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