Scientific Misconduct (Fraud) in Medical Writing

The consistency of peer-reviewers: Assessment of separate parts of the manuscripts vs final recommendations

Delving into the review reports, this paper is aimed at analyzing reviewers` attitudes toward different sections of the manuscripts they review. The research focuses on the consistency of reviewers` evaluation through analysis of their assessment of separate parts of a paper, if it corresponds with the recommendations they made to the editors and whether a paper needs revision or should be accepted/rejected. It is assumed that the assessment of separate parts of a paper should be consistent with the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Based on the analysis presented in this paper it can be concluded that the assessments of separate parts of articles in the evaluation sheets do not fully reflect the final recommendations of the reviewers. The results showed that the most correlated and therefore the most significant sections for the reviewers are the main text and the conclusions. The conditional probability analysis showed that the decision of reviewers, when number of points in the evaluation sheet is taken into consideration, is slightly unpredictable. No significant differences in the reviewers` recommendations based on gender or country of origin of the reviewers were found.

Awareness and knowledge of manuscript writing and research integrity: A cross sectional survey among graduate students

Graduate students face a variety of barriers when writing manuscripts. The major barrier is inadequate writing experience and training. We aimed to evaluate the awareness and the knowledge of the basic principles in manuscript writing and research integrity among graduate students, and to assess the usefulness of workshops to improve their knowledge about manuscript writing process. A cross sectional survey was developed to evaluate the awareness and the knowledge about the manuscript writing steps and the research integrity among graduate students in Jordan. A one-day workshop about manuscript writing and research integrity was conducted. Students (n = 285) completed the questionnaire. Most participants were female masters'; students. Although 83.8% of the students were aware of the general manuscript structure, most of them were not aware of the basic concepts to write most manuscript sections. Only 22.5% of the students were aware of the authorship criteria. Data showed a lack of knowledge of different practices of scientific misconduct. Barriers in manuscript writing included the lack of focused research methodology courses and the lack of professional workshops and the absence constructive mentorship support. The workshop was useful in introducing the key concepts in manuscript writing. The present study revealed a lack of knowledge among graduate students about manuscript writing and scientific misconduct. Professional workshops are useful in improving students' knowledge.

Writing for SICOT-J

Every time a paper is submitted to the journal, we realize the effort and amount of work it takes for performing the study, writing, formatting, and submitting the paper for peer review. However, how many of these papers are suitable for publication? Medical writing considerations, including an understandable text that does not confuse reading, formality, and ethics in writing, should be kept in mind when preparing and writing a paper to be submitted for publication to a journal. This editorial note offers useful advice for the authors submitting their papers to a journal on what to keep in mind before submission, how to prepare a quality submission, how to win the editor for their paper to avoid rejection, and how to make it to the review process and maybe to get published. It is our belief that these tips and advice on medical writing apply to any author and any journal.