dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
TRANSCRIPT
Publication of a paper :Tips and Tricks
Dr Anil Jain MS, MAMS,FRCSEditor
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics
&
Professor of Orthopaedics University College of Medical
Sciences,Delhi
Thanks very much indeed To OSSAP and Organising team
For inviting to deliver this lecture
Why this topic?Why people do not write?
• tedious process• writing takes time•Authors are uncertain – whether accepted or rejected•Once rejected- phase of dejection ( whole exercise was a waste)•Ideal situation – author know what editor’s think before decidingVery little rejection
What is the best paper – to be acceptedWell methodically performed study
Well presented to be understood by ---Reviewers Editor
Peers should support Edited by editors
Who rejects ?Editor - A big no
Your premise in the manuscript should be supported by the peers
Editors job- to seeIf peers are competent to review the manuscriptIf peers have missed any important issue If peer has any conflict of interest
If everything is goodEditors to remove redundancyMake it more presentable
Approach to a manuscript
Acceptance rate We receive 750/yrWe publish about 90Acceptance rate – 12-15%
Not rejected because of lack of spaceButBecause they are not delivering message
What can be done to improve acceptance
Minimum must for write up
Publications – which manuscript passes editor’s scrutiny
Addressed lacunae in the literatureClear research questionVariables to test research questionHow results are evaluatedResults valid or not ( significance)Conclusion the same as research question
Golden rule
The acceptance depends on the rigour of planning and conduction of the study
Well planned Well conducted Will be published
Put more efforts in planning of study
Before writing paper
must read the Guide( instructions ) to Authors
be familiar with the contents, style carefully
Introduction- 500-700 words.Background -
Nature of problemCurrent state of knowledge and lacunae in the
knowledge• Research hypothesis and prediction
Statement of purpose & methodology of studyRetrospective or prospectiveQualitative or quantitative data Meta analysisEpidemiological
length of introduction 25% of length of paper
Materials and methods
Most common cause of rejectionDetailed disclosure- study can be repeatedComplete details of any new methodMeasurement undertakenStatistical analysis sensibly
Experimental work
Experimental procedure controlsWhy this procedure variables being
measuredAny material used manufacturer nameWell known procedure give referenceModified procedure give in detail
Clinical studyDemographic dataPeriod of timeWhere was it doneDesign of the study.Number of pts Power study - how many patients would
be required to answer the question with statistical significance
inclusion and exclusion criteria? If randomization, how Tests and outcome scores and why? Are tests and scores - validated? new tests or scores - appropriate
validation studies with inter- and intra-observer errors been undertaken?
Appropriate references for the tests and scores.
Measurements undertaken ? Who undertook the measurements Blinded or not . A case control study- how the controls
were chosen,
Clinical studyFollowup evaluation – any specific
methodAccurate recording of the dataApproval of IRB or ethics committeeInformed consentAnimal studies – approved of
institutional animal welfare committeeStatistical method – all test used
increases or decreased (P value)
Use percentages carefully. Identify patients lost to follow-up or have
died with reasons.Are the results relating to those lost to
follow-up included in any of the data?
- Length of result sectionNeed not to be too long 500-750 words.
Results Straightforward and clearly presented Relevant and representativeAppropriate use of tables and figures .Illustrative radiographs - appropriate
number and quality .Facts and figures should match with
those in M&MSpecifically describe the data with
statistician .Give p value in bracket.
Results Figure & table is not a substitute of text.
Avoid – repetition of data in text, figures, tables
Confusion with bilateral procedureChose graph – suitable for your information
Decimal placesHospitalization was 10.39 days average
blood transfusion was 340.69ml.
Discussion Evaluate the meaning of your results in
term of original research question and point out a biological difference if any
Relate them to other studies.
Almost invariably too long Should not be more than one third of the
manuscript about 1000 words.
DiscussionIt includes
Summarize the major findingDescribe the possible problem with the
method usedCompare results with the previous workDiscuss the clinical and scientific
implicationSuggest further workErrors in your studySuccinct conclusion
Avoid – repetition of data result sectionPreferential citing of previous work
Abstract200-250 wordsMost commonly readChallenging to conciseStructured or not structuredPurpose of studyBrief statement of what was doneWhat was foundWhat concludedShould written after entire manuscript
TitleName of the (organism) studiedParticular aspect or system studiedVariable manipulated“Should summarizing the studying as
completely as possible in few words”.
Titles raising or answering questions in a few brief words.
Cubitus varus; Problem and solution
References Reference is a foundationShould be collected before starting the study
and not as after thoughtFrom
Standard text book or monographWell accepted and stable electronic sources no from Abstract or submitted article
References In the textShould write as (Gribb 1977) or Gribb
(1977) “Do not separate name & data”
If more than one author has conducted similar study (Ram 1980, Shyam 1987 , Suresh 1996)
If more than three authors that et al Ram et al.)
References are listed as -Harvard methodVancouver method
Harvard methodCited as author name &year of publication
in bracket. in references as alphabetically.
Vancouver methodReference consecutively as appear in text cited by numeral in bracket
TableDo not repeat informationNew information
Number the table Give title of the table
FiguresGraphs, Histogram, Illustration
Graph & histogram – to compare variables
Graph shows continuous change
Histogram shows discrete variable
Do not plot unrelated trend on one graph
Line of best fit
Drawing & PhotographIllustrable important
point
Composite photoNumber themInformation on legends Arrow to highlight
findingJournal – neither a
photo album nor testing the integrity of authors
Polishing of an articleImportant to make a crispRemove redundancy Put a drawerGive to collegue
LanguageComplete sentence
Correct and precise scientific terminology AbbreviationEach paragraph – must address one issue No flowery prose only finding “Fuzzy writing reflects fuzzy thinking”
Avoid
Words never heard of Colloquial speech or slangAbbreviation – except unit of measureUse – past tense
PlagiarismUse of other’s work, ideas, images without
citationRepresentation of work of others as being
your work
Basically – your manuscript once submitted should be understood by a readers.
Who is not associated with the study
REVISION OF MANUSCRIPT-A request for revision viewed positively
-Manuscript is publishable-Authors should therefore view with optimism
Common Reasons for revision requests- Minor faults in methodology- Minor inaccuracies in data- Inconsistencies in data- Inconsistencies among different
sections of the manuscript
Common Reasons for revision requests
- Faulty deductions- Data do not support conclusions- Excessive data or text (i.e. manuscript
is too long)- Poor or excessive illustrations.
- Poor but salvageable writings
Resubmit Revised Manuscript- Resubmit revised manuscript within
time
- Each point must be answered and listed systematically
- Changes should be clearly annotated in revised text
General Rule General rule is – Editors and
reviewers are always right. if you think they are not correct author may disagree but supported
evidence should be given
Good revision • Reply all comments • Underline changes• Enter in the table• Approve the changes already done• See images • Give proper legend• Most important – keep timeline – do prompt
revision• Difference between good publication and
rejection
Need to be careful while revising
It is easier to reject if author does not answer or is aggressive in language of revision
Very basic-If the peers and editor’s are not able to
understand inspite of communicationThan How the readers will understand
Decision on case report
New information about a rare conditionNew or improved method of diagnosis and
treatment
Should be succint
Case reports not acceptedRare , unusual , but obvious diagnosis and
established treatment Just rarity – not preferedRare but obscure diagnosis or treatment not
obviousMissed diagnosis – not a reason Well known tumor in a new locationRare organism in an unsuspected locationNew operation in one patient
Case reports sometimes acceptedReader will benefit from awareness article,
quality of review, educational materialTime has elapsed since it was reported
Summarily should contain educational material - to evaluate diagnose and care the patient
Why rejectedStudy is not methodically conductedRetrospective thought of making a
manuscript after seeing few cases
Why rejectedNot written well – Not clear
what is the study
how done – I can’t repeat the study
How saying – something is good or badNot clear - significance of the difference in outcome
Not clear - Is the research question answered
Not supported by evidence in literature
Exercise of editorial decisionsTo present your work- Crisp presentationConcisePresent in a manner that it is read
In nutshell looks after the author’s interest and interest of the readers
Editors Are not hostile to youTo help you – to bring best out of your good
workDo not get any benefitDo for the love to scienceLet us work together to make best out of your
work
Take Home Message- Authors should use the editor’s and
reviewer’s comments to try to improve their manuscript, even if it has been rejected initially
- Requests for revision should be viewed positively as it is an indication of sufficient potential merit by the journal
- Before submitting a revised manuscript, it is very important to answer every point raised by the editor and reviewers.
Publication is important your effort should be known to others
beyond your life
To be useful to others to alleviate pain and suffering
That is how science grows
That is the objective of IJO
Stretegies An issue on Scientific communication Covered – discussed all types of articles.
Case series , review , case report, letter to editors
Symposium on research methods
Levels of evidenceCase seriesCase control studySystematic review or meta analysisRCT
Why research is important ?Editorials on need for researchPerspective articles talking about Global research scenerio
Orthopaedic services and training
Who is the best reviewer
Peer who is working in similar milieu –For our problems- we
Impact factor
More awards for good articles
How to evaluate a published article
Conclusions
Put more thought process in planning phase Write as per the type of articleNo article is rejected if trying to give small
message with reasoning
Let your work be known to the world through Journals
Thank you very much for kind attention
Thanks very much indeed
Original articleSubject – research question Methodological conductedTrying to address some issue
Review articleOriginal article – 196Case report - 206Review article – 41 – rejected largelyLetter to editor - 11
What editor think Most of time we solicit the article when a
thematic issue is planned.Ask to address the specific issues to the
subject expert.It can be directly submitted – provided –
address a question comprehensively and not a selective reading of articles
Quality of review article Specific purpose of the reviewSource and method of citation search
identifiedExplicit guidelines provided to include and
exclude the citationsMethodological validity of the articles
included in the reviewData limitations and inconsistancies
documented
Quality of review article-2 Was the information systematically integrated
or pooledSummary of pertinent findings providedSpecific direction for new research objectives
(initiatives) specified.
Guidelines for reading reviewsQuestion and method addressedComprehensive searched to include articlesMethod used to determine which manuscript
( method ) to include. Was validity of primary studies assessed.Was assessment of primary studies
reproducible and without biasWas the finding of primary studies combined.Was the reported conclusion cited with
evidence.
Revision – not to do
Revision – not to do
Revision – not to do
Revision – not to do
Revision – not to do
Revision – not to do
Revision – not to do
Revision – not to do
Original article – 307Case report - 297Review article – 10
More manuscripts are case reportAuthor , reviewers – spent most of time
Type of manuscripts Original – case series, RCT or case control
studies Review articles – meta analysis or systematic
review Case reportsLetter to editorsEditorials