Dr Anil Jain MS, MAMS,FRCS             EditorIndian Journal of Orthopaedics               &  Professor of Orthopaedics Uni...
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 orre...
What is the best paper – to beaccepted Well methodically performed study Well presented to be understood by --- Reviewe...
Who rejects ? Editor - A big no Your premise in the manuscript should be supported by the    peers   Editors job- to se...
Approach to a manuscript
Acceptance rate We receive 750/yr We publish about 90 Acceptance rate – 12-15% Not rejected because of lack of space ...
What can be done to improveacceptance Minimum must for write up
Publications – which manuscriptpasses editor’s scrutiny Addressed lacunae in the literature Clear research question Var...
Golden rule The acceptance depends on the rigour of planning and conduction of the study Well planned Well conducted W...
Before writing paper must read the Guide( instructions ) to Authors be familiar with the   contents, style carefully
Introduction- 500-700 words.Background -  Nature of problem  Current state of knowledge and lacunae in the knowledge  • Re...
Materials and methodsMost common cause of rejection Detailed disclosure- study can be repeated Complete details of any n...
Experimental work   Experimental procedure controls   Why this procedure variables being measured   Any material used m...
Clinical study Demographic data Period of time Where was it done Design of the study. Number of pts Power study - ho...
 inclusion and exclusion criteria? If randomization, how Tests and outcome scores and why? Are tests and scores - vali...
Clinical study  Followup evaluation – any specific method  Accurate recording of the data  Approval of IRB or ethics co...
 Use percentages carefully. Identify patients lost to follow-up or have died with  reasons. Are the results relating to...
Results Straightforward and clearly presented Relevant and representative Appropriate use of tables and figures . Illu...
Results Figure & table is not a substitute of text.     Avoid – repetition of data in text, figures, tables  Confusion w...
Discussion  Evaluate the meaning of your results in term of   original research question and point out a   biological dif...
Discussion It includes    Summarize the major finding    Describe the possible problem with the method used    Compare...
Abstract200-250 words Most commonly read Challenging to concise Structured or not structured Purpose of study Brief s...
Title   Name of the (organism) studied   Particular aspect or system studied   Variable manipulated   “Should summariz...
References Reference is a foundation Should be collected before starting the study and not  as after thought From   St...
References In the text Should write as (Gribb 1977) or Gribb (1977) “Do not separate name & data” If more than one au...
 References are listed as - Harvard method Vancouver methodHarvard method Cited as author name &year of publication in...
Table  Do not repeat information  New information  Number the table  Give title of the table
Figures  Graphs, Histogram, Illustration  Graph & histogram – to compare variables  Graph shows continuous   change  H...
Line ofbest fit
Drawing & PhotographIllustrable important   point Composite photo Number them Information on legends Arrow to highligh...
Polishing of an article Important to make a crisp  Remove redundancy  Put a drawer  Give to collegue
Language Complete sentence Correct and precise scientific terminology Abbreviation Each paragraph – must address one i...
Avoid Words never heard of Colloquial speech or slang Abbreviation – except unit of measure Use – past tense
Plagiarism  Use of other’s work, ideas, images without citation  Representation 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
-A request for revision viewed positively-Manuscript is publishable-Authors should therefore view with optimism
Common Reasons for revisionrequests- Minor faults in methodology- Minor inaccuracies in data- Inconsistencies in data- Inc...
Common Reasons for revision requests  - Faulty deductions  - Data do not support conclusions  - Excessive data or text (i....
Resubmit Revised Manuscript- Resubmit revised manuscript within time- Each point must be answered and listed systematicall...
General Rule General rule is – Editors and reviewers are always right. if you think they are not correct author may disagr...
Good revision• Reply all comments• Underline changes• Enter in the table• Approve the changes already done• See images• Gi...
Need to be careful while revising It is easier to reject if author does not answer or is  aggressive in language of revis...
Decision on case report New information about a rare condition New or improved method of diagnosis and treatment Should...
Case reports not accepted Rare , unusual , but obvious diagnosis and established    treatment   Just rarity – not prefer...
Case reports sometimes accepted Reader will benefit from awareness article, quality of  review, educational material Tim...
Why rejected Study is not methodically conducted Retrospective thought of making a manuscript after seeing few cases
Why rejected Not written well – Not clear what is the study how done – I can’t repeat the study How saying – something...
Exercise of editorial decisions To present your work- Crisp presentation Concise Present in a manner that it is read ...
Editors Are not hostile to you To help you – to bring best out of your good work Do not get any benefit Do for the lov...
Take Home Message- Authors should use the editor’s and reviewer’s  comments to try to improve their manuscript, even if  i...
Publication is important your effort should be known to others beyond your life To be useful to others to alleviate pain...
Stretegies An issue on Scientific communication Covered – discussed all types of articles. Case series , review , case ...
Symposium on research methods Levels of evidence Case series Case control study Systematic review or meta analysis RCT
Why research is important ? Editorials on need for research Perspective articles talking about Global research scenerio...
Who is the best reviewerPeer 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 article No article is rejected if tryin...
Thank you very much for kind attention
 Thanks very much indeed
Original article Subject – research question Methodological conducted Trying to address some issue
Review article Original article – 196 Case report -   206 Review article – 41 – rejected largely Letter to editor - 11
What editor think Most of time we solicit the article when a thematic  issue is planned. Ask to address the specific iss...
Quality of review article Specific purpose of the review Source and method of citation search identified Explicit guide...
Quality of review article-2 Was the information systematically integrated or  pooled Summary of pertinent findings provi...
Guidelines for reading reviews Question and method addressed Comprehensive searched to include articles Method used to ...
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 - 297 More manuscripts are casemost of time                     Author , reviewers – spe...
Type of manuscripts Original – case series, RCT or case control studies Review articles – meta analysis or systematic re...
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Dr anil jain paper acceptance in index journal  tips and tricks dr. anil.k.jain
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

951 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
6 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
951
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
40
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. Dr Anil Jain MS, MAMS,FRCS EditorIndian Journal of Orthopaedics & Professor of Orthopaedics University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi
  2. 2. Thanks very much indeed To OSSAP and Organising team For inviting to deliver this lecture
  3. 3. Why this topic?Why people do not write?• tedious process• writing takes time•Authors are uncertain – whether accepted orrejected•Once rejected- phase of dejection ( whole exercisewas a waste)•Ideal situation – author know what editor’s thinkbefore decidingVery little rejection
  4. 4. What is the best paper – to beaccepted Well methodically performed study Well presented to be understood by --- Reviewers Editor Peers should support Edited by editors
  5. 5. Who rejects ? Editor - A big no Your premise in the manuscript should be supported by the peers Editors job- to see If peers are competent to review the manuscript If peers have missed any important issue If peer has any conflict of interest If everything is good Editors to remove redundancy Make it more presentable
  6. 6. Approach to a manuscript
  7. 7. Acceptance rate We receive 750/yr We publish about 90 Acceptance rate – 12-15% Not rejected because of lack of space But Because they are not delivering message
  8. 8. What can be done to improveacceptance Minimum must for write up
  9. 9. Publications – which manuscriptpasses editor’s scrutiny Addressed lacunae in the literature Clear research question Variables to test research question How results are evaluated Results valid or not ( significance) Conclusion the same as research question
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. Before writing paper must read the Guide( instructions ) to Authors be familiar with the contents, style carefully
  12. 12. Introduction- 500-700 words.Background - Nature of problem Current state of knowledge and lacunae in the knowledge • Research hypothesis and predictionStatement of purpose & methodology of study Retrospective or prospective  Qualitative or quantitative data  Meta analysis  Epidemiological length of introduction 25% of length of paper
  13. 13. Materials and methodsMost common cause of rejection Detailed disclosure- study can be repeated Complete details of any new method Measurement undertaken Statistical analysis sensibly
  14. 14. Experimental work  Experimental procedure controls  Why this procedure variables being measured  Any material used manufacturer name  Well known procedure give reference  Modified procedure give in detail
  15. 15. Clinical study Demographic data Period of time Where was it done Design of the study. Number of pts Power study - how many patients would be required to answer the question with statistical significance
  16. 16.  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,
  17. 17. Clinical study  Followup evaluation – any specific method  Accurate recording of the data  Approval of IRB or ethics committee  Informed consent  Animal studies – approved of institutional animal welfare committee  Statistical method – all test used increases or decreased (P value)
  18. 18.  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 section Need not to be too long 500-750 words.
  19. 19. Results Straightforward and clearly presented Relevant and representative Appropriate use of tables and figures . Illustrative radiographs - appropriate number and quality . Facts and figures should match with those in M&M Specifically describe the data with statistician . Give p value in bracket.
  20. 20. Results Figure & table is not a substitute of text.  Avoid – repetition of data in text, figures, tables  Confusion with bilateral procedure  Chose graph – suitable for your information  Decimal places  Hospitalization was 10.39 days average blood transfusion was 340.69ml.
  21. 21. 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.
  22. 22. Discussion It includes  Summarize the major finding  Describe the possible problem with the method used  Compare results with the previous work  Discuss the clinical and scientific implication  Suggest further work  Errors in your study  Succinct conclusion Avoid – repetition of data result section Preferential citing of previous work
  23. 23. Abstract200-250 words Most commonly read Challenging to concise Structured or not structured Purpose of study Brief statement of what was done What was found What concluded Should written after entire manuscript
  24. 24. Title Name of the (organism) studied Particular aspect or system studied Variable 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
  25. 25. References Reference is a foundation Should be collected before starting the study and not as after thought From  Standard text book or monograph  Well accepted and stable electronic sources  no from Abstract or submitted article
  26. 26. References In the text Should 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.)
  27. 27.  References are listed as - Harvard method Vancouver methodHarvard method Cited as author name &year of publication in bracket. in references as alphabetically.Vancouver method Reference consecutively as appear in text cited by numeral in bracket
  28. 28. Table  Do not repeat information  New information  Number the table  Give title of the table
  29. 29. Figures  Graphs, Histogram, Illustration  Graph & histogram – to compare variables  Graph shows continuous change  Histogram shows discrete variable  Do not plot unrelated trend on one graph
  30. 30. Line ofbest fit
  31. 31. Drawing & PhotographIllustrable important point Composite photo Number them Information on legends Arrow to highlight finding Journal – neither a photo album nor testing the integrity of authors
  32. 32. Polishing of an article Important to make a crisp  Remove redundancy  Put a drawer  Give to collegue
  33. 33. Language Complete sentence Correct and precise scientific terminology Abbreviation Each paragraph – must address one issue No flowery prose only finding “Fuzzy writing reflects fuzzy thinking”
  34. 34. Avoid Words never heard of Colloquial speech or slang Abbreviation – except unit of measure Use – past tense
  35. 35. Plagiarism  Use of other’s work, ideas, images without citation  Representation of work of others as being your work
  36. 36.  Basically – your manuscript once submitted should be understood by a readers. Who is not associated with the study
  37. 37. -A request for revision viewed positively-Manuscript is publishable-Authors should therefore view with optimism
  38. 38. Common Reasons for revisionrequests- Minor faults in methodology- Minor inaccuracies in data- Inconsistencies in data- Inconsistencies among different sections of the manuscript
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. Resubmit Revised Manuscript- Resubmit revised manuscript within time- Each point must be answered and listed systematically- Changes should be clearly annotated in revised text
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. 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 communication Than How the readers will understand
  44. 44. Decision on case report New information about a rare condition New or improved method of diagnosis and treatment Should be succint
  45. 45. Case reports not accepted Rare , unusual , but obvious diagnosis and established treatment Just rarity – not prefered Rare but obscure diagnosis or treatment not obvious Missed diagnosis – not a reason Well known tumor in a new location Rare organism in an unsuspected location New operation in one patient
  46. 46. Case reports sometimes accepted Reader will benefit from awareness article, quality of review, educational material Time has elapsed since it was reported Summarily should contain educational material - to evaluate diagnose and care the patient
  47. 47. Why rejected Study is not methodically conducted Retrospective thought of making a manuscript after seeing few cases
  48. 48. Why rejected Not written well – Not clear what is the study how done – I can’t repeat the study How saying – something is good or bad Not clear - significance of the difference in outcome Not clear - Is the research question answered Not supported by evidence in literature
  49. 49. Exercise of editorial decisions To present your work- Crisp presentation Concise Present in a manner that it is read In nutshell looks after the author’s interest and interest of the readers
  50. 50. Editors Are not hostile to you To help you – to bring best out of your good work Do not get any benefit Do for the love to science Let us work together to make best out of your work
  51. 51. 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.
  52. 52. 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
  53. 53. Stretegies An issue on Scientific communication Covered – discussed all types of articles. Case series , review , case report, letter to editors
  54. 54. Symposium on research methods Levels of evidence Case series Case control study Systematic review or meta analysis RCT
  55. 55. Why research is important ? Editorials on need for research Perspective articles talking about Global research scenerio Orthopaedic services and training
  56. 56. Who is the best reviewerPeer who is working in similar milieu –For our problems- we
  57. 57. Impact factor More awards for good articles
  58. 58. How to evaluate a published article
  59. 59. Conclusions Put more thought process in planning phase Write as per the type of article No article is rejected if trying to give small message with reasoning Let your work be known to the world through Journals
  60. 60. Thank you very much for kind attention
  61. 61.  Thanks very much indeed
  62. 62. Original article Subject – research question Methodological conducted Trying to address some issue
  63. 63. Review article Original article – 196 Case report - 206 Review article – 41 – rejected largely Letter to editor - 11
  64. 64. 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
  65. 65. Quality of review article Specific purpose of the review Source and method of citation search identified Explicit guidelines provided to include and exclude the citations Methodological validity of the articles included in the review Data limitations and inconsistancies documented
  66. 66. Quality of review article-2 Was the information systematically integrated or pooled Summary of pertinent findings provided Specific direction for new research objectives (initiatives) specified.
  67. 67. Guidelines for reading reviews Question and method addressed Comprehensive searched to include articles Method used to determine which manuscript ( method ) to include. Was validity of primary studies assessed. Was assessment of primary studies reproducible and without bias Was the finding of primary studies combined. Was the reported conclusion cited with evidence.
  68. 68. Revision – not to do
  69. 69. Revision – not to do
  70. 70. Revision – not to do
  71. 71. Revision – not to do
  72. 72. Revision – not to do
  73. 73. Revision – not to do
  74. 74. Revision – not to do
  75. 75. Revision – not to do
  76. 76. Original article – 307Case report - 297 More manuscripts are casemost of time Author , reviewers – spent reportReview article – 10
  77. 77. Type of manuscripts Original – case series, RCT or case control studies Review articles – meta analysis or systematic review Case reports Letter to editors Editorials

×