"Dear Dr. Scaramouche, your manuscript has now been reviewed. Based on the comments made by the referees, I decided to reject your paper for publication in our journal. Although I realize you will be disappointed by this decision, I nonetheless hope that the comments made by the referees will be helpful for you to resubmit your ms to another journal."

Researchers are evaluated on the quantity of papers and the "quality" of the journals in which they publish, so there is pressure to submit to the "most prestigious" publication possible. Partly for this reason, the chances of seeing one's paper accepted at first submission are meager, and nobody is spared the high rejection rate. Of course, rejected papers are rarely junk science that do not deserve publication, so most of them are simply resubmitted. Resubmission involves reformatting the manuscript following the next journal's guidelines. You could get the impression that article formatting has become as important as the scientific content to the journals. It has even become part of the peer review process—referees are often asked to verify fulfilment to the journal's guidelines.

Mathematicians and physicists have circumvented the problem by using LaTeX software, which uses automatic templates provided by most journals in those disciplines. But, as it requires a basic working knowledge of computer programming, nonprogramming scientists seldom use LaTeX. For the majority of scientists, resubmission is a substantial time loss.

We surveyed journal editors to assess LaTeX usage in different scientific disciplines and to estimate the number of submissions until manuscript acceptance.

We randomly selected ten journals from each of 13 different scientific disciplines of the ISI Web of Knowledge database (Table 1). For each journal, we recorded the guideline words count (proxy of the time spent formatting) and the number of manuscripts published in 2007. Additionally, we sent a simple questionnaire to editors inquiring about the number of manuscripts submitted (to calculate rejection rate) with or without LaTeX for 2007. Editors of 54 journals responded to our survey. Rejection rate was available for 35 journals.

We did not detect any differences in the rejection rate among scientific disciplines (P = 0.08). A higher rate of submission using LaTeX was found for Mathematics, Statistics, and Physics (Table 1). The guidelines for authors were longer for non-LaTEX-using disciplines (P < 0.001). And non-LaTEX-users have to deal with one supplementary guideline page (mean = 625 words).

Based on a rejection rate of 60%, an article has to be submitted four times before it has >95% chance of being accepted. The time devoted to formatting thus is not negligible.

Use of LaTeX is not widespread in the scientific community: Researchers from disciplines requiring little programming skills obviously won't switch software.

We challenge the need for formatting an article before acceptance. The assessment of the scientific value of a paper doesn't require meticulous formatting. Editors should be satisfied with a readable, generic submission. Authors would format the article after acceptance. This is a simple way to save time and unnecessary effort: We call upon journal editors and publishers to take action.

F. Brischoux and P. Legagneux, Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CEBC-CNRS UPR 1934, 79360 Villiers en Bois, France

F. Brischoux now at: School of Biological Sciences, Heydon—Laurence Building A08, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia (francois.brischoux@gmail.com)

P. Legagneux now at: Departement de Biologie & Centre d'Etudes Nordiques, Pavillon Vachon, 1045 avenue de la Medecine, Universite Laval, Quebec, Quebec, G1V 0A6, CANADA (pierre.legagneux.1@ulaval.ca)

Correction: The original article said physicians largely use LaTeX software – it meant to say physicists. We regret the error, which has been corrected.

I have to sit on the fence for this.

As a long-time LaTeX user and tech doc author I fully support the use of LaTeX where relevant (and like Amy, my consultancy provides services to back this up).

But as a document engineer I haven't authored in LaTeX for 20 years...it's all been SGML and XML, transformed to HTML for the web, and to LaTeX when PDFs are needed.

But we deal with books and articles by scientists and non-scientists, from academic and from business fields, in LaTeX, Word, and formats you won't have come across (or want to :-) and the two overriding problems are over-formatting and inconsistency.

Many authors seem unable to grasp that the final margins will not be the margins they are using; the layout will not be the one they imagine; the final typeface will often not be the one they are using; and the house rules may be radically different from their own usage. They spend hours on formatting submissions, and are surprised when told that every scrap of their formatting will be ripped out and the whole thing done from scratch.

Even some of the best-known names in the field are hopelessly inconsistent at times, jumping from a section to a subsubsection without going through an intervening subsection, and then being surprised when the subsubsection gets numbered 3.0.1 :-). Now everyone can make mistakes, but it's the consistency of the inconsistencies that we get to see. The number of professors who give their grad students hell for missing a comma in a reference will also make the same error in their own work :-)

(The exceptions are the smart LaTeX users, who know that generic markup plus an easily swappable stylesheet means multiple submission formats at the drop of a hat without having to touch the actual text of the document.)

One day perhaps there will be an acceptable (probably XML) underlying common format, but right now the editors for XML and LaTeX -- even the good ones -- simply don't do what authors want or need in a usable manner (the topic of my thesis -- come to Balisage in Montreal next month if you want to hear why).

I am a biologist and a self-taught LaTeX user. None of my colleagues use LaTeX, which is very unfortunate for me because I could use the input from others (yes, I'm aware of the copious documentation available online). Moreover, I cannot see a day when biologists voluntarily begin to use LaTeX; there is no incentive to do so and most are just too bogged down with things they HAVE to do rather worry about things they should do (like learn a superior document prep system).

That said, it is indeed easy to create a basic document with LaTeX. However, I have found it very challenging to produce a complex document with lots of figures, tables, bibliography, etc., i.e, a manuscript or grant proposal. It seems like there's always something that goes wrong with my markup (unlike Word where something just always goes wrong!).

So if my experience is any guide, it'll be a tough sell getting my colleagues to switch to LaTeX. A better solution would be for journals to adopt content management systems and allow users to upload plain-text documents. At least that way authors can stick to a simple format and not have to re-do everything after a (seemingly inevitable) rejection.

Thanks for bringing up this subject.

I don't think standardizing on LaTeX makes much more sense than standardizing on Word. As a LaTeX user, it would make my life easier, but at the cost of inconveniencing people who prefer Word. It would make far more sense for journals to support and encourage the use of an open document format.

If users turned around and demanded that software companies supported well-documented, open formats, converting back and forth between LaTeX-style markup and word processor-style display would be much stabler than it is now. We'd all be better off if software companies started competing to produce the tool that makes it easiest to achieve the desired format, rather than competing to produce the cleverest proprietary format.

It's a shame that Microsoft put so much energy into undermining the recent efforts to establish a single open document standard. We'll continue to suffer in this Tower of Babel until we start standing up for ourselves, and refuse to use products that put the computer companies' interests before our own.

More info on the LINK">open document format.

People copy old practices, good or bad. Many authors in biological sciences remain dependent on an outdated and expensive combination of Word and Endnote simply because that is how they've seen things done. A previous commenter said that he trained his secretary to use LaTeX in two days, but not all researchers have ready access to two days of individualized tutoring by an expert.

The best way to get the word out about new ideas is through other free resources - notably Wikibooks is developing a substantial LaTeX and BibTeX resource: LINK ; Wikipedia also provides background information ( LINK ). Those familiar with these programs' capabilities can help by working to develop these resources further.

As funding for the NSF and NIH grows, the price of proprietary software or the time lost to reformatting can accumulate into a significant waste of taxpayer money. In order to justify the spending increases, the scientific community needs to keep this under control.

I do substantive editing in medicine, dentistry, and the biological sciences and thus spend a great deal of time formatting manuscripts to journal specifications in Word (what most of these journals want). It is a serious pain to have to redo things if a paper is rejected. The medical journals have tried to enforce uniformity with the Vancouver style, but some journals cling to "we've always done it that way," and the biological sciences journals generally do not use Vancouver. My clients would appreciate a standard format also, as they have to pay me for reformatting.

Majority of papers rejected are for two main reasons; i. perceived quality of the work and 2.the desired quality of the journals. Baring major deviations, rejections do not and should not arise from style considerations.
The format is a matter of style mostly for historical reasons than any deep sense of aesthetics etc.
On the other hand, insisting on format for acceptance is asking for a commitment from the author while the journal itself offers none. A generic style that was argued for makes the bilateral commitment (time and effort) equal and fair.
What is the short term purpose of such an idea? Without doubt it saves time and effort to an unprecedented degree. I made a quick calculation. On average, if the total turn around time is 6-8 months for each paper and four rejections before acceptance, with at least five on the road for a lab, the time spent on pursuing the publications from the past work nearly equals and occasionally exceeds the actual research spent on current work. This is tragic.
Of this lost time, half is spent on reformatting, getting rid of which itself is very worthwhile. The other half is the time in communicating and awaiting a decision and start all over again for the next round of submissions. I am only counting those mansucripts that ultimately found a decent place for publication and not for burial. The case is self evident and these authors made a very good point.
Then there is the other half of the time lost.
Some journals regret that they have to reject more than 90% of otherwise acceptable pieces of work. Some regret (read boast) that they have rejected work that later led to a Nobel prize.The regret expressed is aimed at creating a market for the journal rather than spread of knowledge. Since the pressure for premium publications is high, the editors/journals should take the responsibility for their decisions, which is not the case so far. What is wrong in submitting to five journals at once? The journals that delay decisions can no longer do so since it would have been accepted by another journal. Its rejection also would not matter since they reject a major number any way. After acceptance by the journal only, the author would give permission to the journal to publish, with an undertaking that it would be withdrawn from other journals that have accepted or under consideration. I am sure the editors would all howl in protest for such a preposterous idea (actually they would ignore it summarily since that is their main line of defense), not because the idea is wrong, but because it removes the main argument that the editors make to keep the control to themselves without sharing it with the authors... competitiveness in academic performance. That the editors and journals should perform to the satisfaction of their clientele and science itself has never entered explicitly in the structure of the publication world. The changing world also changes the value systems.
Contrary to what one may think, all good things can happen without sacrificing quality by enhancing the options available to authors to save time and effort for non-academic content in processing. The central question is, are we really open minded to pursue the possibilities?

The notion that a generic document could be submitted until the ms is accepted is quite silly. This would require that the author(s) make an additional submission and that an additional reviewer go back and forth with the authors until the format is correct. With the current system (slightly flawed) the scientific reviewers are an extra set of eyes that make sure the format is correct upon sending it to final approval by the associate editor and editor.

The real problem is that different journals require different formats. If all journals required the same general format then certainly this problem would not exist.

The formatting of a submitted article should be as simple as possible and uniform across all scientific journals to prevent the authors from wasting time making the manuscript look pretty. The vanity of scientific journals should not get in the way of facilitating the exchange of knowledge between scientists.

By the way, please correct a mistake in the text. The third paragraph reads "...Mathematicians and physicians have circumvented the problem...". It should read "...Mathematicians and PHYSICISTS...". Physicians are medical doctors. PHYSICISTS are scientists specialized in physics. The expert use of LaTeX refers to the latter.

You've suggested a solution that's far more trouble than the problem. We've all been using some type of reference managing software (e.g., Endnote or Reference Manager) for many years, so the process of re-formatting your manuscript only requires that you click on the alternate journal name, save the manuscript without codes, and possibly cut and paste the bibliography ahead of the tables and figures (this takes maybe 2 minutes). It would take considerably longer to learn to use a non-friendly type of software (which doesn't store references and their abstracts for future use).

Similarly, why can't all scientific journals follow one universal format for references?

Dear Scientists,

I can provide a LaTeX style file and author
documentation for any journal that wants to
encourage its authors to use LaTeX.

I've written style files for PNAS, Wiley, AGU,
and many other scientific journals, see
LINK for more examples.

The advantage to authors of using LaTeX is
that in general only the \documentclass{}
command at the top of the file need be changed
to customize the style of the article to match
the style specifications for any journal that
offers a LaTeX style file.

For the publisher there are also many advantages including having the bulk of the
typesetting be done by the authors (who also
prefer having the additional control over their
content that this brings), elegant math, and
standardized header and cross referencing
commands. The end product of LaTeX
is, conveniently, .pdf, the publishing standard.

I'd be glad to discuss this further with any
interested party--

Amy Hendrickson
617 738-8029
amyh@texnology.com

The major journal publishers employ copyeditors to reformat manuscripts according to the house style. This should take care of UK vs US spelling, capitalisation/capitalization of headings, use of italics for latin terms such as "et al", "in vivo", and so on.

The biggest problem in resubmitting manuscripts is inappropriate reference citations.

If a journal uses APA/Harvard (author date) style references, there is no point in submitting an article with NLM/Vancouver (sequential numbering) citations and vice versa.

This is the one area authors need to get right. The adoption of a standardised reference citation style across biomedicine would be a huge step forward.

I believe the International Committe of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) created its seminal document, "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" to address this exact issue. The document can be accessed at www.icmje.org

The concept forwarded by this opinion piece is laudable and makes a lot of sense. However, I know of no medical journal that accepts manuscripts in the LaTeX format. There may be a few, but I have not encountered any.

Until medical journals accept manuscripts in the LaTeX format, we will have to continue to format and reformat manuscripts for submission until they are accepted.

As a reviewer for several journals over the past three decades I'd appreciate getting articles in a format that makes reviewing easy. In print double-spaced manuscripts with readable fonts and sizes make reading much easier. What's needed for digital ms. is an easy way to mark up text and make comments. Redlining and comments in MS Word are OK, but I need to think about what capabilities might be better.

I am puzzled by the most recent post. is a "medical writer" some kind of a ghost-writer? It sounds that way, but I may be misunderstanding, never having heard the term (I am a biologist, not in the medical field).

It seems to me that if a paper is written by someone who is not listed as one of the authors, the authors who are listed are guilty of scientific fraud. They will certainly have violated the standards I believe most journals list for the allocation of authorship credit.

Or it this talking about writing commercial copy, for advertisements or publicity? In that case, the considerations are (obviously) different.

My complements to Drs. Brischoux and Legagneux on raising an insightful point that should have been addressed long ago. As a medical writer, I have learned (painfully) the importance of creating the original manuscript in the format that will be required by the first journal to which an article will be submitted, rather than creating the article first and then massaging it into the desired format later. I've never had to resubmit, but I can only imagine the frustration of having to reformat in such a situation.

Many of the members of the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) are editors and belong to the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). I think this would be a good place to at least begin addressing the uniform submission question and will do so, either in person or by proxy, at the AMWA national convention this October.

Now I'd like to raise another topic for debate. Medical and scientific writers do much more than just collate data into a cogent, readable article using proper grammar and syntax. Sometimes we contribute more intellectual material to a paper than the primary investigators, who may be only figureheads or the coordinators of the technicians who have carried out the actual work. This can include creation of original material for the introduction, location and inclusion of appropriate references, and even interpretation of results. Often, a good writer will question the presentation of data, how it was obtained, and clarify the methods. Some may even check to make sure that the data make sense and bring apparent inconsistancies to the attention of the investigators.

It's time to acknowledge us for the value we bring to the scientific literature and allow us to be included as authors under the appropriate circumstances. Currently, writers may be added to the acknowledgements at the discretion of the primary authors, but this makes it seem as if our work is an afterthought. I suggest the inclusion of a secondary byline below the authors when a paper is written by a medical, scientific or technical writer to read "written by XYZ." Not only would this give credit where it is properly due, but it would also add to the transparency of many publications. Thoughts? Comments?

Let me echo one of the comments already here --- the use of LaTeX does NOT require the ability to program. If you want to mess around with Plain TeX you can certainly program, but LaTeX is specifically designed to remove that requirement. The existence of thoroughly integrated editor/LaTeX packages with graphical user interfaces (MikTeX for Windows, TeXShop for Mac, and others) makes using LaTeX no more difficult than using MS Word. In fact, I would say it is easier.

Oh yes, LaTeX is also free.

Is is surprising that we should find this article today, after decades of word processing, and yet we all get excited about it. LaTeX is probably easier than learning to use Word style features and avoid going line-by-line, which is NOT the sensible way to go.
To me, formatting requests by journals have two reasons: if paper is accepted it's ready to go to typesetting, no waste of time for the journal; and, it is a motivation filter, like "think twice before submitting to us". Shall publishers accept less stringent rules?

As a person who uses Latex and nothing but Latex for all of my scientific publications, I was frankly astonished to read that scientists whose work does not require programming do not use Latex, and moreover, will not switch to it. Let me say that more than twenty five years ago, when Latex was far less easy to use than it is today, I taught Latex to my secretary/typist in just two days! Moreover, changing formats in Latex merely requires editing a few lines in the file, whereas changing formats in other text processing systems such as MS Word essentially requires going over the file LINE BY LINE and making changes "by hand". It is no wonder that those who do not use Latex spend a huge amount of time to reformat. To me the moral is blindingly obvious: Switch to Latex even if you do not "know programming" and your papers do not have a single equation in them!