Struggling to get your clinical research published? You're not alone. The path to publication can feel like navigating a maze, filled with rejection letters and confusing journal guidelines. But fear not! The NINDS Topics in Clinical Research Seminar Series is here to shed light on the process with a special session: How to Get Published: An Editorial Board's Perspective.
Join us on January 21, 2026, from 1:00 - 2:00 PM ET, for an insightful discussion led by esteemed experts:
- Sonya Scholz, MD, PhD, a renowned neurologist and Lasker Scholar, delves into the genetic mysteries of parkinsonism and serves on the editorial boards of prestigious journals like JAMA Neurology and the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease.
- Craig Blackstone, MD, PhD, a leader in neurogenetic research and Scientific Director of the Mass General Brigham Neuroscience Institute, brings his extensive editorial experience from Annals of Neurology and the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
- Robert Gross, MD, PhD, a seasoned neurologist and former Editor-in-Chief of Neurology, shares his wealth of knowledge on publication strategies and mentorship.
But here's where it gets controversial: Is the impact factor truly the golden ticket to publication success? And how much weight should you give to reviewer suggestions when revising your manuscript?
This session will demystify the publication process, covering:
- Crafting a compelling cover letter: Learn what editorial boards really look for.
- Choosing the right journal: Beyond impact factors—what truly matters?
- Suggesting reviewers: Strategic tips to ensure your manuscript gets a fair shake.
- Handling rejection: What to do when your manuscript is denied (and how to bounce back stronger).
And this is the part most people miss: The Q&A session, where you can ask our experts your burning questions directly!
Whether you're a seasoned researcher or just starting out, this seminar is your chance to gain insider insights and increase your chances of publication success.
Thought-provoking question for you: In an era of open access and preprints, is the traditional peer-review process still the gold standard for scientific validation? Share your thoughts in the comments below—we’d love to hear your perspective!
