"Why We Say No! A Look Through the Editor's Eye"

Why do manuscripts submitted to the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation get rejected?

Objectives

The study aimed to examine the reasons for the rejection of manuscripts, considering the increased rejection rates of our journal of up to 73% in 2022, and help authors realize what the editors and referees are paying attention to while assessing the manuscript.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective study, original articles, case reports, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses submitted and rejected to the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation were searched between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2022. After reviewing the referee's evaluations and editorial opinions for all rejected articles, the reasons for rejection were classified under three main headings: journal, manuscript, and ethical issues. The manuscript issues were detailed under 11 subheadings.

Results

A total of 1,293 rejected submissions were reviewed. Of these, 35% were rejected at the editorial stage, while 65% were rejected after peer review. Thirty-three submissions were rejected for ethical reasons, 168 were out of the journal's field of interest, and 1,092 (84%) submissions were rejected for reasons related to the manuscript. The three most common reasons for rejection were protocol/methodology errors (44%), lack of contribution to the literature (41%), and lack of adequate discussion (40%).

Conclusion

Before starting the studies, supporting the hypotheses with the current literature review, planning with the right protocol, and interpreting the findings in the discussion will facilitate the acceptance of the manuscripts to our journal.

Extent of knowledge and attitudes on plagiarism among undergraduate medical students in South India - a multicentre, cross-sectional study to determine the need for incorporating research ethics in medical undergraduate curriculum

BACKGROUND

Undergraduate medical students in India participate in various research activities However, plagiarism is rampant, and we hypothesize that it is the lack of knowledge on how to avoid plagiarism. This study's objective was to measure the extent of knowledge and attitudes towards plagiarism among undergraduate medical students in India.

METHODS

It was a multicentre, cross-sectional study conducted over a two-year period (January 2018 - December 2019). Undergraduate medical students were given a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire which contained: (a) Demographic details; (b) A quiz developed by Indiana University, USA to assess knowledge; and (c) Attitudes towards Plagiarism (ATP) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Eleven medical colleges (n = 4 government medical colleges [GMCs] and n = 7 private medical colleges [PMCs]) participated. A total of N = 4183 students consented. The mean (SD) knowledge score was 4.54 (1.78) out of 10. The factors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]; 95% Confidence interval [CI]; p value) that emerged as significant predictors of poor knowledge score were early years of medical education (0.110; 0.063, 0.156; < 0.001) and being enrolled in a GMC (0.348; 0.233, 0.463; < 0.001).The overall mean (SD) scores of the three attitude components namely permissive, critical and submissive norms were 37.56 (5.25), 20.35 (4.20) and 31.20 (4.28) respectively, corresponding to the moderate category.

CONCLUSION

The overall knowledge score was poor. A vast majority of study participants fell in the moderate category of attitude score. These findings warrant the need for incorporating formal training in the medical education curriculum.

The future of Asian Cardiovascular Annals: Goals and quality

The positional statement of the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals is presented.

The black crow of science and its impact: analyzing Sci-Hub use with Google Trends

Purpose

In 2016, Bohannon published an article analyzing the download rate of the top ten countries using the illegal Sci-Hub website. Four years later, this study approaches the search behavior of these ten countries as they query about Sci-Hub in Google's search engine, the world's most widely used search engine. The authors also tracked the possible consequences of using Sci-Hub, such as plagiarism.

Design/methodology/approach

The search terms “Sci-Hub”, “Plagiarism” and “Plagiarism Checker” were explored with Google Trends. The queries were performed globally and individually for the ten target countries, all categories and web searches. The time range was limited between 1/1/2016 (after the date of publication of Bohannon's work) and 29/03/2020. Data were extracted from Google Trends and the findings were mapped.

Findings

Searching for the word Sci-Hub on Google has increased nearly eightfold worldwide in the last four years, with China, Ethiopia and Tunisia having the most searches. Sci-Hub's search trends increased for most of the T10C, with Brazil and Iran having the highest and lowest average searches, respectively.

Originality/value

Access to the research literature is required to the progress of research, but it should not be obtained illegally. Given the increasing incidence of these problems in countries at any level of development, it is important to pay attention to ethics education in research and establish ethics committees. A comprehensive review of the research process is required to reduce the urge to circumvent copyright laws and includes training and educating research stakeholders in copyright literacy. To address these goals, national and international seriousness and enthusiasm are essential.

Journal response types and times: the outcomes of manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State School of Medicine medical editor, South Africa

Introduction

health professionals are involved in research as researchers themselves and as supervisors to undergraduate and postgraduate students. Authors may have unrealistic expectations regarding journal submission and review processes. The study aimed to describe journal response types and times for manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State School of Medicine medical editor.

Methods

this descriptive cohort study with an analytical component included all manuscripts finalised for submission to accredited journals by the medical editor, 2014-2017. Excel spreadsheets capturing all stages of the manuscript process were used to confidentially note information regarding submission and subsequent journal responses.

Results

ninety-five manuscripts were submitted to 72 peer-reviewed accredited journals. The total number of submissions was 163. Only 46 (48.4%) manuscripts were accepted by the first journals submitted to. Rejected submissions (n=82) had a median journal response time of 15.5 days (range 0-381 days), with a third being sent for review. Nine manuscripts were accepted with no revisions needed. Accepted submissions (n=72) had a median of one round of revision (range 0-4 rounds), and a median time of 119.5 days (range 0-674 days) from submission to final acceptance.

Conclusion

within our setting, half of first submissions were unsuccessful, but rejection usually occurred rapidly. Acceptance for publication occurred at a median time of 4 months after one round of revision. If health professionals were made aware of expected outcomes and response times, it may prevent authors from falling victim to the publication practices of predatory journals.

Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections

Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment. In such a climate, timing is everything, as is the efficiency of the process. Academics appreciate that rejections are part of the fabric of attempting to get a paper published, but they expect the reason to be clear, based on careful evaluation of their work, and not on superficial or unsubstantiated excuses. A desk rejection occurs when a paper gets rejected even before it has entered the peer review process. This paper examines the features of some desk rejections and offers some guidelines that would make desk rejections valid, fair and ethical. Academics who publish are under constant pressure to do so quickly, but effectively. They are dependent on the editors' good judgment and the publisher's procedures. Unfair, unsubstantiated, or tardy desk rejections disadvantage academics, and editors and publishers must be held accountable for wasting their time, resources, and patience.