Just Hit Submit—Perspectives and Advice From L&O Letters Early Career Publication Honor Awardees

The Limnology & Oceanography (L&O) Letters Early Career Publication Honor (ECPH) was created by the Raelyn Cole Editorial (RCE) Fellows, supported by the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) and its publishing partner John Wiley & Sons, to amplify underrepresented voices in aquatic sciences (Dextro 2023). Its goal is to support the publication of an Open Access article by selected early career researchers (ECRs). To that effect, the program provides honorees with pre-submission editorial support (i.e., a friendly review), a waiver to the Article Processing Charge for manuscripts accepted for publication, and postpublication social media promotion (https://www.aslo.org/aslo-publications/loletters-early-career-publication-honor). We are twelve of the ECRs offered the 2022 ECPH and here we share our perspectives and advice on this program (Fig. 1), hoping it will encourage and help other ECRs in applying for this honor. Coming from a multitude of geographical backgrounds, career stages, and scientific fields (Fig. 2), we hope our highly beneficial experience is shared by future applicants. We strongly recommend the ECPH! While optional, the pre-submission friendly review by an RCE Fellow is a major benefit of this program. Traditional peer review is anonymous, often perceived as sterile, and operates in one direction at a time. We emailed our manuscripts to one of the RCE Fellows, who then provided us with written feedback and a video call to discuss our manuscripts, significantly improving our chances of publishing. The friendly nature of the meeting allowed for open communication and a safe space to voice any concerns about publishing or career development. Most of us had a friendly reviewer with expertise outside our specific field, which had its advantages. It is a significant achievement when a non-expert understands your work and validates its fit for a journal with a broad scientific audience, such as L&O Letters. The RCE Fellows identified what we should focus on, areas of potential misunderstandings, deviations from formatting guidelines, and where to add "impact sentences" to highlight the relevance of our work. This process aimed to secure us a smoother peer-review process, and we found it highly valuable. This experience also left us better informed to serve as peer-reviewers ourselves. The ECPH required that we be the lead and corresponding author of our manuscripts, though joint first authorship was possible with another ECR. Our supervisor could also be listed as a corresponding author in the published article. For some of us, this was our first manuscript; for most of us, our first experience acting as a corresponding author. ECRs are not often given the opportunity to be the corresponding author, and many continue to feel nervous or uneasy about the submission and publication processes. Being a lead or corresponding author was an important learning experience as it encouraged the first-timers of this cohort to be more proactive and independent. In addition, leading a publication in a high-impact journal like L&O Letters, is a milestone achievement to be included in a CV, and represents an exceptional opportunity to increase the visibility of the scientific work done. Through the ECPH, we gained experience in leading manuscript development and communicating with editors while also increasing the potential impacts (e.g., societal, ecological) of our research. It is common and challenging for ECRs to not have funding to publish—we often face stringent project budgets and/or a lack of institutional support to pay for Open Access publications. These issues are worsened for researchers in the Global South (i.e., nations with underdeveloped or developing economies). For example, publishing in L&O Letters costs more than one-third of the yearly salary of Brazilian PhD students, and is an expense that is unrealistic to prioritize. Therefore, Open Access to publication in high-impact journals is a privilege often not extended to researchers (at all career stages) in the Global South (Nakamura et al. 2023). The waiver offered by the ECPH allowed us to overcome this issue and to publish in a high-quality journal (read our articles here: https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1002/(ISSN)2378-2242.ecr). As with any journal, some of our manuscripts were not accepted for publication by L&O Letters and we were unable to use our respective waivers. Still, the ECPH experience gave us the motivation to write our manuscripts within a fixed deadline. The feedback from friendly reviews helped us improve our writing, communication, and other skills. Ultimately, this improved our chances of publishing in other high-impact journals (e.g., Possamai et al. 2024). The process of applying for the ECPH was straightforward, and led us to better understand the significance of our work. For the 2022 call, we were asked to provide: (1) a Scientific Significance Statement, (2) an explanation of how our study expanded the existing knowledge of aquatic ecosystems, and (3) a description of our work's current progress status (how ready our manuscripts were). We also (4) specified our article type (letter, current evidence, or essay), (5) confirmed we could fulfill the data/metadata publication requirement, and (6) demonstrated the need for financial support for publication. There were also optional questions about our background (e.g., affiliation with an institution in the Global South). The application process was relatively easy and worth the potential reward. No letters of recommendation or extensive essays were required, removing significant time-consuming steps. You should be able to apply even if you come across the call only a day or two before its due date, so go for it! As ECRs, our confidence can easily be undermined by the doubts of others and ourselves. A common sentiment voiced among us was a lack of belief in our work's merit, often stemming from self-criticism or doubt expressed by academic advisory figures. Developing a Scientific Significance Statement is the perfect task to recognize your growing expertise and judge the importance of your work. Overall, applying for the ECPH was an excellent exercise in trusting our research's validity and our capabilities as scientists. While there are three possible outcomes to your application (success, waitlisted, unsuccessful), we have one advice: keep writing. If you are offered the ECPH, pay attention to its terms and deadlines, as you will have approximately seven and nine months from honor notification to friendly review and manuscript submissions, respectively. If waitlisted, progress with writing as if you had been successful, as you may still be offered the honor later. If you receive the ECPH after being waitlisted, you will have a shorter timeframe to submit your manuscript for friendly review and to L&O Letters. And, finally, if you are unsuccessful, you will still have the application materials (you may want to try again in two years during the next call). This allows you to prepare your submission for another journal, and your Scientific Significance Statement will help you convince a journal editor that you have the next big manuscript! Our manuscripts had variable degrees of completeness when we were awarded the ECPH. Some of us had not started writing while others had finalized drafts (one was already undergoing peer review in L&O Letters!). As ECRs, it is sometimes difficult to estimate how long it takes to complete a manuscript, especially if it is your first one—it is always longer than you think, so don't underestimate it. Make sure to follow the journal's author guidelines and focus on its scope and audience. Do not be afraid if your manuscript does not fit neatly into a freshwater or oceanography category, as the ECPH also aims to extend the scope of the articles published in the journal. We recommend taking full advantage of the friendly review process—use this opportunity to voice concerns about publishing, writing appeal, and readability. The RCE Fellows will share amazing tips! In addition, we recommend sending your manuscript to trusted friends outside of your working group for feedback. Since L&O Letters has a broad aquatic science audience, getting feedback from researchers outside your specific field is not only beneficial, but critical to contextualizing your work. Moreover, during the article submission process, ask for help! Even getting example cover letters or email templates can greatly ease the anxiety of being a first-time corresponding author. You are not alone! Many authors have submitted their manuscripts to L&O Letters and received a rejection; high-impact ecological journals, for example, may reject 50–80% of manuscripts (Statzner & Resh, 2010). While it might be disappointing, remember that a rejection does not necessarily downplay the merit of your research. While your manuscript may not be suitable for publication in L&O Letters, it might fit well in another journal. There is a learning curve to the world of scientific publishing and leveraging your rejections into improved publications is a necessary skill. Publishing a manuscript gives voice to the projects you have developed, and experiences like the ECPH, peer review, and even manuscript rejections allow you to refine your voice. Everything in the process benefits you; if you have a rejected manuscript as your outcome, you now have a fully formed manuscript and peer feedback—make some adjustments and submit it to your next journal! Believe in yourself and your work. Calling all ECRs: apply! If you know anyone who could benefit from this opportunity, please tell them about it. While some of us learned about the ECPH through social media or ASLO membership emails, many of us were forwarded the call by our collaborators, advisors, and mentors (thank you!). We thank ASLO's Raelyn Cole Editorial Fellows, the L&O Letters Editor-in-Chief, ASLO, and Wiley for creating this program and for supporting ECRs, particularly those of us from countries and backgrounds that are underrepresented and underfunded. We also want to thank Dr. Rita Franco-Santos specifically for suggesting we publish this viewpoint and providing feedback on the manuscript. PL was supported by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative, Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science (ACEAS; Project Number SR200100008). TFF, TVF, CCW, and RBD were supported with a PhD scholarship from the Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. Open access publishing facilitated by University of Tasmania, as part of the Wiley - University of Tasmania agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.