Publication SuccessPublication SuccessWhy Publish?Why Publish?

Fellows who do not publish during fellowship will Fellows who do not publish during fellowship will often never take and pass their Boardsoften never take and pass their Boards

Individuals do the vast majority of completing Individuals do the vast majority of completing research and writing papers in the first seven research and writing papers in the first seven years out of training.years out of training.

Publication success is the single biggest indicator Publication success is the single biggest indicator of academic successof academic success PromotionsPromotions

Promotions and Tenure committes place little emphasis on Promotions and Tenure committes place little emphasis on teaching and patient careteaching and patient care

Division Directors and Department ChairsDivision Directors and Department Chairs Invitations to participate in committees and boards of Invitations to participate in committees and boards of

national societiesnational societies Invitations to speak at national and international Invitations to speak at national and international

meetingsmeetings Publishing often keeps those writing on the Publishing often keeps those writing on the

cutting edgecutting edge

The number of unpublished studies The number of unpublished studies is astounding.is astounding.

Barriers to publicationBarriers to publication Lack of mentorshipLack of mentorship Writer’s inertia/blockWriter’s inertia/block ProcrastinationProcrastination Competing prioritiesCompeting priorities

PersonalPersonal ProfessionalProfessional

Rejection of first submissionRejection of first submission

SolutionsSolutions Barriers to publicationBarriers to publication

Lack of mentorshipLack of mentorship Choose your mentors wiselyChoose your mentors wisely

Experience, priority, nurturing, pushyExperience, priority, nurturing, pushy Writer’s inertia/blockWriter’s inertia/block

Learn good methods for writing papersLearn good methods for writing papers ProcrastinationProcrastination

Write your paper before you present itWrite your paper before you present it Make it a team projectMake it a team project

Competing prioritiesCompeting priorities Schedule specific times on your calendar to writeSchedule specific times on your calendar to write

Rejection of first submissionRejection of first submission Grow up – rejection is part of lifeGrow up – rejection is part of life Move on – get advice on the best place for the next Move on – get advice on the best place for the next

submissionsubmission Listen – take the advice of the reviewers before resubmissionListen – take the advice of the reviewers before resubmission

IRB/Guidelines for Consenting IRB/Guidelines for Consenting Subjects for ResearchSubjects for Research

Authors must follow the ethical standards for Authors must follow the ethical standards for human experimentation established in the human experimentation established in the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA 1997;277:925-6). human subjects. JAMA 1997;277:925-6).

All journals now require that you affirm IRB All journals now require that you affirm IRB approval in your paper and in your cover letterapproval in your paper and in your cover letter Will often require the IRB case numberWill often require the IRB case number Includes retrospective, chart review and data base Includes retrospective, chart review and data base

studiesstudies Most now also require patient consent for case reports.Most now also require patient consent for case reports.

Case ReportsCase Reports

Don’t waste your time!Don’t waste your time! VERY low acceptance ratesVERY low acceptance rates

If you do, they must beIf you do, they must be Highly unique, ANDHighly unique, AND Have implications forHave implications for

Patient management and/orPatient management and/or Important future researchImportant future research

ExampleExample Irwin Merkatz, low AFP in Down syndromeIrwin Merkatz, low AFP in Down syndrome

Alternatively consider using the case for Alternatively consider using the case for retrospective reviews or seeds for future retrospective reviews or seeds for future studies.studies.

Clinicaltrials.govClinicaltrials.gov ClinicalTrials.gov is a registry of federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in the United States ClinicalTrials.gov is a registry of federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in the United States

and around the world. ClinicalTrials.gov gives you information about a trial's purpose, who may participate, and around the world. ClinicalTrials.gov gives you information about a trial's purpose, who may participate,

locations, and phone numbers for more details. This information should be used in conjunction with advice from locations, and phone numbers for more details. This information should be used in conjunction with advice from

health care professionals.  health care professionals.  

Find trials for a specific medical condition or other criteria in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. ClinicalTrials.gov Find trials for a specific medical condition or other criteria in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. ClinicalTrials.gov

currently has 79,903 trials with locations in 170 countries.   Get instructions for clinical trial currently has 79,903 trials with locations in 170 countries.   Get instructions for clinical trial

investigators/sponsors about how to register trials in ClinicalTrials.gov. Learn about mandatory registration and investigators/sponsors about how to register trials in ClinicalTrials.gov. Learn about mandatory registration and

results reporting requirements and US Public Law 110-85 (FDAAA).   Learn about clinical trials and how to use results reporting requirements and US Public Law 110-85 (FDAAA).   Learn about clinical trials and how to use

ClinicalTrials.gov, or access other consumer health information from the US National Institutes of Health. ClinicalTrials.gov, or access other consumer health information from the US National Institutes of Health.

Resources: Resources:

Understanding Clinical TrialsUnderstanding Clinical Trials

What's NewWhat's New

GlossaryGlossary

Study Topics: Study Topics:

List studies by ConditionList studies by Condition

List studies by Drug InterventionList studies by Drug Intervention

List studies by SponsorList studies by Sponsor

List studies by LocationList studies by Location

Rules for AuthorshipRules for Authorship

Each author must qualify by having participated actively and Each author must qualify by having participated actively and sufficiently in the study reported. The inclusion of each sufficiently in the study reported. The inclusion of each author in the authorship list of a report must be based only author in the authorship list of a report must be based only on 1) on 1) substantial contributionssubstantial contributions to (a) the concept and to (a) the concept and design, or analysis and interpretation of data and (b) the design, or analysis and interpretation of data and (b) the author's having drafted the manuscript or revised it critically author's having drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and 2) final approval by for important intellectual content; and 2) final approval by each author of the version of the manuscript being each author of the version of the manuscript being submitted. All conditions (1a, 1b, and 2) must be met. Others submitted. All conditions (1a, 1b, and 2) must be met. Others contributing to the work, including participants in contributing to the work, including participants in collaborative trials, should be recognized separately in the collaborative trials, should be recognized separately in the Acknowledgment(s) section. In the cover letter that Acknowledgment(s) section. In the cover letter that accompanies the submitted manuscript, it must be accompanies the submitted manuscript, it must be confirmed that all bylined authors fulfill all conditions. confirmed that all bylined authors fulfill all conditions. Accordingly, authors are encouraged to limit the number of Accordingly, authors are encouraged to limit the number of authors listed. authors listed.

Order of authorsOrder of authors Principle InvestigatorPrinciple Investigator

Idea personIdea person

Last is senior authorLast is senior author If idea person is senior author ask him/her which is preferredIf idea person is senior author ask him/her which is preferred

Don’t include research nurses, statisticians, ghost writers unless they fulfilled all Don’t include research nurses, statisticians, ghost writers unless they fulfilled all

criteria for authorship, include them as acknowledgementscriteria for authorship, include them as acknowledgements Authorship Authorship

Each author must qualify by having participated actively and sufficiently in the study Each author must qualify by having participated actively and sufficiently in the study

reported. The inclusion of each author in the authorship list of a report must be based only reported. The inclusion of each author in the authorship list of a report must be based only

on 1) substantial contributions to (a) the concept and design, or analysis and interpretation on 1) substantial contributions to (a) the concept and design, or analysis and interpretation

of data and (b) the author's having drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for of data and (b) the author's having drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for

important intellectual content; and 2) final approval by each author of the version of the important intellectual content; and 2) final approval by each author of the version of the

manuscript being submitted. All conditions (1a, 1b, and 2) must be met. Others manuscript being submitted. All conditions (1a, 1b, and 2) must be met. Others

contributing to the work, including participants in collaborative trials, should be recognized contributing to the work, including participants in collaborative trials, should be recognized

separately in the Acknowledgment(s) section. In the cover letter that accompanies the separately in the Acknowledgment(s) section. In the cover letter that accompanies the

submitted manuscript, it must be confirmed that all bylined authors fulfill all conditions. submitted manuscript, it must be confirmed that all bylined authors fulfill all conditions.

Abstract SubmissionAbstract Submission

Why:Why: Get significant input into strengths, flaws and Get significant input into strengths, flaws and

issue before submitting the paperissue before submitting the paper ExposureExposure

Often more people know about your study than from Often more people know about your study than from the publicationthe publication

Always for junior authors, more people know who the Always for junior authors, more people know who the author was than with the publicationauthor was than with the publication

FunFun You get priority in going to the meetingYou get priority in going to the meeting You learn a lot more presenting than publishingYou learn a lot more presenting than publishing

Writing an abstractWriting an abstract Sell the study in the introductionSell the study in the introduction Unlike papers, don’t assume the reviewer is an Unlike papers, don’t assume the reviewer is an

expert in the field – explain the problem clearly – expert in the field – explain the problem clearly – why is the study so importantwhy is the study so important

Don’t include name of the institution in the Don’t include name of the institution in the abstractabstract

Adhere to the word limit and font sizeAdhere to the word limit and font size State your primary hypothesis clearlyState your primary hypothesis clearly Don’t tell them the end points you chose in your Don’t tell them the end points you chose in your

methods section, your results will tell themmethods section, your results will tell them Don’t tell them what statistical methods you used.Don’t tell them what statistical methods you used. Give them actual dataGive them actual data Overstate your conclusions a little more than you Overstate your conclusions a little more than you

would in a paper.would in a paper.

Impact of a “rescue course” of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS): A multi-center, randomized, controlled trial.

Objective: Previous studies using scheduled repetitive courses of ACS have demonstrated limited benefit and concern over potential risk. We present the first study evaluating the impact of a single “rescue” course of ACS on neonatal outcome

Materials and methods: A multi-center, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial was performed. Eligible singletons or twins were < 33 weeks (wks), had completed a single course of betamethasone before 30 wks and at least 14 days prior, and were judged to have a recurring threat of preterm delivery in the coming week. Patients were randomized to receive a single “rescue course” of ACS or placebo. Exclusion criteria included: PROM, advanced dilation (> 5 cm), chorioamnionitis, and other steroid use. The primary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity at < 34 wks.

Results: 437 patients were randomized (223 study group, 214 placebo). 55% of patients in each group delivered at < 34 wks. The groups were similar in gestational age (GA) at randomization (29.4 wks) and at delivery (33.0 wks), delivery route, delivery indications, APGAR scores, cord pH, and proportion of twins. There was a significant reduction in composite neonatal morbidity < 34 wks in the “rescue steroid” group vs. placebo (42.5% vs. 63.3%, (RR 0.67, 0.54.-0.83, p=0.0002) as well as significantly decreased RDS, ventilator support, and surfactant use. Perinatal mortality and other morbidities were similar in each group. Including all neonates (regardless of GA at delivery) in the analysis still demonstrated a significant reduction in composite morbidity in the “rescue course” group (30.3 vs. 41.7 (RR 0.73, 0.58-0.91, P=.0055) and improvement in other respiratory morbidities, but no other differences in outcome including head size and birth weight.

Conclusions: Administration of a single “rescue course” of ACS before 33 wks improves neonatal outcome without apparent increased risk.

Writing your paperWriting your paper Write the abstract for presentation firstWrite the abstract for presentation first The original protocol should essentially write your Materials and MethodsThe original protocol should essentially write your Materials and Methods

Don’t overstate what you are going to analyze in the paper – your results will Don’t overstate what you are going to analyze in the paper – your results will define thisdefine this

Be sure to state the hypothesis(ses) here.Be sure to state the hypothesis(ses) here. Do the tables and figures next. Do the tables and figures next.

You can then decide what to keep in tabular/figure form and what to put in the You can then decide what to keep in tabular/figure form and what to put in the wording or the results sectionwording or the results section

Demographics firstDemographics first Location of study in the M and M sectionLocation of study in the M and M section Number of patients and duration of study are in the results sectionNumber of patients and duration of study are in the results section

Primary hypothesis data/results nextPrimary hypothesis data/results next Next can be secondary or in temporal orderNext can be secondary or in temporal order

Write the introduction next – keep it briefWrite the introduction next – keep it brief State what the issue isState what the issue is What is knownWhat is known Why you decided to do the studyWhy you decided to do the study What you studiedWhat you studied

DiscussionDiscussion See instructions for structured discussionsSee instructions for structured discussions

Abstract lastAbstract last

IntroductionIntroduction Basic knowledge of subjectBasic knowledge of subject

Induction of labor is an increasingly common practice in the U.S.Induction of labor is an increasingly common practice in the U.S. Remaining questionRemaining question

One question in performing induction is the best method of determining who will One question in performing induction is the best method of determining who will succeedsucceed

Why is it a questionWhy is it a question Failure of induction among certain patients leads to higher c-section ratesFailure of induction among certain patients leads to higher c-section rates

What is currently knownWhat is currently known Currently the best way of determining success is the Bishop scoreCurrently the best way of determining success is the Bishop score

What alternative existsWhat alternative exists Recently some data suggest that Ffn be an indicator of the readiness of the Recently some data suggest that Ffn be an indicator of the readiness of the

uterus for the onset of labor and as such may be a possible indicator of who will uterus for the onset of labor and as such may be a possible indicator of who will have a successful induction of laborhave a successful induction of labor

Why should this be studied/Who says this should be studiedWhy should this be studied/Who says this should be studied ACOG in its practice bulletin has noted that better markers of successful ACOG in its practice bulletin has noted that better markers of successful

induction are neededinduction are needed Or, since this is so commone and the Bishop score only imprecisely measures Or, since this is so commone and the Bishop score only imprecisely measures

success of better markers are neededsuccess of better markers are needed What you decided to doWhat you decided to do

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods Your protocol should basically write this sectionYour protocol should basically write this section General outlineGeneral outline

Type of study – we performed a RCT of chicken soup vs. penicillin for Type of study – we performed a RCT of chicken soup vs. penicillin for the common coldthe common cold

Primary hypothesis – chicken soup is at least as good as penicillinPrimary hypothesis – chicken soup is at least as good as penicillin IRB approval – was obtained from WIRB for all sitesIRB approval – was obtained from WIRB for all sites Eligible subjectsEligible subjects ExclusionsExclusions RandomizationRandomization End pointsEnd points Data safety monitoring committeeData safety monitoring committee

Adverse eventsAdverse events Interim analysesInterim analyses

StatisticsStatistics Sample sizeSample size

Based on what premisesBased on what premises Type of statisticsType of statistics Don’t say what you studied unless it is not included in the results section or Don’t say what you studied unless it is not included in the results section or

unless you need to define the end points – e.g. composite morbidity.unless you need to define the end points – e.g. composite morbidity. Software used for statisticsSoftware used for statistics

ResultsResults Duration, datesDuration, dates Location(s)Location(s) Describe population – high risk for ?, private Describe population – high risk for ?, private

practice, middle west, etcpractice, middle west, etc How many studied, whyHow many studied, why

Flow sheet if RCTFlow sheet if RCT How many in each groupHow many in each group DemographicsDemographics Primary end point outcomePrimary end point outcome Secondary end point(s) outcomeSecondary end point(s) outcome Temporal orderTemporal order

Guidelines for Specific Types of ReportsGuidelines for Specific Types of Reports

Trial and research guidelines Trial and research guidelines The following guidelines must be adhered to when formulating the study. Upon submitting the manuscript, The following guidelines must be adhered to when formulating the study. Upon submitting the manuscript, authors are to indicate on the Submission Checklist the type of trial/research used.authors are to indicate on the Submission Checklist the type of trial/research used.

• • Randomized controlled trial.Randomized controlled trial. Authors are to consult the revised Authors are to consult the revised CONSORT statement CONSORT statement (Moher D, Schulz KF, (Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the Altman D, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-91). A flowchart as a figure must be quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-91). A flowchart as a figure must be submitted in the manuscript. submitted in the manuscript.

• • Meta-analysis or systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Meta-analysis or systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Authors are to consult the Authors are to consult the QUOROM statementQUOROM statement (Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, for the QUOROM Group. (Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, for the QUOROM Group. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-1900). Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-1900).

• • Meta-analysis or systematic review of observational studies.Meta-analysis or systematic review of observational studies. Authors are to consult the MOOSE Authors are to consult the MOOSE guidelines (Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al, for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines (Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al, for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [MOOSE] group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA [MOOSE] group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12).2000;283:2008-12).

• • Diagnostic tests.Diagnostic tests. Authors are to consult the STARD Initiative (Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al., for Authors are to consult the STARD Initiative (Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al., for the STARD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD the STARD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD

• • Health economics.Health economics. In addition to the general instructions for authors and other guidelines applicable to their In addition to the general instructions for authors and other guidelines applicable to their study (eg, CONSORT guidelines for a randomized, controlled trial), authors of health economics manuscripts study (eg, CONSORT guidelines for a randomized, controlled trial), authors of health economics manuscripts should consider the following issues specific to such studies and address them in the manuscript and/or should consider the following issues specific to such studies and address them in the manuscript and/or submission letter. A health economics checklist is to be included with the general manuscript checklist at the submission letter. A health economics checklist is to be included with the general manuscript checklist at the time of submission. time of submission.

Flow SheetsFlow Sheets

In preparing a study, don’t forget to keep In preparing a study, don’t forget to keep track of all patients approached and eligibletrack of all patients approached and eligible EligibleEligible ApproachedApproached DeclinedDeclined ConsentedConsented

Withdrawn – reasonsWithdrawn – reasons Lost to follow up – reasonsLost to follow up – reasons IncludedIncluded

AnalyzedAnalyzed Not analyzed.Not analyzed.

Excluded:- Incomplete Data (3)- Withdrawn (5)- Did not meet criteria (3)

Maternal age < 18 yr (1)Diabetic (1)Preeclamptic (1)

289 SubjectsAnalyzed

Normal Salinen = 97

300 Subjects Randomized

5% Dextrose in Normal Saline

n = 94

10% Dextrose in Normal Saline

n = 98

Neonatal Datan = 85

Neonatal Datan = 82

Neonatal Datan = 81

RCT of Dextrose and its effect on laborRCT of Dextrose and its effect on laborShrivistava et alShrivistava et al

Structured DiscussionStructured Discussion

• Statement of principal findings

• Strengths and weaknesses of the study

• Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other

studies, discussing particularly any differences in

results

• Meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and

implications for clinicians or policymakers

• Unanswered questions and future research

Frequent FlawsFrequent Flaws Inappropriate conclusionsInappropriate conclusions Lack of power analysis or sufficient sample sizeLack of power analysis or sufficient sample size Discontinued early without appropriate Discontinued early without appropriate

reasonsreasons Improper use of statisticsImproper use of statistics Overstating the conclusions from secondary Overstating the conclusions from secondary

analysesanalyses Retrospective manipulation of hypothesis to Retrospective manipulation of hypothesis to

match study resultsmatch study results Poor English in papers from non-English Poor English in papers from non-English

speaking authorsspeaking authors

Choosing a JournalChoosing a Journal

AudienceAudience Subspecialty, generalSubspecialty, general

PrestigePrestige Study’s ImpactStudy’s Impact Likelihood of acceptanceLikelihood of acceptance Connections??Connections?? Impact Factor, Citation IndexImpact Factor, Citation Index

Suggested ReviewersSuggested Reviewers Upon submitting a manuscript, authors are required to provide the Upon submitting a manuscript, authors are required to provide the

name, address, and e-mail address of at least 3 potential reviewers for name, address, and e-mail address of at least 3 potential reviewers for editorial consideration. Suggested reviewers may include anyone editorial consideration. Suggested reviewers may include anyone knowledgeable in the area of study presented. Authors should not knowledgeable in the area of study presented. Authors should not knowingly recommend as a potential reviewer a person with a knowingly recommend as a potential reviewer a person with a potential conflict of interest, either financial or personal (positive or potential conflict of interest, either financial or personal (positive or negative bias), such as a mentor or close associate. Additionally, the negative bias), such as a mentor or close associate. Additionally, the authors should not recommend any individuals located at the same authors should not recommend any individuals located at the same institution as any of the authors.institution as any of the authors.

Other factsOther facts Editors variably use suggested reviewersEditors variably use suggested reviewers Authors may ask certain reviewer(s) not be usedAuthors may ask certain reviewer(s) not be used Average acceptance of a reviewer invitation is about 60%Average acceptance of a reviewer invitation is about 60% Junior reviewers provide better reviews than senior reviewersJunior reviewers provide better reviews than senior reviewers Quality of the review is taken into account in editor’s decisionQuality of the review is taken into account in editor’s decision Ask advice from an expert in the particular area and an expert in journal Ask advice from an expert in the particular area and an expert in journal

editingediting

HOW ARE PAPERS JUDGED?HOW ARE PAPERS JUDGED?

SCIENTIFIC MERIT: Quality of the science, adequacy of the sample size, hypothesis SCIENTIFIC MERIT: Quality of the science, adequacy of the sample size, hypothesis adequately stated and tested, and interpretation of the resultsadequately stated and tested, and interpretation of the results

ORIGINALITY: Is the paper addressing a question not studied, or inadequately studied in ORIGINALITY: Is the paper addressing a question not studied, or inadequately studied in the past?the past?

IMPORTANCE: Do the findings of the paper have significance in answering an important IMPORTANCE: Do the findings of the paper have significance in answering an important

clinical question; either with immediate applicability, or in directing future research clinical question; either with immediate applicability, or in directing future research which will do so? which will do so?

READERSHIP INTEREST: Will this article be of interest to a majority of AJOG readers?READERSHIP INTEREST: Will this article be of interest to a majority of AJOG readers?

QUALITY OF THE MANUSCRIPT: Is the Abstract sound & precise; Introduction brief & QUALITY OF THE MANUSCRIPT: Is the Abstract sound & precise; Introduction brief & suitable; Results clearly presented with appropriate tables/figures; Discussion suitable; Results clearly presented with appropriate tables/figures; Discussion through & sound, Statistics & References appropriate, and is the overall paper well-through & sound, Statistics & References appropriate, and is the overall paper well-written & understandable?written & understandable?

Authors Should Also Authors Should Also Be ReviewersBe Reviewers

Ethical Imperative to be a ReviewerEthical Imperative to be a Reviewer

If you want your papers reviewed, then you If you want your papers reviewed, then you should be willing to return the favorshould be willing to return the favor

If you want fair, constructive, authoritative If you want fair, constructive, authoritative reviews you should provide this kind of reviewreviews you should provide this kind of review

ExposureExposure You learn how to write a paper by doing You learn how to write a paper by doing

reviews and seeing what others do right and reviews and seeing what others do right and wrongwrong

You share the knowledge you have acquired You share the knowledge you have acquired with others writing paperswith others writing papers

Ultimately patient outcome is improved.Ultimately patient outcome is improved.

PearlsPearls Oversell your abstract, undersell your paperOversell your abstract, undersell your paper Get advice from someone who has had abstracts and papers written and acceptedGet advice from someone who has had abstracts and papers written and accepted Establish authorship when you design your study – both who and order of authorshipEstablish authorship when you design your study – both who and order of authorship Have someone outside the group of authors read your abstract/paper before Have someone outside the group of authors read your abstract/paper before

submissionsubmission Don’t forget to involve people in the department (early in the study) who are experts Don’t forget to involve people in the department (early in the study) who are experts

in the areain the area Don’t oversell results of secondary analysesDon’t oversell results of secondary analyses Don’t succumb to pressures real or perceived to include authors not really eligibleDon’t succumb to pressures real or perceived to include authors not really eligible Write you abstract first, then the paper, then do the presentationWrite you abstract first, then the paper, then do the presentation Read the Information for Authors thoroughlyRead the Information for Authors thoroughly Do your literature search first when designing the study, intermittently during the Do your literature search first when designing the study, intermittently during the

study and again when writing the abstract/paper – don’t forget clinicaltrials.govstudy and again when writing the abstract/paper – don’t forget clinicaltrials.gov Always have all authors read and approve abstract/paper before submitting and all Always have all authors read and approve abstract/paper before submitting and all

revisions as wellrevisions as well Brevity reigns!Brevity reigns! Don’t hesitate to call Journal staff or write editors with questionsDon’t hesitate to call Journal staff or write editors with questions

Prepublication consults are good things!Prepublication consults are good things!

Inappropriate ActsInappropriate Acts

FabricationFabrication FalsificationFalsification PlagiarismPlagiarism Repetitive publicationRepetitive publication Violation of government rules of research Violation of government rules of research Failure to retain original dataFailure to retain original data Gift or honorary authorshipGift or honorary authorship Conflict of interestConflict of interest Order of authorshipOrder of authorship

Publishing Statistics

Five Year ComparisonFive Year Comparison Original Research Articles Received Original Research Articles Received

2003 - 20072003 - 2007

992

932898

856

997

750

800

850

900

950

1000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS

Manuscripts processed in 2007Manuscripts processed in 2007

Original Research ManuscriptsOriginal Research Manuscripts

Received in 2007 = 997 Received in 2007 = 997

Decisions made in 2007Decisions made in 2007

Accepted = 287 (29%)Accepted = 287 (29%)

Declined = 718 (71%)Declined = 718 (71%)

Acceptance Rates Regular Acceptance Rates Regular Non-Society ArticlesNon-Society Articles43

37

3229 29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Assign Reviewers/Reject without Review Assign Reviewers/Reject without Review (5 days)(5 days)

Reviews Completed to Editors Decision Reviews Completed to Editors Decision (37 days)(37 days)

Revisions by Authors Revisions by Authors (44 days)(44 days) Decision on Revisions Decision on Revisions (5 days)(5 days)

Total days from submission to INITIAL Acceptance = (92.6 Total days from submission to INITIAL Acceptance = (92.6 days)days)

Editorial Review TimeEditorial Review Time

Current Status (cont.)Current Status (cont.)

Publication ProcessPublication Process Summary Production (26 days)Summary Production (26 days) Summary approval by author (18 days)Summary approval by author (18 days) Summary approval by editor (5 days)Summary approval by editor (5 days) Final Acceptance (released to production) to Final Acceptance (released to production) to

Publication (148 days / 4.9 months)Publication (148 days / 4.9 months)

Total days from submission to publication Total days from submission to publication

(316 days / 10 months)(316 days / 10 months)

Reviewers Time AllotedReviewers Time Alloted

Invitation to ReviewInvitation to Review Time allowed to respond – 7 daysTime allowed to respond – 7 days Reminder – 5 daysReminder – 5 days Uninvite – past 7 daysUninvite – past 7 days

Perform the reviewPerform the review Time allowed – 14 daysTime allowed – 14 days Reminder – 9-10 daysReminder – 9-10 days Past due – at 14 daysPast due – at 14 days