When we commission an article, it’s because we think that an idea has potential. After the authors agree to write, the first thing we ask for is a detailed synopsis of the article. This request may seem strange. If the idea is good and the authors are experts in the subject, what does having a round of editorial feedback at this early stage bring to the process? But a discussion about the synopsis is essential for starting a conversation with the authors to flesh out the initial idea into an article the authors are excited to write, and the journal is keen to publish.

a discussion about the synopsis is essential for starting a conversation with the authors to flesh out the initial idea into an article the authors are excited to write, and the journal is keen to publish

The first step in writing a Review is defining the scope — what will be included and, just as importantly, what will be left out. It may be that the scope that the authors have in mind is different to our original commissioning idea, so discussing it with editors at the synopsis stage is crucial, so that we can agree on the vision for the article. Often we have other articles in our pipeline on similar topics, and a clearly defined scope can help us avoid overlap with our other articles. At times, we can even suggest connections to our other published articles so that the new Review will complement other work. We also ask for a selected reference list to support the scope. We do so to ensure that the references are recent and relevant, and we recommend that the majority of the selected references be from the past five years.

But a synopsis is not just a list of topics and key references; it is also an opportunity for authors and editors to work together to plan the structure of the article and the angle it will take on the subject. As professional editors, we can comment on issues such as whether the article is likely to be too long, or if there is too much or too little background information included for the intended audience. With our experience of putting many Reviews through peer-review, we can provide guidance on avoiding potential issues that referees pick up on.

Often, we give suggestions about whether it would be better to order the content in terms of technique, application or chronology (or something else), or highlight if certain discoveries could be part of the story. We also share previously published articles that may provide good examples of ways to present information. We might propose moving some of the more technical parts of the article to a Supplementary Information file, to keep the main text accessible and smoothly flowing. Thinking about such decisions before writing thousands of words can save a lot of time in the long run.

We may suggest adding a text box to explain key concepts for a non-expert reader, or a table to summarize any comparisons in the paper, especially for Technical Reviews. The list of proposed display items (figures, tables, boxes) is an essential part of the synopsis. Display items should support the text, and planning them before starting to write is helpful in focussing the message of the article. A rule of thumb is one figure per section (with no more than six panels), with each panel called out in the main text of the article. In this way, the figures can concisely illustrate the main points, without overwhelming the reader with too much data or examples that are not explained in the text. As editors, we can look at a list of proposed display items with a fresh pair of eyes, and suggest additions or removals that will help the display items tell a clear story. We can also flag any possible issues, such as figures that don’t adhere to our style rules or that contain unpublished results.

The more detail there is in a synopsis, the more feedback we can give, and we provide our authors with detailed synopsis guidelines that include a template they can follow to be sure to cover every aspect. However, there are limitations to what we can check as editors. We rely on referees to assess articles in terms of the science, balance of references, and significance and usefulness for the research community. Our feedback on synopses is intended to help authors put the best possible version of their article in front of the referees, and ultimately the readers.