Strategies to successfully publish your first manuscript

Editorial viewpoints of scientific publishing for early-career research scientists

While the structure and composition of the scientific manuscript is well known within scientific communities, insider knowledge such as the tricks of the trade and editorial viewpoints of scientific publishing are often less known to early-career research scientists. This article focuses on the key aspects of scientific publishing, including tips for success geared towards senior postdocs and junior faculty. It also highlights important considerations for getting manuscripts published in an efficient and successful manner.

What do editors expect from authors in medical research?

Introduction

Manuscript preparation, submission, and appropriate revision can be difficult tasks. Any lack in these processes can lead to manuscript rejection and author's dissatisfaction.

Methods

We have searched the PubMed and Google scholar and collected information regarding causes of manuscript rejection, correct steps and order of manuscript preparation.

Results

We have provided the set format to publish article, tips and tricks of making a research paper for publication. We also have provided guide for the authors to provide essential enclosures during submission process.

Conclusion

This review focuses on conventional "Tips and Tricks" that might guide aspiring authors through the submission process and serve as a "Blueprint" for publishing scientific manuscripts in medical journals.

Practical guide for the use of medical evidence in scientific publication: Recommendations for the medical student: Narrative review

Currently, the adaptation of scientific evidence in clinical problem solving is based on the evidence-based medicine method. Medical students and health professionals should have an adequate knowledge of this method and thus provide adequate health care and increasingly provide high quality scientific publications that can be subsequently integrated in different clinical scenarios. Several scales and tools have been proposed as guides to recognize the different levels of quality of the available evidence, their degrees of recommendation and the biases and fallacies that may occur both in the clinical and research areas, with the aim of identifying the best available evidence. However, few students and professionals are aware of them and make proper use of them. Therefore, it is necessary to synthesize these tools in an understandable and practical way.

Promoting a research culture among junior radiation oncologists: outcomes from the introduction of the Australian and New Zealand research requirement in training

AIM

Since 2005, radiation oncology trainees in Australia and New Zealand have had to undertake a piece of original research during training, and submit a manuscript, as first author, for senior peer-review. Satisfactory completion of this requirement is one component of eligibility to sit the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists Fellowship examinations. The purpose of this study was to examine the value of this curriculum requirement, including the publication rates and potential barriers to trainee research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey was sent to 116 radiation oncologists/trainees who trained since the mandatory research requirement was introduced (2005-2011). Questions concerned research topics, publications, subsequent research activity, perceptions on barriers to research and aids to conducting research during training. A web-based search of PubMed by author name was carried out to complete and verify publication statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 108 (93.1%) of the 116 trainees across 20 centres who submitted their research papers to the Radiation Oncology Faculty Research Committee were successful in meeting the required standard first time. Half of these trainees ultimately published their paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Of trainees responding to the survey, 62% presented their research at a scientific meeting. Most of the studies were either retrospective (62.3%) or dosimetry/physics projects (10.1%). The main problems encountered in conducting projects were competing clinical commitments and lack of dedicated research time. Notably, long ethics approval processes, lack of supervision and statistical support for projects were not considered barriers.

CONCLUSION

This mandatory research requirement ensures trainees initiate and complete at least one project during their training. Since the introduction of this curriculum component, half of the research projects have resulted in publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Increased 'protected time' and training in scientific writing and methods may improve publication rates and quality. This first review of the Australian and New Zealand radiation oncology trainee research requirement highlights areas that need to be addressed to further support and foster a research culture among junior radiation oncologists.