Publish or Perish

1. SUBMITTED IN HASTE
RETURNED AT LEISURE…….
WRITING AN ACADEMIC MANUSCRIPT

2. In India, less than 30% of Masters Theses are published*
Even good theses are never sent for publication;
72% of residents felt publications require a lot of effort**
*Indian J Opthalmol 2010;58:101-4 **Indian Pediatr. 2015 Mar 8;52(3):252-3 °J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015 Feb; 65(1): 69–70.
Residents feel that research is still hidden behind pay-walls
and nobody might read their papers°

3. AUTHOR ROADBLOCKS
• Lack of familiarity
• Not knowing when to
get assistance
• Becoming discouraged
JOURNAL ROADBLOCKS
• Space constraints
• Editorial priorities
• Editorial perspectives
and practices

5. This is how research works!
A new idea is openly discussed, criticised, tested,
accepted or rejected
To publicise your research results
To develop a publications profile…..and to get a job

6. ORIGINALITY
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation”
CONTENT
“What is written without effort is in general read without
pleasure”
SIMPLICITY
“Easy reading is hard writing!”

7. There is no fixed formula, so develop your own style
And there are guidelines………@

8. If you steal from one author it's ; if you steal
from many it's research.
Use “Medical English”*
• Avoid terms such as discovery, love, guarantee, health, money
• Use the word "perform" instead of "do" or "at this point of
time" instead of "now".
• Know the exact meaning of every word you use
*Archive of Oncology 2002;10(3):211.

12. Is a structured summary
150-250 words, read ~ 1 min
Is the USP of your article

13. Journals classify papers using keywords.
4-6 words used terms used repeatedly in the text.
Use Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
@

15. ESTIMATION OF TISSUE AND CREVICULAR FLUID
OXIDATIVE STRESS MARKERS IN REPRODUCTIVE, PERIMENOPAUSAL
AND POST MENOPAUSAL WOMEN WITH CHRONIC PERIODONTITIS.
BACKGROUND
PROBLEM
AIM OF THE STUDY

16. Keep the parts separated.
KISS
600-800 words

17. Description of the study site, material, procedure or
organism
The experimental OR sampling design the protocol for
collecting data
Data analysis

18. DON’T
• Describe every aspect in detail
• Describe wrong methodology
• Miss writing ethical aspects of the research

19. Present your results, WITHOUT interpretation
Report the key results and refer to your figures and
tables as you proceed.
Write concisely and objectively and use past tense

20. Do not reiterate each value from a Figure or Table
Use and over-use of the word "significant“!
Report negative results - they are important!

22. Frequently done badly- A classic “Achilles heel”
The purpose of a Discussion section is to interpret the
results, relating them to previous studies that the author
and other authors have done

23. Did the results provide answers to the hypotheses?
If so, what does this mean for the hypothesis?
If not, do the results suggest an alternative hypothesis?
Do these results agree with what others have shown?
How do these results fit in with results from other studies?
What is the inference from this study?

24. Combine results with discussion.
Report new results
Make sweeping statements
Results are “inconclusive”
Quote ambiguous sources
Forget to tie your work into wider perspective

25. Whenever you draw upon previously published
work, you must acknowledge the source
Avoid references that are difficult to find and not
important to the study

26. Vancouver
Style

27. Harvard
Style

28. The most common yet avoidable reason for journal
rejection is MISMATCH between the manuscript and the
journal aims and scope.

29. There is a hierarchy of journals within each
discipline
A journal’s position in the hierarchy depends on
a number of factors
• Impact Factor
• Citation Index
Aim high but be realistic – and make sure you do
your research on the journal prior to submitting
an article

30. Does the paper fit the standards and scope of the
journal?
Is the research question clear?
Is the study design, methods and analysis appropriate to
the question being studied?
Does the study confirm to ethical guidelines?
Is the conclusion appropriate?

31. There is a 90+ % rejection rate for top journals
REJECTION IS THE NORM, ACCEPTANCE IS THE
EXCEPTION

32. It’s the paper that is rejected- Not you!
Often you get a rejection after review -unless you
have targeted the wrong journal
The reviewers will explain, in detail, why they
rejected the paper
This gives you a basis for improving or changing
the paper and submitting elsewhere

33. • Author behaviour
• Want to publish more
• Boosts ego
• Career prospects
• Wider dissemination
• Reader behaviour
• Want a “single
window” system
• Browsing is crucial
• Quality information
important
• Want to read less
Elsevier study of 36,000 authors (1999-2002) at ALPSP Seminar on “Learning from users” 2003; www.alpsp.org