C.  (2018).  Appendix A: Reporting research.  In Methods in behavioral research(13thed.) (pp. 315-370).  New York:  McGraw Hill Education.

de l’Etoile, S. K. (2016).  Processes of music therapy:  Clinical and scientific rationales and models.  In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (2nded.) (pp. 805-817).  United Kingdom:  Oxford University Press.

Hanson-Abromeit, D., & Sena Moore, K.  (2014).  The systematic review as a research process in music therapy.  Journal of Music Therapy, 51, 4-38. doi:  10.1093/jmt/thu002

Kronick, D. A. (1990).  Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism.  JAMA, 263, 1321-1322. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002

Matney, B.  (2018).  Understanding literature reviews:  Implications for music therapy.  Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 27, 97-125. doi: 10.1080/08098131.2017.1366543

Nicholas, K. A., & Gordon, W.  (2011).  A quick guide to writing a solid peer review.Eos, 92(28), 233-240.  doi: 10.1029/2011EO280001

Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services (n.d.).  Authorship practices to avoid conflicts. Retrieved September 25, 2018, from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts_Rasterized.pdf

Peer-Review Policy.  (n.d.).  In Peer-review policy:  Authors & referees @npg.  Retrieved September 25, 2018, from https://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html

Peer Review:  The Nuts and Bolts.  (2012). In Standing up for science 3 Peer review: The nuts and bolts, a guide for early career researchers.  Retrieved September 10, 2018, from https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts/

Peer Review Process.  (n.d.).  In What is peer review?.  Retrieved September 25, 2018 from https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/the-peer-review-process.html

Rennie, D. (2008).  Editorial peer review:  Its development and rationale.  In T. Jefferson, & F. Godlee (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences.  Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/miami/detail.action?docID=214193

Spier, R.  (2002).  The history of the peer-review process.  TRENDS in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357-358. PMID:  12127284.

Wager, E.  (2008).  An author’s guide to editorial peer review.  In T. Jefferson, & F. Godlee (Eds.), Peerreview in health sciences. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/miami/detail.action?docID=214193

Ware, M.  (2013).  Peer review:  An introduction and guide.  United Kingdom:  Publishing Research Consortium.

About the AMTA-Pro Podcast Speaker

Shannon de l’Etoile, Ph.D., is Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and Professor of Music Therapy at the University of Miami Frost School of Music. Dr. de l’Etoile is a board-certified music therapist and current member of both the American Music Therapy Association (AMTA) and the Southeastern Region of the AMTA. She is recognized as a Fellow of the Robert F. Unkefer Academy of Neurologic Music Therapy, has served on the editorial review board for Music Therapy Perspectives, and is currently on the editorial review board for the Journal of Music Therapy. Widely published, she earned both her bachelor and master’s degrees in music therapy from Colorado State University. She received her doctorate in music education with an emphasis on music therapy from the University of Kansas and joined the Frost School of Music faculty in fall 2001. Prior to her current appointment, Dr. de l’Etoile taught music therapy at the University of Iowa and at Colorado State University. Her clinical background includes working with adults with mental illness, children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders, adults and children with developmental disabilities, and adults and children with neurologic disorders. She was previously a research associate for the internationally-recognized Center for Biomedical Research in Music in Fort Collins, Colorado.  Her current research explores infant response to music, including attention and arousal responses to infant-directed singing, as well as movement responses to auditory rhythm.