What Journal Editors Actually Look For: A Veterinarian's Guide to Getting Published

Your research might be solid, your conclusions might be exciting, and you still may be setting yourself up for a rough peer review if the methods, statistical analysis, and journal fit aren’t dialed in. Recording live from the AVMA 2026 convention in Anaheim, we sit down with Dr. Jolle Kirpensteijn, a longtime veterinary surgeon and associate editor, to unpack what actually speeds up (or stalls) publication in veterinary journals like JAVMA and AJVR. 

We get specific about the behind-the-scenes signals editors look for right away: study design clarity, sample size thinking, appropriate statistical tests, and whether the discussion stays relevant instead of inflating claims. Jolle explains why selecting a journal early and writing for a defined audience can prevent avoidable rewrites, and how improvements like faster time to publication can change an author’s entire submission strategy, especially for early-career veterinarians navigating deadlines and credentialing pressure. 

We also dig into the emotional side of publishing: that first brutal review, the temptation to get defensive, and the simple habits that separate a strong revision from a red-flag response. You’ll leave with a practical writing workflow (starting with Materials and Methods), a reminder that good research can matter more than flashy results, and clear guidance on making your abstract and cover letter do real work. 

If you found this helpful, subscribe for weekly conversations with the people shaping veterinary research, share this episode with a colleague who’s writing a paper, and leave a review telling us what publishing question you want answered next.

INTERESTED IN SUBMITTING YOUR MANUSCRIPT TO JAVMA ®  OR AJVR ® ?

JAVMA ® : https://avma.org/JAVMAAuthors

AJVR ® : https://avma.org/AJVRAuthors

FOLLOW US:

JAVMA ® :

Facebook: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - JAVMA | Facebook

Instagram: JAVMA (@avma_javma) • Instagram photos and videos

Twitter: JAVMA (@AVMAJAVMA) / Twitter

AJVR ® : 

Facebook: American Journal of Veterinary Research - AJVR | Facebook

Instagram: AJVR (@ajvroa) • Instagram photos and videos

Twitter: AJVR (@AJVROA) / Twitter

JAVMA ®  and AJVR ®  LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/company/avma-journals

Transcript

Canine Dental Care Sponsor Message

Greenies Dental Treats 0:00

We love dogs. We tolerate their breath. But we know bad breath isn't just a nuisance. It can be a sign of canine dental disease. Sure. Daily brushing to keep teeth clean is ideal, but getting a dog to cooperate can be a real challenge for many pet owners. Greenies' dental treats are vet recommended and clinically proven to promote oral care when used daily between professional cleanings. Plus, they're irresistibly tasty, and VOHD accepted for plaque and tartar control, with a texture designed to clean teeth effectively with every two. So if you're looking for a routine they'll actually stick with, Greenies Dental Treats are the perfect place to start.

Lisa Fortier 0:35

Welcome

Live From AVMA Anaheim Setup

Lisa Fortier 0:36

to the award-winning AVMA podcast, Veterinary Vertex, where we delve into behind-the-scenes look with manuscript authors. And today we're broadcasting live from the AVMA 2026 convention in Anaheim, California. We're going to take a little bit of a different route today, and we're going to speak with associate editor uh Yola Kirpenstein about his experiences as associate editor for Javman and AJVR. Thank you for joining us, Yola.

SPEAKER_01 1:00

Thank you for allowing me to be here. This is amazing. We're sitting in this uh aquarium.

Lisa Fortier 1:07

It's very cool.

SPEAKER_01 1:08

It is very cool.

Lisa Fortier 1:09

Right in the middle of all the uh exhibits.

SPEAKER_02 1:11

It's a first for veterinary vertex.

SPEAKER_01 1:14

Yeah, everybody's walking by and waving at us. And uh so uh I now know how it is to be a goldfish.

Lisa Fortier 1:22

Yola, for the listeners, can you uh introduce yourself or anybody who might not know who the famous YOLO Kirpenstein is? And maybe a little bit about how uh I'm a little afraid to ask this, but how did you wind up being an associate editor for Java Money, JVR?

SPEAKER_01 1:36

Oh my god, not that story.

Lisa Fortier 1:38

Yeah, that story.

SPEAKER_01 1:39

First, I want to ask you a question. What what award did you win?

Lisa Fortier 1:43

We won an Epic Award from Society for Scholarly Publishing. There were 70 nominations. We were the only veterinary nomination, like Springer, Nature, Holter. So very cool. We're very proud of it.

SPEAKER_01 1:58

Well done, you all. That's awesome. So let's go back to the question.

Yola’s Career Path And Why Edit

SPEAKER_01 2:02

So uh my name is Dr. Yola Kirpenstein, I'm a veneer surgeon, so uh, not unlike some other people in this uh this audience. Uh and uh I have been practicing for many, many years. Um, as a matter of fact, uh JAFMA is has a special meaning to me. And uh so when you reached out, uh I I've been a author, I've been a uh, you know, I don't know what you call it when you chip articles now and then, not as an associate editor, but I just as an editor. I've been doing that for quite a while, and I don't think I've always been the best one because I tend to be sometimes really slow with my uh reviews. But then uh you reached out to me and I was like, you know, it all started with uh AV May and Javma, and so I probably should do this. I I I didn't have a lot of time. I told you that from the beginning, you know. So I was worried about the fact that uh that if I have a such an important role that people depend on uh would I have the time to javo all the responsibilities, but you make it so easy that it's no problem. But uh yeah, so a little bit of my history. I used to be uh a student at Utrecht University, uh, then I did an externship at the University of Georgia, so I went from Holland to uh to the US, then went back to finish my vet school, then did an internship in Georgia, residency Kansas State, fellowship in Colorado, went back to Utrecht, did an academic career for a long time, and then 13 years ago I decided to uh make a big move to come to Hills. Uh and I've been there as the chief vet. And uh I'm retired since July 1. So now I have a lot of time.

SPEAKER_02 3:54

Right on.

SPEAKER_01 3:55

Right on.

SPEAKER_02 3:56

Congratulations. I saw that. I was thinking at the end. I was like, oh, tell me grats in person.

SPEAKER_01 4:00

I congratulate myself, too.

SPEAKER_02 4:03

It's awesome. So now we're gonna talk a little bit more about your time as an associate editor.

How JAVMA And AJVR Leveled Up

SPEAKER_02 4:08

Right. So from your vantage point as an associate editor, what do you think sets Jabma and AJBR apart from other veterinary journals? And what makes them publications that researchers want to be in?

SPEAKER_01 4:18

I think is my head editor that does that. Right, right.

SPEAKER_02 4:22

I have to agree.

SPEAKER_01 4:23

Yeah, so I I think that uh Jabma in and and AJVR2 in the early times did not have a very good reputation. And the main reason for that was because I submitted to it too, was the fact that it took so long. So you submitted an article and then you were lucky that it was published within two years, even though the article was accepted relatively quickly or whatever, it took a long, long time. And as a young veteran that needed the publications, that was not an a you know good reason to go to HVR or JAFMA because often you needed it within, you know, to get your boards or whatever. So that was always a hindrance to me in the beginning. And then I when I was living in in Utrecht, uh impact factors were really, really important. So it was which journal are you applying for? Um, and I think Jabma had an impact factor of 0.7, which is really, really low. I know, I know. And and so we were really not allowed to publish in in these in these journals that had that low impact factor. Because they said you have to have three plus. There is no veterinary journal that has three plus. Maybe there is now, but you know, it it and so it is really, really difficult to to do that. So we were kind of forced in to publish in human literature or in in in other uh journals. So that was the beginning. Then um I know that I spoke with you, Lisa, uh, a long time ago, and I think you were just thinking about becoming the head editor of Javma, and we were kind of sparring about, and I was saying kind of the similar things. I said, Oh, you need to do all these things a little different to make it and entice people to really want to one read it and to submit to it. And I think you did all those things, not because of me, but because you had all those grand ideas how to how to improve the journal. Uh, first, make the uh submission extremely easy and fast, and then second, to publish things that people are really, really interested in, and also differentiate AJVR from Javma. Javma is really the clinical arm, AJVR is really the research arm, so it's very clear where you have where you have to put your articles. So I think all those steps are very, very important to make these two journals climb up, not only in ranking, but also in popularity. Um, and then the last thing I think is uh for me as a AVMA member since a long time, Javma was one of the staples of me being a member because I got it every other week. There were articles that I was interested in, and there was news that I was interested in. And we had a lot of discussions about should the news be in a journal, but that's a whole different discussion. But I think the uh the fact that it was so dependable that it came out, it had articles not only about topics that I liked, but also about other species and that sort of things, where I still got information from it. It is one of the few journals that has that right now, and I think those all things made me con reconsider the fact that yeah, I think I really need to be part of this because the only way you can change journals is to be actively part of the editorial team, and I think that that's how it started.

Lisa Fortier 8:08

It sure did. It was a bit of a strong arming to get Yola to join. We were having, as you said, we were sparring about all the things that needed to change, and I was like, Yeah, well, put your money where your mouth is and like join on. And he did. Uh, and for the listeners, in case you don't know, uh, our impact factor just recently increased to 2.8, so we went up by like 30 percent in one year. Right. Uh, and our time for publication in Jabma and AJVR is less than 100 days, and we've held that for three years now, I think.

SPEAKER_01 8:36

It's amazing. So those two things alone make a huge difference, huge a huge difference for people that submit, not only from the US. I think Imperfactor in the US is still not as important, but for anybody outside of the US, it is. Uh, and then also the time of delivery is also something that everybody is looking for. So you really listen to the complaints that surrounding a lot of the journals that still don't do that. And it also increases the number of articles that you probably get.

Picking The Right Journal Early

Lisa Fortier 9:09

Sure does. There are a ton of journals, right? There's more and more journals all the time. When you're reading an article, uh, what do you how do you think an author makes a mistake in submitting it to the wrong journal if it doesn't fit?

SPEAKER_01 9:22

I that's a really good question. I think most people do because if I write an article, I write an article for the journey. So I know what I want to write about, but each journal has its things that they want to do different. And it's not only a difference in how to do the references. That's of a clear difference because everybody does it differently. But it's also the way they want to have content, the way they want to have the article divided, etc. etc. So I always tell younger people that write articles, think about where you want to publish it. And that depends on which audience do you want to reach. So if you want to reach the general American veterinarian, JAVMA is the journal you have to use. If you want to reach the general surgeon, it's probably veterinary surgery that you're off to do. If you want to reach whatever, you know, microbiology. I mean, that's how you then decide which journal you have. And then before you even start writing, read what the journal wants you to write and then write it instead of sending it up to a journal and then finding out that they don't like what you did. That would sure be nice if they read the instructions. Right. Please read them. Yes, please read the instructions. It's really important. It's and and it's it's too bad to do it at the end, because then you will find out that you will have to gym squad a lot of it. And there's nothing worse than, and I made the same mistake when I was young, that I submitted articles and they came back and said either they were rejected because it didn't fit whatever the journal wanted, or they were redacted so much that looking at it already got you a nervous breakdown. Right.

SPEAKER_02 11:06

So what you're saying is that you shouldn't write the manuscript for a specific journal instead of just kind of throwing out there and seeing what sticks.

SPEAKER_01 11:12

Yeah, I think you should write it for uh a specific audience. And the audience is linked to the journal very often. So and and it's also, you know, if you and this this is this probably a a message to young diplomats or people that want to become the diplomats that need these articles to be published, is it's a strategy that you have to have. That's why I love Javma right now. I love AJVR, because you can you can almost guarantee that if your article is well written, that it will be accepted in 100 days. And when you have that stress, that time limit stress, Javma is the ideal journal to submit it to because they have this quick turnaround. Other journals, if you would submit something to nature, you know, 99% chance that it will be rejected. So that's okay as long as you accept that that's going to happen. Because, you know, so it it really depends on on what you want to get out of your article. Is it needs to be published fast? There's a lot of predatory journals you can submit to. You just pay them a lot of money and they'll accept anything you want. Sure will. Right.

What Editors Check First In Methods

Lisa Fortier 12:23

Also, when you open a new manuscript, what are the first keys that you're like, oh, this is gonna be good, or oh boy, they didn't pay enough attention.

SPEAKER_01 12:30

Yeah, as an associate editor, I always jump to the materials and methods and to the statistics. So that's that's my pet peeve. Uh I know that I send a lot of my manuscripts back to you all and say, hey, I think uh statistician needs to look at it. I just don't want to go through a whole article and then find out at the end that the statistics are not working. And so I always look at, okay, how is the research set up? The first question is, you know, did they do a I mean, did they look at uh, for instance, if they have enough cases in there? Did they think about how to set up the research that they're publishing, which is not the case in clinical uh reports, of course, or some retrospectives, but you know, I was just reviewing an article that was published in in Javma for one of my podcasts, and I saw that they're using the physical exact test, and I'm like, okay, guys, come on, you know, if that's happening, I already know they don't have enough cases, they probably will make very strong statements that they cannot make true. Uh, and so that as a reviewer, that always irritates me a little bit. But then when I go back to my early stages, I used physical exec tests all the time too, because you know, eight animals. Yeah, we have eight animals and a limited number of statistical knowledges at that time. I that I thought that was really, really good. So so I understand it, but it also is you know, a good article has a story that you want to tell, has a very clear um building blocks, how you're going to tell that story, has good basic research with good basic statistics, and then my last pet peeve is a discussion that's relevant. Yes, it's not a discussion that rehears rehashes everything that you said before, that brings in all sorts of stuff that is not of relevance, and that makes comments that you cannot build on on the research that you did, which often happens. So, so the the way why I send a lot of things back is of course the statistics first and the the materials and methods, but also you know what do they do with you know, it's it's okay when you have an article where you only show one small thing, which might be important, that's then the focus of that article, and it can be a short article, that's your discussion, you're done. You don't have to embellish it with uh thousands and thousands of words to make it even bigger, and it is so I think that those are the things that I always look for. Um and then as an associate editor, I I try to be really nice, so I try to give him the benefit of the doubt uh for most articles. But sometimes I also say, Okay, I'm not going to accept this. So if you want to find another reviewer, that's fine. But I also don't want to spend my time to spend a lot of time deep diving into these sticks and blah.

SPEAKER_02 15:36

And for newer authors that might be listening, what are some other weaknesses that you might see in the methods section, aside from the statistical analysis as an associate editor that might raise some red flags or you think, oh, this is gonna be awful?

SPEAKER_01 15:47

I think it, you know, your basic research setup needs to be good. I think that a lot of people start thinking about uh the research part after they have done the research and start writing instead of doing it from the beginning. So, you know, and it's a simple question about okay, and especially when you do research with you do, you know, um uh you publish something that is not retrospective but prospective. How many cases do you really need to make your hypothesis work? That's a very simple test you can do. Very few people do it.

Lisa Fortier 16:26

It goes back to statistics, and it goes back to a statistic.

SPEAKER_01 16:28

Yeah, no, it is uh yeah, it it's it and and so but for young people that want to write things, uh the basic is your research. So maybe start with thinking about contacting a statistician before you set up your research and get that input. First, you will learn from it, and second, it will help you with being able to publish something because you know I think at the end of my career, most of my publications were accepted because the research was good, yeah, not the results. The results can be good, right? But sometimes the results are not what you want, but still they accepted it because the the basics of the research was based. So I think that that's one of the things. And then I always say if you are not a fluent English speaker, always have someone take a look at it before you send it in. There's nothing more irritating than, you know, my English is my second language, so I'm pretty fluent with it, but I'm not fully fluent with it. So I always have an English Naval speaker look at what I write. Um, and um, and then the last thing is the story that you want to tell. So have that story clear before you start writing.

Lisa Fortier 17:42

Yeah, like how many times have you been at a presentation and they'll say, Well, we didn't prove our hypothesis, or you know, they'll have 20 dogs, or and you say, Well, did you do a power calculation? And they'll say, Oh, yeah, we needed 240 to show it. And they did the power calculation and still did this study. That's just poor mentoring. Right.

Responding To Reviews Without Defensiveness

Lisa Fortier 18:03

Uh, so on the other side, now you get a revision back and you're reading the author's response to the reviewers' comments. Right. What sets apart a really good one, in your opinion?

SPEAKER_01 18:13

Right. First, I need to give a big uh handle applause for my reviewers, they do an amazing job. So they are the ones that really dive into the details, and uh, you know, they get me involved when they have questions and that sort of things. So when I get a re-review, so I always say when you get your review, it is a slap in the face for anybody. So it does feel like however the review comes back, you always feel really bad in the beginning. And I would say, take a breather, read what the reviewer is saying, because these are experts in the field, and most of them what they're saying is not against you, but will help you to make a better pick. So I think that is so important, and then so what I always do when I get a review back for myself is I start with the sentence, I read the reviewers' sentence and I say, Yes, you are right, and then I'm starting thinking about how to adapt it to make them right. Okay, if there's something that you absolutely absolutely disagree with, you are going to say that. I mean, you're not going to say you're right when you don't agree, but there's a lot of little things like spelling mistakes. I always say thank you for that, you know. Just you acknowledge the work that they do and change it for the better, because most of the time a reviewer makes your paper better and not worse. And so I I always have a very positive view towards the reviewers. So if I get a review back that is very antagonistic, that doesn't listen to the reviewers, that's that's a no-go area for me. If I get a review back that says, I really appreciate all the suggestions, but I disagree with this and this, that's where I jump in and I say, okay, I I want to see if that if if it's right. And if they're right, I give them the right, and then we don't do it. So I think that is the most important part. But you know, try not to get into the trap of they're against me, they don't want to publish me. As a matter of fact, most of us want your publication in the journal. That's that's the whole story. That's why I went out for review. That's it. That's why you're going out. I mean, you didn't get rejected, that could happen too. And I've been rejected in my life too. So, and you know, then I was like, well, maybe it was not the right journal to publish it, or the data was not good enough. So, but it is it is frustrating though.

Lisa Fortier 20:45

I think the second most common mistake, I agree with that entirely. And the second one would do and they don't address every comment.

SPEAKER_01 20:51

Right.

Lisa Fortier 20:51

Like just paraphrase or copy-paste it and and reply to every single one, even if you just say thank you.

SPEAKER_01 20:57

Right. No, good good, that's a good point because that those are red flags immediately. If you and most of the time, that sometimes you cannot even answer a question that it's possible. Uh, just give your best answer that you can have. Because you know, um, sometimes the reviewers ask you to do more research. If you have a limited time or limited budget, that might not be possible. Then you can say, you know, I think it's a very good point, and I'll place that into the article in some way that we can discuss that, why we didn't do it, but we are not able to do that by now. And then it's up to us or the head editor to decide, okay, we're going to accept that or not. Yeah, right.

SPEAKER_02 21:42

So now I have a very special question for you.

First Paper War Story And Kind Reviewing

SPEAKER_02 21:44

And this is one that we talked about. We were discussing what we were going to chat about today on the podcast. So now we're gonna go way back. I want to know about the first articles that you publish. What was your experience?

SPEAKER_01 21:53

Right. Do you know what journal that was in? Jub? Yes.

SPEAKER_02 21:58

It's a bit of a self-sufficiency.

SPEAKER_01 22:00

Yeah, yeah, it was it was Jab, I guess. So it was an article that I wrote about the erythema multiforme, uh long, long time ago, 1987, maybe somewhere wherever. I don't know, even though, and then maybe in the 90s, I somewhere in the in the last century. And uh it was with Dr. Linda Metlow, who is an amazing dermatologist from Georgia, lovely, lovely person. And so she stimulated me to write my first article. And I was a either student or an intern, I can't remember, but that long ago. Uh, it was painful. It was painful. So she was a respected dermatologist. I think it was a very nice article. It was blood, sweat, and tears on my side. I was not that interested in dermatology, but I thought it was really nice because she was so lovely, lovely working with her, she was really helpful. The first review was brutal. Brutal.

Lisa Fortier 23:01

Was it negative, or were you just interpreted as brutal because it was your first uh probably both, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 23:07

But even Dr. Mattlow was like, Oh my god, I'm so sorry that they're doing this to you. So for me, it was like, Do I ever want to do this again? Right. You know, and and that's that's the problem that and it was just a case report, yeah. When Javma was still accepting case reports, so it's not like I'm trying to publish in science or nature or whatever, it was a case report, it's a very cool report, and I don't know how many refuse it to, but we got it done. I'm very proud of that article. It's one of the few articles on the disease, by the way, and it's published in Javma. But it's it's interesting to see that you you know your experience with writing is it's if you're not a natural writer, if you're not a natural English speaker, uh you do your best and then you get it back. And I I think you know, we need to be nice to the people that send in that do the effort. It is a lot of effort. So we need to recognize that and and celebrate with them. If you know there might be a reason why it's not good enough, you have to have a good reason for that, but uh, but also you know keep on writing, people. It's wonderful. We would love you to submit as many articles as we can.

Lisa Fortier 24:21

Yeah, it it is hard, and I think you know, trying to instill that culture in reviewers and associate editors and everybody on our whole staff to say this is a labor of love. Like let's be kind.

SPEAKER_01 24:33

Right, right. Yeah, and you know, sometimes it doesn't work and sometimes it does. I think that uh that uh you know don't get don't get down because of one negative experience still. And you know, I've written more than 130 articles now, so it's just like it didn't stop me. It it stopped me for a little bit and then uh motored on again. And I had some really good mentors that started teaching me how to do good research, and that really, really ruined it. Yeah, build some confidence. That's him. That's it.

Lisa Fortier 25:05

What

A Practical Writing Order And Cover Letters

Lisa Fortier 25:06

piece of advice would you give to people starting their first submission? We talked about study design and statistics, but even more so, like how do you advise them? Okay, you've done all that, how do you sit your butt down and start writing that manuscript?

SPEAKER_01 25:19

Yeah, yeah. So I always start with writing down materials methods, it's the easiest. Uh so I I write it down because I understand that I did it, I make it very, very clear for me. And after I've done that, um, because you have to written down the material method and you have done a good job, then I start with my hypothesis. So I put that in that normally goes to the end of the introduction, so that's easy. Um, and I do my I've done my literature review, so I normally start with reviewing what I know to come to the hypothesis. So most of the time, the second thing that I do is the introduction because it makes makes my thinking process a little easier. So I have the introduction, I have the materials and methods. Summary is the last thing, give right the absolute last thing.

Lisa Fortier 26:07

Um by summary, you mean discussion with the abstract?

SPEAKER_01 26:10

The summary abstract. Okay. Yeah. So then so I got that. Um the introduction really helps me to start thinking about how I write down the results. So it's weird because a lot of people do materials methods first, then results, then the introduction, and then the discussion. I do either the introduction first or materials and methods first, introduction, then the results. So I include the introduction, what I my thinking process in the introduction into the results, and then I start thinking about the discussion. So while I'm writing my results, I'm already thinking about okay, this helps me kind of set up so you know when I'm writing my results, I have already in my mind this is how the discussion will be going, will be flowing. And after you have done that, you have to go back to the introduction, of course, and pull it back and make it all fit in that storyline that you want to tell. Uh, then the conclusion comes, and then I start with my abstract.

Lisa Fortier 27:09

Yeah, and by now you're running out of a little bit of energy, but the abstract is super important, right? It's probably the only thing most people are ever gonna read of your.

SPEAKER_01 27:18

It's how you sell your article, it's how you sell your article.

Lisa Fortier 27:21

And the other part from from my perspective is their covering letter. Right. Like we have an outline on our our website that says I you know, I stole it from Peter Meir, had the most amazing cover letter. Because a lot of time, at least I was taught to write. This hasn't been submitted elsewhere. Oh, authors reviewed this work. But what I really want to know is why is this important? Right. Where's the knowledge? What a knowledge gap are you addressing, and how are you going to do that? So don't run out of energy, I guess is the piece of advice. Those are the two most important pieces.

SPEAKER_02 27:53

Well, very good take homes. Well,

Final Takeaways And Weekly Listening

SPEAKER_02 27:55

you'll thank you so much for joining us. It was a pleasure. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 27:58

Yeah, so excited to sit in between you. Oh my gosh, a little empty, you know. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 28:03

No, it's so fun doing this live, too. And for our listeners and viewers, thank you so much for joining us today live from AVMA Convention. You can tune in weekly for new episodes. I'm Sarah Wright with Lisa Fourtier, and thank you so much. We'll catch you next time.