Download - What the editors want
Gede Pardianto, MD, PhD
Editor and peer-reviewer for 44 published Scopus and PubMed-indexed international journal’s articels (until October 2017)
Eventough this lecture has been boring
Please try not getting bored
So set back, stay calm, relax, and unwind youself
The Legacy: Inscription: Index
Scopus
PubMed
MEDLINE
US National Library of Medicine (NLM)
National Institute of Health (NIH)
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
Be sure to write your name and your work on those long lasting “inscriptions”
Think like a stricker
Think what the goal keeper thinks!
THE ORDER OF A SUBMISSION
System
Plagiarism Check
Editor-in-chief
Consulting Editor
Peer-reviewers
Editor-in-chief Decision: Rejection or revision
Authors Revision
Editors
Editor-in-chief Decision: Acceptance or further revision
Authors, Editors, Linguist, Type-writer
Authors Final approval
Type-writer, Editor-in-chief
Publication
SYSTEM: SUBMISSION CHECKLIST
Original manuscript
Title page
Structured abstract
Synopsis of article*
Illustrative materials
Authors and their affiliations
Assignment of Copyright Form, signed by all authors
Conflicts of Interest information is sought for all authors
Acknowledgement of financial and propietary interest
Acknowledgement of public and propietary support
Manuscripts will not be reviewed until all these items have been submitted
SYSTEM: ANTI-PLAGIARISM
Anti-plagiarism software is used to check for re-use of materials
Avoid plagiarism and inadvertent lack of citations
Use citations to your benefit
Cite frequently in order to avoid any plagiarism
SPECIAL ATTENTION
Editor-in-chief, Consulting editor, Peer-reviewers are very busy persons
Attract their interest
The Authors should provide the Editors to spot easily the main findings by leafing through the manuscript
What was known What do we know prior to this study?
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS
EDITOR IN CHIEF
System-checked manuscript comes to Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief gives task to Consulting Editor for further process
CONSULTING EDITOR
Consulting Editor is required to check if the manuscript meets the journals AIMs and SCOPE
If a paper does not meet the aims and scope,Consulting Editor includes comments in the ‘Consulting Editor comments’ box to explain why and then gives mark as ‘Does not meet aims and scope, do not proceed’
This will then send the paper back to our editorial staff
CONSULTING EDITOR
If a paper does meet the aims and scope of the journal, Consulting Editor can continue on to select the suggested reviewers
In the details column there will either be a link to the LIST of Peer-Reviewers CV or a link to view their papers on PubMed
PEER-REVIEWERs
Scopus-indexed authors
Viewed-papers in PubMed
Particular area experts
External peer-review with a minimum of two comprehensive sets of narrative comments and two numerical scores are required
TITLE
Clearly describes the article
Some need a running header (shortened title)
Is it original?
AUTHORS INFORMATION
Name (First, Middle, Surname, Suffix)
Designation
Institution
Address, City, Country
Email for Corresponding Author
AUTHORS
The number of authors is limited to 8 for a single-center study and 12 for a multicenter study
If more authors are include, each must sign a statement confirming that he or she fulfills the authorship criteria
ABSTRACTS
A good abstract will encourage selection and reading of the full paper
Editors and Peer-reviewers: Many editors screen and reject articles by reading only the abstract
Peer-reviewers are often invited with a link only to the abstract
Authors: Because the abstract is so important all authors must approve it
ABSTRACT
Up to 250-300 words STRUCTURED Abstract
Reflects the content of the article
Allowing the readers to get a quick glance of what the contents of the article include
Is the content appropriate for the journal?
Abstract: Purpose
Indicate the question that the study answers
Or, indicate the hypothesis that it tests
Is it the work important for general readers?
Abstract: Setting
Where the study took place
Does this place enable the readers to assess the study’s applicability to their practice?
Abstract: Methods
Study design
Randomization and masking
Prospective or retrospective
Patient identification
Intervention procedure
Measurements
Is it appropriate and adequate to answer the research question?
Abstract: Results
Outcomes
Measurements
Data should include the level of statistical significance
Are they credible?
Abstract: Conclusions
Do they answer the research question?
Is the message clear?
Abstract: Beyond
Review, Techniques and Case Reports Should be preface by a 150-word DESCRIPTIVE
Abstract
Letter to the Editor Do not require an abstract Submitted within 6 weeks of publication Should not exceed 300 words, 1 figure or table, and 5
references It can not include more than 3 authors
Correspondence Do not require an abstract Should not exceed 500 words, 2 figures or tables, and
8 references
KEYWORDS
3–5 keywords
For easier to find your article
One of the most important elements in the process of discovery
SYNOPSIS
Describe the main finding of the paper
Not duplicate the abstract conclusion
Should be no more than 30 words
INTRODUCTION
Rationale for study (need and significance)
Summarizes relevant research to provide context, and explains other authors' findings
Describe the novelty of the study
Objective of the study
INTRODUCTION
Brief background for this audience
3-4 paragraphs only
What’s known/not known on research question – citing systematic reviews where possible
Don’t bore readers, editors, reviewers
The research question: State it clearly in last paragraph of introduction Say why the question matters
METHODS
The design is suitable for answering the question
Setting
The sampling is appropriate
Are inclusion and exclusion criteria described?
How representative were they?
Ethical clearance
Meets Declaration of Helsinki
Meets Hospital or Institution Ethical clearance
METHODS
Data collection procedures
Measurements have been described
Data Analysis (Description of statistical test, level of statistical significance and evaluation)
Material and software information (Brand, Manufacturers)
RESULTS
Detail in narrative of the findings
Descriptive quality of figures and tables (if relevant)
Clearly laid out and in a logical sequence
The analysis has been conducted appropriately
Is it well presented?
DISCUSSION
Findings compared and contrasted with relevant literature
The results support or contradict previous theories
Limitations of the study
Clinical implications of the study
Future directions of the study
Recommended topics for further study
IMRaD structure for research papers
Introduction: why ask this research question?
Methods: what did I do?
Results: what did I find?
And
Discussion: what might it mean? Hill AB. The reasons for writing. BMJ 1965;4: 870
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Describe clearly
PREVIOUS PRESENTATION
Describe clearly
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Describe clearly
TEXT
Clear concise language
American spelling (all components of a manuscript must be in English)
Ensure tables and figures are cited
Do not punctuate abbreviations eg, et al, ie
Spell out acronyms in the first instance in the abstract and paper
Word counts are not specified
Generic drug names are used in text, tables, and figures
Suppliers of drugs, equipment, and other brand-name material are credited in parentheses (company, name, city, state, country)
If molecular sequences are used, provide a statement that the data have been deposited in a publicly accessible database, eg, GenBank, and indicate the database accession number
TEXT
Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print [a cliché]
Never use a long word where a short one will do
If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out
Never use the passive where you can use the active
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent
FIGURE AND TABLE
Submit as separate files and also as one combined file
Submit figures as JPG files
All figures and tables must be in English
Number consecutively
Provide a descriptive heading/legend
Place abbreviations immediately below the table
Use superscript a, b, c… as identifiers
Graphics downloaded from Web pages are NOT acceptable
Submit multi-panel figures, ie with parts labeled a,b,c,d, as one file
CITATION
Cite references sequentially in text, tables, and legends by superscript Arabic numerals with no parentheses, eg, 1 or 3,4 or 10–15
Numbers should be placed after punctuation marks, eg, .3,4
Do not use Microsoft Word’s footnote/endnotes function to build the reference list as this can introduce errors during the typesetting process
REFERENCES
Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their references
Compliance with journal format (Vancouver and AMA style)
The minimal number of references should be 10 20 will be better Mostly Scopus-indexed journal 85% of them should be recent (published during the
last 10 years, with the majority during the last 5 years)
Abbreviate journal names according to the Index Medicus system
REFERENCES
Authors’ name
Title
Journal name (abbreviated according to the Index Medicus system
Years
Volume
Number
Pages
Use “et al.” only when a paper has more than 4 authors, and only after listing the first 3 authors
REFERENCES: Journal article
Pardianto G. Recent awareness and consideration of intraocular pressure fluctuation during eye surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(3):695. (D. Gologorsky and HW. Flynn Jr. Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA – Clin Ophthalmol DOI 10.2147/OPTH.S104475)
Pardianto G, Moeloek N, Reveny J, Wage S, Satari I, Sembiring R, Srisamran N (2013) Retinal thickness changes after phacoemulsification. Clin Ophthalmol7:2207–2214 (L. Pierro, L. Iuliano, M. Gagliardi, M. Codenotti , F. Bandello. Department of Ophthalmology, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele ScientificInstitute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy - Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol DOI 10.1007/s00417-014-2665-8)
REFERENCES
Are they up to date and relevant?
Are there any glaring omissions?
FIGURE LEGENDS
Should be included in the manuscript file, following the references
RECOMMENDATION
Not appropriate
Reject
Accept after major revisions
Accept after minor revisions
Accept as it is
Specific reasons for decision
EDITOR IN CHIEF
The editorial decision-maker, often the Editor-in-Chief, will review the submitted manuscript, peer-reviewer comments and scores, and conflict of interest declarations before making their first editorial decision
This may be to reject the paper, return it to peer-reviewers for further consideration, or return it to the author directly for further points to be addressed.
They may also make the decision of accept the paper for publication.
NOTIFICATIONS
We receive your paper
Your paper is now being reviewed
Your paper is rejected or accepted
Your paper is now published
Reasons reviewers reject manuscripts
Inappropriate or incomplete statistics Overinterpretation of results Inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation Sample too small or biased Text difficult to follow Insufficient problem statement [research question] Inaccurate or inconsistent data reported Incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the
literature Insufficient data presented Defective tables or figures
PROOF
Authors will receive the typeset page proofs for approval
Check that the authors have answered all the editor’s queries
Further authors’ corrections should be minimal and absolutely necessary
The authors should mark the adjustments clearly in the text and margins, and keep a copy of what the authors send to the editor
Ensure all authors sign and return the Approval for Publication and final page of Publication Agreement
AUTHORSHIP
Authorship credit should be based on: Substantial contributions to conception and design,
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data Drafting the article or revising it critically for important
intellectual content Final approval of the version to be published Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in
ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general
supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship
INDEXING
Indexation of a journal is considered a reflection of its quality
Indexed journals are considered to be of higher scientific quality as compared to non-indexed journals
Indexing: Scopus
Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings
Delivering a comprehensive overview of the world's research output in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to track, analyze and visualize research
ELSEVIER
Indexing: MEDLINE
MEDLINE is the U.S. National Library of Medicine® (NLM) PREMIER bibliographic database that contains more than 24 million references to journal articles in life sciences with a concentration on biomedicine
A distinctive feature of MEDLINE is that the records are indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®).
MEDLINE is the online counterpart to MEDLARS® (MEDicalLiterature Analysis and Retrieval System) that originated in 1964
The great majority of journals are selected for MEDLINE based on the recommendation of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee (LSTRC), an National Institutes of Health (NIH)-chartered advisory committee of external experts analogous to the committees that review NIH grant applications
Indexing: PubMed
PubMed comprises more than 27 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health(NIH)
Indexing: Embase
Embase is a highly versatile, multipurpose and up-to-date biomedical database.
It covers the most important international biomedical literature from 1947 to the present day and all articles are indexed in depth using Elsevier's Life Science thesaurus Embase Indexing and Emtree®.
The entire database is also conveniently available on multiple platforms.
ORCID
ORCID provides researchers with a unique identifier that can be kept throughout their career
It can be used in publications and grant applications
ORCID distinguishes between researchers with similar names, and helps ensure that publications are attributed and recorded correctly
It also helps researchers to comply with funders’ open access requirements
Having an ORCID iD will support the discovery of your research and publications
Impact Factor
The Impact Factor (IF) is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) year by the total number of articles published in the two previous years
A Journal Impact Factor of 2.5 means that, on average, the articles published one or two years ago have been cited two and a half times