publish or perish writing and publishing scientific ... · publish or perish writing and publishing...

PUBLISH OR PERISH Writing and Publishing Scientific Manuscripts

www.jiasociety.orgJournal of the International AIDS Society

Workshop Outline

1. Journal of the International AIDS Society (JIAS)

2. How to write a scientific manuscript

3. Pre-submission do’s and don’ts4. What happens after submission5. Editors’ panel discussion


• Quality

• Originality

• Good methods

• A good fit to the journal

• No trouble

What editors want ☺


Writing & Science

From a scientific point of view –

Results that are not published means the research did not take place


It’s all about the question…

QuestionQuestionAnalysis of the data

Design and implementation

of research

Discussion of the findings


Manuscript structure

Title/title pageAbstract

IntroductionMethods and materials

ResultsDiscussionReferences

Tables and Figures

What is the most important part of a scientific article?...


Title

Title

Abstract

Main

text

The part most often readOften the only part read

ShortSpecific

RepresentativeInformative

Effect of multiple micronutrient supplementation on survival of HIV-infected children in Uganda: a randomised controlled trial

Ndeezi et al, JIAS 2010

cohort

setting design

intervention outcome


Abstract

• Main problems encountered by editors:– Inconsistent – Incomplete

• Brief summary • Complete

– Background– Experimental design– Major findings– Conclusion

• Stand alone• Consistent with the paper

Title

Abstract

Maintext


Introduction: What was your question?

• Background – context for understanding the question

• Problem – nature and importance of problem

• Question – underlying research

• Forecasting – mini-summary for readers

Problem: authors write as if readers know as much as they do

Funnel-shaped, from general to specific


Methods/Materials: How did you examine your hypothesis?

• Validates your study• Use subheadings to organize this

section if needed• Details on ethical approval and patient

consent• Detailed enough to allow replication

– Procedures, materials used, data collected, data analysis and statistical methods

• Past tense• No results yet!


Results: What did you find?

• What is the best way to present your data: table, figure or text?– Avoid repetition

• Present only the results relevant to your hypothesis

• Relate results to methods, but do not describe them again

• Do not discuss yet!

!!! Careful with the word ‘significant’


Figures: Different figures for different messages

Change over time

Source: UNAIDS/WHO, 2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

Adult HIVprevalence (%)High estimate

Low estimate

• Only when helpful to convey information• Should be understandable without text• Choose type based on the kind of data you have


Figures: Different figures for different messages

• A bar graph would work for a different type of data:

Source: UNAIDS/WHO, 2006

Ratios


Discussion: What do your findings mean?

• Do not repeat results, but should be based on the results!

• Discuss the importance and implications of your findings

• Describe any limitations of the study• Conclude with the key points• Did the results answer your

question?


Criteria for evaluating qualitative analyses

• Significance of the data set; contextualization and production conditions

• Sufficiency of the data• Coverage of the analysis• Transparency and repeatability of the

analysis


Which section of a manuscript usually contains the most errors?


References

• Credibility– Knowledge and awareness of the field– Validates your claims and arguments

• How to write references:– Pay attention to the ‘Instructions for Authors’of your selected journal


Cover letter

• Editors read the cover letter ☺

• Statements of manuscript submitted to one journal only and not previously published.

• Your chance…– to highlight the importance of your study– to explain why manuscript of interest to

journal


deadly sins

• Carelessness• Redundancy• Unfair authorship• Undeclared conflicts• Subject violations• Plagiarism• Fraud


To do and not to do in manuscript submission

Elise Langdon-Neuner


Choosing a Journal

Traditional list

• Journal’s prestige (Impact factor)

• Publication speed

• Circulation


Choosing a journal

• Coverage by abstracting + indexing

• Open access

• Influence

• Cost


High impact factor pros

• Citation rates more strongly influenced by journal IF than by merits of the study(JAMA 2002)

• Reviews might help improve paper for resubmission


High impact factor cons

• Acceptance rates of high impact journals often below 10%

• Delay if rejected


How easy is it to get published?

0102030405060708090

100

Acc

epta

nce

rate

BMJ JAMA JIAS J InfectDis

AIDS PlosOne

Journal(from 2009)


Practical approach

• Look at article• Subject matter—of national/international interest• Who will be interested• Reference list

• Look at journals• Types of topic• Author instructions for scope• Editorial board• New journal-will it survive?

• Ask colleagues

Have a second choice ready


A website that might help

• http://www.biosemanitcs.org/jane

• This website searches for journals in the field

• You insert your abstract in the box provided

• The site compares your abstract with articles on Medline and produces a list of possible journals for your article

http://www.biosemanitcs.org/jane


Where are the instructions?

• Instructions to authors: journal webpage

• Examine a recent issue of the journal

• Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals (ICMJE) [www.icmje.org]

• CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) [www.consort- statement.org] NB NEW STATEMENT


Most often ignored instructions

• Word counts

• Reference formats: in-text citations or referencing incorrect

• Tables/figures: inserting in the text rather than at the end of the manuscript or as separate files

• Poor quality: figures/photos or non-standard formats

• Abbreviations: failure to write out the first time they are written in the manuscript

• Photos of patient: lack of consent/confidentiality of body parts


Look out for limitations

in number of • Authors

• Words

• References

• Tables/Figures

• Characters in running title


Format

Check• Format required for manuscript:

Word, pdf, figures included in file/separate

• Structured abstract?• Format for references• Format for figures• Cover letter required


Forms

• The contributions made by each author

• The conflicts of interest of each author

• Also to be included in the manuscript?


Electronic submission

Information needed:

• Authors’ full names, email, MD/PhDs

• Corresponding author’s keywords

• Preferred/non-preferred reviewers + email, addresses


Manuscripts sent back because...

• Authorship/COI form not signed by every author

• No title page, no abstract

• No figure legends

• Incorrect figure/table labels

• Reference order incorrect, usage of et al. in references


Failure to revise and resubmit


Reviewer’s comments

• Comply with as many reviewer requests as possible

• Disagree or explain reasons for non- compliance politely and well argued


Categorising comments

• Difference of opinion irresolvable

• Request impossible

• Request possible but impracticable

• Difference of interpretation

• Request acceptable


Replying to reviewers’ comments

• Point-by-point reply

• Highlight the changes you have made clearly

• Keep your reply short and to the point

• Answer reviewers’ questions in the manuscript

—not only in your reply to reviewer’s comments


Prior publication

• Key is whether prior publication was work in progress or completed work

• Congress abstracts, posters, proceedings = work in progress

• Eprints?

• Posting trial results on a clinical trial registry?

NB: FDA Amendment Act

• http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/cgi/collection/mwt

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/cgi/collection/mwt


Editorial black box

Online submission

Initial decision by Editors

Reviewed by at least 2 selected experts

Accept

Revision

Reject

Published in JIAS - open access

Revision reviewed

Reject

Mentoring

Mentoring


that you always wanted to ask an editor

YOUR questions

What editors want?

What are the reasons for instant rejection?

What are the reasons for rejection after revision?


Editor’s checklist upon submision

• Objective • Scientific importance • Originality and novelty• Validity• Presentation quality


Common reasons for instant rejection

Journals have a duty to avoid wasting referee time and undue delays in responding to authors

x Not within Journal’s scope

x Manuscript type unacceptable

x Ignores instructions to authors

x Major methodological weakness

x Clear ethical problems

x No clear hypotheses / objective

x Incorrect analysis & conclusion

x Lack of Statistical analysis

x Nothing new


Editors’ decisions depend on:

o Importance, originality

o Reviewers’ concerns

o Fatal flaws

o Journal Philosophy

o Space available

o The quality of the competition

o Editorial work required


The Balance between Innovation and Rigour

The perfect paper has important new ideas backed up by sound data from thoroughly validated methods.

In real papers there is a trade-off between innovation and quality of data.

Good luck!


How did we do?

• Please take a minute to fill out our evaluation form.

• Many thanks for your participation.


http://www.emwa.org/, click journal, then free sample copy of TWS


Editors' concerns I need to be aware of

• Ghostwriters

• Conflicts of interest

• Prior/duplicate/salami publication

publish or perish writing and publishing scientific ... · publish or perish writing and publishing...

Documents