dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain

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