How to Submit a Short Communication

The academic landscape thrives on the timely dissemination of novel findings. While full-length research articles rigorously detail methodology and elaborate on discussions, the “short communication” serves a vital, distinct purpose: to swiftly introduce significant, standalone results that warrant immediate attention. For the ambitious researcher, mastering the art of the short communication submission isn’t just about brevity; it’s about strategic impact, conciseness, and precision. This definitive guide will navigate the intricate path from conceptualization to triumphant publication, ensuring your groundbreaking work reaches its audience without delay or compromise.

The Strategic Imperative: Why Opt for a Short Communication?

Before embarking on the submission journey, a critical self-assessment is paramount: Is a short communication the right vehicle for your data? This format is not a diluted version of a full paper; it’s a focused spotlight.

• Novelty at its Core: Does your finding present truly novel, standalone information? This isn’t about incremental updates but a distinct, significant discovery. Imagine you’ve identified a new gene associated with a disease in an initial screen. This singular, striking correlation, even without exhaustive mechanistic detail, might merit rapid publication as a short communication.
• Time Sensitivity: Is your finding time-sensitive, potentially influencing ongoing research or immediate clinical practice? A novel drug target identified through innovative computational biology, even if preliminary, could warrant rapid dissemination to accelerate drug discovery efforts globally.
• Proof of Principle: Have you demonstrated a compelling “proof of principle” for a new methodology, technique, or theoretical concept? Proposing a radically efficient algorithm for data processing, even without applying it to every conceivable dataset, signifies a crucial first step.
• High Impact, Low Data Volume: Does your data, while perhaps not extensive, possess exceptionally high impact or open entirely new avenues of research? The first clear image of a previously unseen cellular structure, even isolated, fits this criterion.
• Not a “Failed” Full Paper: Crucially, a short communication is not a shortened full paper due to insufficient data. It’s a deliberate choice for data that is concise yet impactful. Attempting to force a half-baked full paper into this format will lead to rejection.

Example: A research group discovers a novel antibody that uniquely binds to a previously unknown biomarker of early-stage pancreatic cancer. While the full clinical efficacy trials are years away, the existence of this antibody and its specificity is a groundbreaking discovery warranting immediate release to the oncology community. This is a perfect candidate for a short communication. Conversely, a study comparing two statistical methods for data analysis, requiring extensive comparative datasets and detailed discussions of performance metrics across various scenarios, would be ill-suited for a short communication.

Dissecting the Anatomy: Components of a Winning Short Communication

While brevity is key, the fundamental components of scientific reporting remain. Each section must be ruthlessly efficient, conveying maximum information with minimal verbiage.

1. The Power of the Title: Immediate Engagement

Your title is the first, often only, point of contact with a busy editor and eventual reader. It must be:

• Concise: Aim for 10-15 words.
• Informative: Clearly state the core finding or topic.
• Impactful: Hint at the significance without exaggeration.
• Keyword-Rich: Incorporate terms researchers in your field would search for.

Example:
* Weak: “Study on a new protein.” (Too vague, uninformative)
* Better: “Identification of a Novel Protein in Lung Cancer.” (More specific)
* Strong: “STAT3 Inhibition by a Novel Peptide Improves Lung Cancer Cell Apoptosis.” (Clear finding, specific target, implied mechanism, high impact).

2. The Abstract: Your One-Paragraph Pitch

The abstract for a short communication is a miniature masterpiece. It must capture the essence of your work in 100-200 words (journal-dependent). Think of it as the ultimate elevator pitch for your discovery.

• Background (1-2 sentences): Briefly state the problem or knowledge gap.
• Aim/Objective (1 sentence): What did you investigate?
• Methods (1-2 sentences): The key methodology used (e.g., “Using CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing…”).
• Results (2-3 sentences): The single most important finding, quantified if possible. This is the core.
• Conclusion/Significance (1-2 sentences): The implications of your finding and its contribution.

Example Abstract for the STAT3 peptide study: “Despite advances, lung cancer remains a leading cause of mortality, often characterized by aberrant STAT3 signaling. Here, we investigated the anti-tumor potential of a novel, cell-permeable phosphopeptide, designated P-STAT3i, designed to specifically disrupt STAT3 dimerization. Through in vitro Western blot analysis and flow cytometry, P-STAT3i was shown to robustly inhibit STAT3 phosphorylation and induce significant apoptosis in A549 lung adenocarcinoma cells at nanomolar concentrations (IC50 = 75 nM). These findings represent a promising new strategy for targeting STAT3 in lung cancer, warranting further preclinical development.”

3. Keywords: The Digital Scent Trail

Select 3-5 keywords that are highly relevant, specific, and not already present in your title. These are crucial for discoverability in online databases.

Example: “STAT3,” “Lung Cancer,” “Peptide Inhibitor,” “Apoptosis,” “Targeted Therapy.”

4. Introduction: Setting the Scene Swiftly

This section is extremely condensed. Its purpose is to establish context and state your very specific research question or hypothesis.

• General Background (1-2 sentences): Broad challenge or field.
• Specific Gap/Problem (1 sentence): What’s missing or unknown?
• Your Aim (1 sentence): What did you do to address this gap?
• Preview of Finding (optional, 1 sentence): Briefly state your main discovery.

Example Introduction: “Constitutive activation of STAT3 is a hallmark in numerous human cancers, contributing to tumor proliferation, survival, and metastasis. While various STAT3 inhibitors have been explored, their clinical success has been hampered by off-target effects or poor pharmacokinetics. In this study, we synthesized and evaluated P-STAT3i, a novel phosphopeptide designed to specifically inhibit STAT3 dimerization, hypothesizing it would induce selective anti-tumor effects in lung cancer models.”

5. Materials and Methods: Bare Bones & Reproducible

This section requires precision without verbosity. Focus only on the essential details needed for replication. Use active voice where appropriate.

• Experimental Design: Briefly describe the overall approach.
• Key Reagents/Materials: Catalog critical reagents (e.g., “P-STAT3i was synthesized by PepChem Inc. (Lot #12345).”).
• Cell Culture/Animal Models: Provide essential details (e.g., “A549 cells (ATCC CCL-185) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS…”).
• Core Protocols: Detail only the specific protocol variations or novel techniques. For standard methods (e.g., Western blot, flow cytometry), refer to previous publications or standard kits, providing brief overviews.
• Statistical Analysis: State the statistical tests used and significance thresholds.

Example Method Snippet: “Apoptosis was quantified using the Annexin V-FITC/Propidium Iodide Apoptosis Detection Kit (BioLabs, Catalog #ABP-1234) following manufacturer’s instructions. A549 cells were treated with varying concentrations of P-STAT3i (0-200 nM) for 24 hours prior to staining. Samples were analyzed on a BD FACSCalibur flow cytometer (BD Biosciences) and data processed using FlowJo v10 software. Data are presented as mean ± SEM of three independent experiments. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, P < 0.05 being considered significant.” (Notice the specific kit, concentrations, time, instrument, software, and statistical test).

6. Results: The Story Told Concisely

Present your findings clearly and objectively. Use figures and tables effectively, making sure they are self-explanatory.

• Textual Summary: Describe the main findings without interpretation. Use precise numbers and statistics. Refer to figures/tables.
• Figures/Tables (Crucial): Short communications often rely heavily on visual data.
  • Max 2-3 Figures/Tables usually.
  • High resolution.
  • Clear legends: Each figure/table should be understandable without referring to the text. Include experimental conditions, N values, and statistical significance.
  • Concise labeling: Use symbols and abbreviations consistently.
  • No redundancy: Don’t present the same data in a table and a figure.

Example Result Snippet: “P-STAT3i treatment significantly reduced STAT3 phosphorylation at Tyr705 in a dose-dependent manner in A549 cells (Figure 1A). Densitometric analysis revealed a 78% reduction in p-STAT3 levels at 100 nM P-STAT3i compared to untreated controls (P < 0.001). Concomitantly, P-STAT3i induced a significant increase in early (Annexin V+) and late (Annexin V+/PI+) apoptotic cell populations (Figure 1B). At 100 nM, 35% of cells were apoptotic, representing a 4.5-fold increase over vehicle-treated cells (P < 0.005).”

7. Discussion: Meaning and Future Directions (Briefly)

This is the interpretative section, but it must be severely curtailed.

• Reiterate Key Finding (1 sentence): State your most important result.
• Contextualize (1-2 sentences): How does your finding fit into existing knowledge? Does it confirm, contradict, or extend previous work?
• Significance/Implications (1-2 sentences): Why is this finding important? What are its broader implications?
• Limitations (optional, 1 sentence): Acknowledge if relevant.
• Future Directions (1 sentence): Suggest one or two immediate, logical next steps. Do not speculate wildly.

Example Discussion Snippet: “Our findings demonstrate that P-STAT3i effectively inhibits STAT3 phosphorylation and induces robust apoptosis in lung cancer cells. This specific inhibition of STAT3 dimerization offers a precise strategy to bypass established resistance mechanisms. This novel peptide represents a promising lead compound, warranting in vivo validation studies to assess its therapeutic potential.”

8. Acknowledgments (If applicable): Crediting Contributors

Briefly thank individuals or funding bodies who contributed.

9. References: Essential Citations

Cite only the most directly relevant literature. Journal guidelines usually limit the number of references for short communications (e.g., 10-20). Ensure accuracy and consistent formatting.

The Submission Process: Navigating the Journal Portal

Once your manuscript is meticulously crafted, the next stage is the submission itself. This is where meticulous attention to detail prevents delays.

1. Journal Selection: Strategic Targeting

This is arguably the most critical pre-submission step. Do not submit blindly.

• Scope Alignment: Does your short communication truly fit the journal’s stated aims and scope for short communications or rapid communications? Check their “Instructions for Authors.” Many journals have specific sections or types of articles for concise reports.
• Impact Factor vs. Fit: While a high impact factor is appealing, a perfect fit for scope is more important for a short communication. A top-tier journal might be swamped with full papers and less inclined to prioritize a short report unless it’s truly revolutionary. Conversely, a specialized journal deeply interested in your niche might be the ideal home for rapid dissemination.
• Target Audience: Who needs to see this finding immediately? Choose a journal read by that specific community.
• Publication Speed: Look for journals known for rapid review and publication, which is a hallmark of short communications. Check their average time-to-publication.

Example: If your finding is about a new chemical synthesis route for a known drug, a journal specializing in synthetic chemistry or medicinal chemistry might be a better fit than a broad biology journal, even if the latter has a higher impact factor.

2. Adhering to Author Guidelines: The Non-Negotiable Step

This cannot be stressed enough. Every journal has specific “Instructions for Authors” or “Guide for Authors.” Ignoring these is a guaranteed way to receive an immediate desk rejection.

• Word Count Limits: Short communications have strict word limits (e.g., 2000-3000 words total, including abstract, methods, etc.). Check this religiously.
• Figure/Table Limits: Adhere to the maximum number of figures and tables.
• Reference Limits: Observe the maximum number of references.
• Formatting: Pay attention to font, line spacing, margins, heading styles, and particularly referencing style (e.g., Vancouver, APA, Harvard).
• File Formats: Submit figures in the specified formats (e.g., TIFF, EPS, JPEG at specific DPI).
• Supplementary Information: If you have truly ancillary data (e.g., additional raw gel images, extensive compound characterization data for a single compound), prepare it as supplementary material, not main figures. It must be clearly referenced in the main text.

Actionable Tip: Download the “Instructions for Authors” and use it as a checklist during manuscript preparation. Go through each point item by item.

3. Preparing Submission Files: The Digital Toolkit

Beyond the manuscript, you’ll need several other components for the online submission portal.

• Cover Letter: This is your sales pitch to the editor.
  • Address: To the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Title and Authors: State your manuscript title and all authors.
  • Justification: Explicitly state why your paper is suitable as a short communication for this specific journal. Emphasize the novelty and immediate relevance of your finding.
  • Key Findings: Briefly highlight your central, most impactful result.
  • No Prior Publication/Concurrent Submission: Confirm the work is original and not under review elsewhere.
  • Conflict of Interest Statement: Declare any potential conflicts.
  • Suggested Reviewers (Optional but recommended): Provide names, affiliations, and emails of 3-5 potential reviewers who are experts in your field but have no conflict of interest with your group. Do not suggest collaborators or direct competitors. This can expedite the review process.
  • Excluded Reviewers (Optional): If there are individuals with whom you have a direct conflict or who are direct competitors, you can request their exclusion (with justification).

Example Cover Letter Snippet: “…We believe this short communication on the discovery of P-STAT3i and its potent anti-tumor activity in lung cancer cells aligns perfectly with the rapid communication format of Journal of Targeted Therapies due to its immediate translational implications for novel anti-cancer drug development. The highly selective nature of P-STAT3i targeting STAT3 dimerization represents a significant breakthrough in overcoming established resistance pathways…”

• Author List & Affiliations: Ensure all authors are listed in the correct order with accurate affiliations. Confirm all authors have approved the final manuscript and submission.
• Conflict of Interest Forms: Many journals require separate COI disclosures from each author.
• Ethics Approvals: If your study involved human subjects or animal research, you must provide details of institutional review board (IRB) or institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) approval, including approval numbers.
• Funding Information: Details of all funding sources that supported the work.
• ORCID IDs: Many journals now require ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) for all authors.

4. The Online Submission Portal: A Step-by-Step Walkthrough

Journal submission portals vary slightly but generally follow a similar workflow.

• Registration/Login: Create an account or log in if you have one.
• Start New Submission: Select the manuscript type (e.g., “Short Communication,” “Rapid Communication”).
• Enter Manuscript Details: Title, abstract, keywords, author information (order, affiliations, emails).
• Upload Files:
  • Manuscript Body: Usually a single Word or PDF file (excluding figures).
  • Figures: Uploaded separately as high-resolution image files (TIFF, EPS preferred).
  • Tables: Often as separate files or within the main manuscript.
  • Cover Letter: A separate file.
  • Supplementary Information: If applicable, as a separate dedicated file.
  • Other documents: Ethics approvals, COI forms, etc.
• Review and Approve PDF: The system will generate a PDF proof of your submission. Review this proof with extreme care. This is what the editor and reviewers will see. Check for:
  • Correct formatting.
  • All figures and tables present and in the correct place.
  • Legible text, correct fonts.
  • No broken links or missing elements.
• Confirm and Submit: Only click this once you are absolutely certain everything is correct.

Common Pitfall: Forgetting to upload a specific file or using the wrong file format, leading to submission process errors or delays. Always double-check immediately after uploading.

The Post-Submission Odyssey: Review and Revision

Submission is merely the first step. The journey continues through peer review, which is a critical part of scientific publishing.

1. Desk Rejection: The Initial Hurdle

Many short communications face desk rejection. This is not a reflection of your science’s quality but its suitability for the chosen journal as a short communication.

• Reasons:
  • Out of scope.
  • Exceeds word/figure/reference limits for the specific format.
  • Lack of sufficient novelty or significance for that journal’s audience.
  • Poor writing quality/formatting.
• Action: If rejected, calmly review the editor’s comments. If the reason is formatting or scope, immediately reformat and find a more suitable journal. If it’s about novelty for a short communication, re-evaluate if a full paper is more appropriate or if the finding needs further development.

2. Peer Review: Constructive Scrutiny

If your manuscript passes the initial editorial screening, it will be sent to 2-3 expert peer reviewers. For short communications, this process is usually expedited.

• Focus of Reviewers: Reviewers will assess:
  • Novelty/Significance: Is the finding genuinely new and impactful enough to warrant rapid publication?
  • Scientific Soundness: Are the methods appropriate? Are the results clearly presented and supported by data? Are the conclusions justified?
  • Brevity and Clarity: Is the manuscript concise, clear, and efficient in its communication? Is there any redundant information?
  • Reproducibility: Are enough details provided in the methods for someone else to replicate the core experiment?

3. Receiving Decision: Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection

• Acceptance (Rare for first submission): Celebrate! But still check for minor typos in page proofs.
• Minor Revisions: This is the best outcome. The editor and reviewers see significant merit but require small changes.
• Major Revisions: Significant work is needed, potentially more experiments or substantial rewriting. For a short communication, major revisions might sometimes suggest the data isn’t quite suited for the format yet.
• Rejection: Learn from the feedback, improve your manuscript, and target another journal. Do not take it personally. Every established scientist has faced rejection.

4. Responding to Revisions: The Art of Diplomacy and Improvement

This is where your scientific rigor and professionalism shine.

• Read Carefully: Read all reviewer comments multiple times. Understand the criticisms fully.
• Create a Point-by-Point Response: This is a separate document submitted with your revised manuscript.
  • Address every single comment, even minor ones.
  • Start by thanking the reviewers for their time and constructive feedback.
  • For each comment, state the reviewer’s comment in bold (or highlight it), then your response.
  • State what you did: “We agree with the reviewer’s point and have added [specific data/sentence/figure] to clarify this.”
  • Explain why if you don’t agree (politely): “While we appreciate the suggestion, due to the scope of a short communication, adding this extensive data would exceed the word limit. We have, however, rephrased the sentence to acknowledge this limitation.”
  • Indicate Changes: Reference line numbers or page numbers in the revised manuscript where changes were made.
  • Highlight Changes in Manuscript: Use track changes or highlight new/modified text in the revised manuscript for easy reviewer identification.
• Perform New Experiments (If Required): If reviewers request crucial experiments for clarity or to support a conclusion, conduct them rigorously. This happens less frequently for short communications due to their nature, but can occur if a critical piece of data is missing.
• Revise Manuscript Diligently: Incorporate all changes, re-read for flow, grammar, and consistency.

Example Response to Reviewer Comment:

Reviewer 2, Comment 3: “The authors claim robust apoptosis, but only show one concentration. A dose-response curve would strengthen this claim.”

Response: “We appreciate this valuable suggestion. To address this, we have now included a dose-response curve for P-STAT3i-induced apoptosis in A549 cells (Figure 1C), confirming the dose-dependent effect. This data supports our claim of robust, concentration-dependent apoptosis. We have updated the text in ‘Results’ accordingly (Lines 155-160) and revised the figure legend for Figure 1.”

Conclusion

Submitting a short communication is a strategic endeavor, not merely a truncated version of a full paper. It demands precision, conciseness, and a laser focus on presenting a high-impact, standalone finding. By meticulously planning your content, adhering rigorously to journal guidelines, and navigating the submission and revision process with professionalism, you can ensure your groundbreaking discoveries are swiftly and effectively shared with the global scientific community, ultimately accelerating progress in your field.