Underrepresented in medicine (URiM) faculty development: Trends in biomedical database publication

BACKGROUND

Biomedical databases create an educational platform that allows institutions to share innovations and research discoveries. Identifying literature in biomedical databases that inform the faculty development experiences of faculty underrepresented in medicine (URiM) can help institutions identify resources to promote career advancement for this group. The authors sought to determine biomedical database trends in publications related to faculty development experiences of URiM faculty over the last twenty years.

METHODS

An electronic search for literature published between January 2003 to Dec 2022 was conducted in the databases CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, and PsycInfo using keywords underrepresented minority, faculty development, career development, professional development, academic medicine, and workforce in the title, abstract, or body of the manuscript. Growth rates were calculated for each database. The statistical significance difference in median numbers of publication per database was evaluated using Krusksal Wallis and Dunn's test post hoc.

RESULTS

Search results found 1516 publications over the twenty-year period. Scopus published the most literature with 1,372 publications with a mean number of 68.6 per year (SD 83.47). Both Scopus and PubMed had increased growth rates at 41% and 25%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in median publication numbers between Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycInfo (p < 0.001) but not PubMed (p 0.062).

CONCLUSION

Trends in publications related to URiM faculty development have increased over the last twenty years, most noted in the Scopus and PubMed biomedical databases.

The Inside Scoop: What We Learnt About Getting into Academic Publishing During Our Editorial Internship

The world of publication can seem intimidating and closed to the newcomer. How then does one even begin to get a foot in the door? In this paper, the authors draw from the literature and their recent lived experience as editorial interns to consider this challenge under the theme of access, and how it overlaps with the various components of academic publication. The main three components of the publication 'machine' are discussed in this article, authoring, reviewing, and editing. These are preceded by the first, and arguably foundational, interaction with academic journal publishing-reading. Without reading articles across different journals, and even in different disciplines, understanding the breadth of scholarship and its purpose is impossible. The subsequent components of authoring, reviewing, and editing, which are all enhanced by ongoing familiarity with current literature through further reading, are considered in further detail in the remainder of this article, with practical advice provided as to how to gain access and experience in each of these areas, for example, writing non-research article manuscripts, engaging in collaborative peer review, and applying for editorial opportunities (with perseverance) when the opportunity presents itself. Medical education publication can seem daunting and closed to entry-level academics. This article is written to dispel this view, and challenges the notion that the world of publication is reserved for experts only. On the contrary, newcomers to the field are essential for academic publications to retain relevance, dynamism, and innovation particularly in the face of the changing landscape of medical education.

A Survey of the Course: 'How to Successfully Write a Scientific Article'

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present survey was to analyze the knowledge and skills in medical paper writing of physicians who attended the course "how to write successfully a scientific paper."

METHODS

A blind survey was used to analyze participants' knowledge on the topic of the course "how to write successfully a scientific paper." Before starting the workshop, participants anonymously filled out the input questionnaire containing 12 preliminary data questions. The three-hour course included a lecture on the steps of creating and writing a scientific article with examples. At the end, all participants anonymously completed the exit questionnaire consisting of 18 questions. Differences and associations between the collected data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.

RESULTS

The survey included 22 participants, most of whom were women (16, 72.7%). The participants' educational level was proportional to their age. 12 of the participants had an intermediate level, while the others reported higher English proficiency. Half of the participants had never published an article. A significant difference was observed between English level and being the first author of an article published in a scientific journal (p = 0.044). Before class, only 13.6% of participants knew that guidelines are mandatory for making clinical decisions according to evidence- based medicine. There was a significant positive correlation between sex and current affiliation (p = 0.038). A negative correlation was observed between sex and article publication (p = 0.037). A positive correlation was observed between English level and current affiliation (p = 0.020). There was a negative correlation observed between previous sources of learning scientific article writing and having already published an article (p = 0.025). A positive correlation was found between reading an article and publishing it (p = 0.046). Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between reading frequency, number of published articles, being the first author, and knowing the title of a scientific article (p = 0.036, p = 0.027, and p = 0.030, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results of the questionnaires revealed discrepancies in prior research engagement and understanding of scientific concepts and rules. This survey highlights the importance of the course "how to successfully write a scientific article" in improving participants' knowledge of scientific work and the process of creating an article for submission to medical journals.

Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community.

METHODS

Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review).

RESULTS

A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1-1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.

Scientific authorship in neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

Assessment of scientific bibliographic production is a complex issue, mainly based on the impact factor (IF) of the journals and the h index, that quantifies the number of cites an author receives. In order to estimate the bibliographic production and the influence of co-authorship among Spanish neurosurgeons, we performed a PubMed search aimed to identify all papers published by a sample of neurosurgeons.

METHODS

Cross-sectional observational and regional study. We identified a sample of 183 neurosurgeons from Madrid and Castilla y León Autonomous Communities. The bibliometric information was gathered in March 2022 via PubMed free access website. For each author we registered the type of journal, total number of articles, order of appearance in the authors' list, total IF, the proportion of articles signed as first or second author (Personal Authorship Quotient [PAQ]) and the percentage of IF attributable to those articles (Personal Impact Quotient [PIQ]).

RESULTS

A total of 3,592 articles from 183 authors were published in 412 different journals, of which only 9.9% were pure neurosurgical journals. Only 17 neurosurgeons (9,3%) had published at least one article as unique author. The average number of articles per neurosurgeon was 20 (median 9) of which 57.7% were published in neurosurgical journals, and 22,2% in Neurocirugía (official publication of the SENEC). The average PAQ was 0.367 (median 0.364) and the average PIQ was 0.317 (median 0.251). Both proportions tended to decrease as the number of publications increased.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, Spanish neurosurgeons publish half of their articles in neurosurgical journals, appear as first or second author in one third of the cases, and the IF attributable to these papers comprise 25% of the total IF. The PAQ and PIQ provide bibliometric information that minimizes the enlarging effect on curriculum of massive co-authorship and allow comparisons among authors and different scientific fields.

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.

Evaluation of a statewide pharmacy student writing club program: Opportunities to enhance professional writing skills

INTRODUCTION

Skills gained by writing a scholarly manuscript coincide with graduation expectations prior to matriculation into practice. A partnership between The Journal of the Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin and four affiliated pharmacy schools developed student writing clubs (SWC) to fill this need. The objectives of this project were to explore the structure of SWCs and evaluate the experiences of participants.

METHODS

Two investigator-designed, voluntary, anonymous surveys were distributed to each school. A survey for pharmacy students assessed motivations for participating within a SWC, impact on skills, and suggestions for improvement. The second survey to the SWC faculty advisors explored programmatic structure.

RESULTS

Of forty student respondents, most SWC participants felt comfortable with each step of the writing process. Participants were motivated by manuscript publication opportunity (88%), improvement of writing skills (80%), and the addition to their curriculum vitae (60%). Students suggested process improvements including better communication on deadlines, more connections to writing resources, and developing writing workshops for guidance on professional writing. Barriers to participation included unclear expectations (60%) and not feeling prepared or skilled enough (53%). Most importantly, both students and faculty perceived the SWC at each program as a skill-building extracurricular activity that brings value to student pharmacist development.

CONCLUSIONS

Manuscript preparation and publication within a structured environment, such as a SWC, is a valuable skill-building opportunity. Creation of a centralized writing workshop will provide guidance for participants throughout the manuscript process.

Publication dynamics: what can be done to eliminate barriers to publishing full manuscripts by the postgraduate trainees of a low-middle income country?

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the publication rate of free paper abstracts presented by the postgraduate (PG) trainees and determine the reasons for non-publication. A mixed methods study was conducted. PG trainees presenting free papers at the at the Pakistan Society of Chemical Pathologist conferences from 2012 to 2018 were included. Three databases were searched to identify if the abstracts were published or not. The PG trainee authors of abstracts not published as full manuscript, were surveyed to determine the barriers and challenges in publishing a manuscript.

RESULTS

The average rate of full manuscript publication was 51.8% (n = 93/177) for the abstracts presented by the PG trainees. Publication rate was higher for oral (n = 73/119, 61.3%) compared to poster presentation (n = 20/58, 34.5%). Most of the manuscripts were published after two years of abstract presentation. The survey showed that the main challenges to publishing an abstract were lack of time, limited scientific writing or submission skills, lack of funding for publication fee, and negative or statistically non-significant results. This reflects a need to arrange workshops/symposia for the PG trainees of low-middle income country (LMIC) to enhance their writing and time management skills and improve the full manuscript publication rate from LMICs.

[How-to case report]

Case reports are often the first step of innovations and new techniques in science and thus are fundamental for some later established procedures. In addition, they have a great educational effect and offer young scientists the opportunity to gain their first experiences in writing manuscripts. In addition to an interesting detail (e.g. figure), a clear message is essential for a good case report.

Publication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors

Publication of scientific paper is critical for modern science evolution, and professional advancement. However, it comes with many responsibilities. An author must be aware of good publication practices. While refraining from scientific misconduct or research frauds, authors should adhere to Good Publication Practices (GPP). Publications which draw conclusions from manipulated or fabricated data could prove detrimental to society and health care research. Good science can blossom only when research is conducted and documented with complete honesty and ethics. Unfortunately, publish or perish attitude has led to unethical practices in scientific research and publications. There is need to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness among junior researchers or postgraduate students to curb scientific misconduct and adopt GPP. This article discusses various unethical publication practices in research. Also, the role and responsibilities of authors have been discussed with the purpose of maintaining the credibility and objectivity of publication.

Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers

Retractions of scientific papers published by some Iran-affiliated scientists in the preceding decade have attracted much attention and publicity; however, the reasons for these retractions have not been documented. We searched the Retraction Watch Database to enumerate the retracted Iran-affiliated papers from December 2001 to December 2019 and aimed to outline the predominant reasons for retractions. The reasons included fake peer-review, authorship dispute, fabricated data, plagiarism, conflict of interest, erroneous data, and duplication. The Fisher's exact test was used to investigate the associations between retractions and their underlying reasons. We selected P < 0.05 to indicate the statistically significant differences. We found 697 retracted papers. Duplication (27%), plagiarism (26%), and fake peer-review (21%) were the most frequent reasons for retractions. Our study highlights the importance of urgent intervention to prevent the misconduct and questionable research practices that lead to retractions in Iran. Continually educating the scientists and postgraduate students about the ethics and norms of scientific publishing is an important measure to ensure publication of reliable, worthy, and impactful papers.

Better timing of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for early recovery after open inguinal herniorrhaphy: A prospective randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the optimal timing of analgesic transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in the operating room for better recovery quality using the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40K) questionnaire in patients who had undergone open inguinal herniorrhaphy.

METHODS

This single-centre, prospective randomised controlled study included adult male patients who had an ASA physical status of I-II. A total of 80 patients were analysed. The patients were randomly assigned and classified into pre-incisional TAP (pre-TAP) block (n = 40) and post-incisional TAP (post-TAP) block (n = 40) groups. The quality of postoperative functional recovery and complications were compared between the two groups during 24 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

Preoperative findings of the two groups were comparable. The global QoR-40K score was higher in the pre-TAP group than in the post-TAP group. Among sub-dimensions, scores of physical comfort and pain were higher in the pre-TAP group than in the post-TAP group. In the post-anaesthesia care unit, the pre-TAP group showed lower pain scores than the post-TAP block group. There was no severe pain in the pre-TAP group, but two patients (5.0%) in the post-TAP block group suffered severe pain. The pre-TAP group required lower doses of IV rescue opioid in the PACU than the post-TAP group. All patients were discharged from hospital on postoperative day 1 without surgical complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The timing of analgesic TAP block may be of clinical importance to prevent postoperative pain and to improve the quality of early patient recovery following open inguinal herniorrhaphy.

Mastectomy is no longer an indication for postoperative opioid prescription at discharge

BACKGROUND

A 10-step protocol employing multimodal analgesia was implemented in patients undergoing mastectomy to decrease the quantity of opioids prescribed at discharge.

METHODS

Patients who received the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol were compared to a control group. Inpatient and discharge prescription of opioids were compared using oral morphine equivalents (OMEs), along with postoperative pain scores.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2018, fifty-seven patients were eligible for inclusion: 20 patients received ERAS and 37 received usual care (UC). The ERAS group received a mean of 2.4 (0-13) inpatient OMEs and the UC group received 13.7 (0-80) (p = 0.002). The ERAS group received 2.0 (0-40) OMEs at discharge and the UC group received 59.8 (0-120) (p < 0.001). Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the patients who received the ERAS protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received the ERAS protocol required less postoperative opioids and reported lower pain scores when compared to a control group.

Successful publishing of research: An editor's view

Authors often are frustrated by responses they receive from editors when their manuscripts are rejected and do not understand from an editor's view what is needed to successfully publish their work. Editors receive sometimes several manuscripts a day and have to develop methods to screen out the ones that are likely not to pass the review process. They also want papers to be able to be written in such a way that it is clear why the studies of which they report are important and novel and worth publishing. Thus, advice is given in the following article that begins with how to choose an appropriate journal, to the surprising importance of a title and ends with how one should conclude the manuscript.

Bibliometric analysis of manuscript characteristics that influence citations: A comparison of six major psychiatry journals

In this study we investigated the characteristics of psychiatry manuscript that influence its citation rate. We conducted a cross-sectional study of published articles (n = 545), from January to June 2007, from 6 major psychiatry journals with the highest 5-year impact-factor. Citation count for these articles was retrieved from Web Of Science (by Clarivate Analytics) and 22 article characteristics were tabulated manually. We then predicted the citation rate by performing univariate analysis, spearman rank-order correlation, and multiple regression model on the collected variables. Using spearman rank-order correlation, we found the following variables to have significant positive correlation with citations: abstract character count (r_s and p-value, 0.22 and 0.001 respectively), number of references (0.2, 0.01), abstract word count (0.17, 0.0005), number of pages (0.15, 0.003), open access (0.06, 0.05), study design reported in title (0.04, 0.0001), total number of words (0.03, 0.01) and structured abstract (0.03, 0.0009). In a multivariate linear regression model, the following variables predicted increased citation rates (p < 0.001, R² = 0.38): reporting of study design in title, structured abstract and open access. Editors and authors of psychiatry journals can improve the impact of their journals and articles by utilizing this bibliometric study when assembling their manuscript.

Epistaxis health disparities in the United States pediatric population

OBJECTIVE

Despite epistaxis occurring in up to 60% of the population, few studies have investigated health status disparities in the pediatric epistaxis population. The aim of this study was to evaluate sociodemographic risk factors associated with epistaxis visits for pediatric patients.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey Outpatient Department from 2001 to 2010. Outpatient visits of children less than 18 years who received a primary, secondary, or tertiary diagnosis of epistaxis (ICD-9CM code 784.7X) were included. Bivariate and stepwise multivariate regressions were conducted to develop a final model for epistaxis visits described by sociodemographics.

RESULTS

Epistaxis visits accounted for 5 ± 0.6 million visits in children less than 18 years. 51% and 33% of children presenting with epistaxis had private insurance and Medicaid, respectively (p = 0.001). 69% of epistaxis visits were evaluated at a pediatric clinic, 18% at an ENT/surgery clinic, and 13% at a general/family medicine clinic (p < 0.0001). After multivariate adjustment, epistaxis visits were associated with older age (p = 0.006). Black children were more likely to present with epistaxis (95% CI 1.3-4.1, p = 0.005) compared to white children. Allergic rhinitis, present in 11% of epistaxis visits, was a significant comorbidity associated with visits (95%CI 1.3-4.6, p = 0.008). Patients were also more likely to present to an ENT/surgery clinic (95% CI 4.5-16.5, p < 0.0001) compared to a general/family medicine clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

Epistaxis visits by children are associated with age, race, and specialty. Targeted interventions to help reduce this common presentation should be developed.

A Proposal to Detect the Double Submission of a Manuscript Sent for Review

Along with the rapid growth of editorial systems and publishers, the number of research articles is increasing, which creates a need for an effective dissemination strategy. Researchers commonly use editorial systems in a candid manner. However, when researchers concurrently submit the same contribution in more than one editorial system, it is considered unethical. In this paper, we propose a novel approach called DeMSum for detecting such duplicate submissions. DeMSum verifies a manuscript (MS) by processing the MS attributes that are accessed through the editorial system. To the best of our knowledge, DeMSum is the first system to address the double submission issue, thus enabling the use of diverse editorial systems for MS review. We implemented a prototype, and our evaluation of the prototype produced excellent results.

Management of complex pediatric laryngotracheal stenosis with skin graft reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

For pediatric patients with laryngotracheal stenosis, the ultimate goal is creation of a safe, functional airway. Unfortunately, wound healing in a hollow structure can complicate repair attempts, leading to restenosis. Herein, we present our experience using skin-grafting techniques in two complex pediatric laryngotracheal stenosis cases, leading to successful decannulation or speech production.

METHODS

A chart review was performed examining the evaluation and management of two pediatric patients with laryngotracheal stenosis despite prior reconstructive attempts. Patient history, bronchoscopic evaluation, intra-operative technique, post-operative management, treatment outcomes, and complications were noted. Harvesting and preparation of the split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) proceeded in a similar manner for each case. Stenting material varied based on the clinical scenario.

RESULTS

Using this technique, our patient with a Type 3 glottic web achieved substantial improvement in exercise tolerance, as well as vocal strength and quality. In addition, our aphonic patient could vocalize for the first time since her laryngotracheal injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary endoluminal stenting with skin graft lining can reproduce epithelial continuity and provide "biological inhibition" to enhance the wound healing process. When previous reconstructive efforts have failed, use of STSG can be considered in the management of complex pediatric laryngotracheal stenosis.

The acute effects of bronchial thermoplasty on FEV1

BACKGROUND

The most common adverse effect of bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is short-term aggravation of asthma immediately following the procedure. However, the magnitude and duration of this deterioration, and its predisposing factors are yet to be quantitated. This information will be particularly important as BT is extended to include more severely obstructed patients.

METHODS

In this prospective, observational study of 20 consecutive patients with very severe asthma undergoing BT, post bronchodilator FEV₁ was measured in the 30 min prior to surgery, and then 24 h following the 60 procedures. In half the patients, further spirometry was conducted on day 3 and day 7 post procedure.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 12 males and 8 females, mean age 59.7 ± 12.8 years, with mean prebronchodilator FEV₁ of 52.3 ± 15.2% predicted, mean forced expiratory ratio of 51.4 ± 12.6%, and mean improvement in FEV₁ post salbutamol of 19.5 ± 15.3%. All patients were taking inhaled corticosteroids, mean beclomethasone equivalent dose 1950 ± 857 mcg, and 7 patients required maintenance oral corticosteroids for control of their asthma. Twenty four hours after BT, the mean deterioration in post bronchodilator FEV₁ was 166 ± 237 mls (CI 102-224, p < 0.001) or 9.1 ± 15.2% of baseline. This deterioration was significantly greater after upper lobe procedures (p < 0.01, ANOVA repeated measures), where a mean fall in FEV₁ of 17.1 ± 12.6% was observed. The change in FEV₁ post procedure was significantly correlated with the number of radiofrequency activations applied, r = -0.376, p < 0.005. By multivariate analysis, the only factor other than activations predictive of the change in FEV₁ was age, which was protective. When the lower lobes were treated, the postbronchodilator FEV₁ had returned to baseline values by day 3, but patients took 7 days to recover after upper lobe treatments. Despite the severity of asthma in these patients, and the measured deterioration post treatment, there was only one instance of readmission in the 60 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The deterioration in lung function after BT is transient and well tolerated, but is greatest after upper lobe treatment, and is significantly related to the number of radiofrequency activations applied.

Plagiarism in Publications Using the Unpublished Raw Data of Archived Research

It is obligatory to educate student researchers before they start their work by teaching them about the various types of plagiarism and how to avoid them. It is also vital that research supervisors take into account the sources of data that are explored in their students' manuscripts. This article tries to draw the reader's attention to the importance of avoiding all types of plagiarism in their research.

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

BACKGROUND

The rapidly flourishing health science has provided a ground to perform research work and contribute to the field of science. On the other hand, reporting the research is equally important as carrying out research. Many such researches and their ground breaking work remain unreported or do not reach the guild, because of poor drafting skills. In nine years since Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) inception, editorial have come across many manuscripts which are clinically and socially relevant in their message, but lack legible drafting. It was felt that an objective analysis of the reasons for rejection, of manuscripts, is required.

AIM

The present study was conducted with the aim to determine the reasons for rejection of medical and dental manuscript submitted in JCDR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 1000 consecutive medical and dental articles submitted to JCDR since 1(st) August 2014 was done. Only those articles (902) that reached the end point on decision were considered. The reasons of rejection for medical and dental articles were enlisted and analyzed. When there were multiple reasons of rejection and all of them were critical, then they were counted in all the categories.

RESULTS

Out of the 902 consecutive articles 522 articles underwent rejection. Among the rejected ones, dental specialty comprised of 43.5% and medical articles contributed 56.5%. The most frequent reasons for rejection were commonality (44.6%), non compliance by authors (17.8%), methodological issues (17.3%), plagiarism (11.1%), received same topic and published (7.66%), poor draft (6.70%), data inconsistency (5.77%), mismanagement (1.72%), blacklisted author (1.14%), ethical and out of scope were 0.57% each.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, it can be concluded that manuscript rejection can be avoided by the authors, if the topic is well choosen and communication is maintained with the journal editorial.

Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports that queried abstract authors about reasons for not subsequently publishing abstract results as full-length articles.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, and study bibliographies for empirical studies in which investigators examined subsequent full publication of results presented at a biomedical conference and reasons for nonpublication.

RESULTS

The mean full publication rate was 55.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 54.8%, 56.9%] for 24 of 27 eligible reports providing this information and 73.0% (95% CI: 71.2%, 74.7%) for seven reports of abstracts describing clinical trials. Twenty-four studies itemized 1,831 reasons for nonpublication, and six itemized 428 reasons considered the most important reason. "Lack of time" was the most frequently reported reason [weighted average = 30.2% (95% CI: 27.9%, 32.4%)] and the most important reason [weighted average = 38.4% (95% CI: 33.7%, 43.2%)]. Other commonly stated reasons were "lack of time and/or resources," "publication not an aim," "low priority," "incomplete study," and "trouble with co-authors."

CONCLUSIONS

Across medical specialties, the main reasons for not subsequently publishing an abstract in full lie with factors related to the abstract author rather than with journals.

A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether training in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review effectively improves educational outcomes related to the quality of health research reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for comparative studies of formalized, a priori-developed training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review. Comparators included the following: (1) before and after administration of a training program, (2) between two or more training programs, or (3) between a training program and any other (or no) intervention(s). Outcomes included any measure of effectiveness of training.

RESULTS

Eighteen reports of 17 studies were included. Twelve studies focused on writing for publication, five on peer review, and none fit our criteria for journal editing.

CONCLUSION

Included studies were generally small and inconclusive regarding the effects of training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors on educational outcomes related to improving the quality of health research. Studies were also of questionable validity and susceptible to misinterpretation because of their risk of bias. This review highlights the gaps in our knowledge of how to enhance and ensure the scientific quality of research output for authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.

Rising from Plagiarising

Amongst the various forms of scientific misconduct, plagiarism has become increasingly prevalent in today's scientific process. Plagiarism is copying another author's ideas or words and portraying them as your own. Inclusion of another source's contents without giving credit to the source results in this unethical practice. Text derived directly from a source must always be put under quotation marks. Decreased awareness about plagiarism and what exactly constitutes it results in unintentional plagiarism. Plagiarism can be that of the ideas in which the author projects others' ideas as his own. It can also be that of the text also known as word to word plagiarism. Mosaic plagiarism is another form. Various guidelines formulated by esteemed scientific bodies such as World Association of Medical Editors, Committee on publication Ethics have provided an insight to authors, editors, publishers and peer reviewers into the practice of ethical writing. By understanding the true essence of plagiarism and following strict guidelines, it is certainly possible to avoid plagiarism. Various softwares are available to detect plagiarism. These softwares have a wide database which is scanned to reveal any kind of malpractice. If detected, it can have grave consequences causing not only retraction of the article but also loss of dignity. Failure to detect plagiarism reflects negatively on a journal. Originality is the true essence of any research or scientific paper. Any violation of this fact is an unforgivable offence. Thus, this review article attempts to cover the meaning, types, risks and ways to avoid plagiarism.

How to write a medical original article: Advice from an Editor

Objectives

To provide guidelines for potential authors on how to increase the chances of their manuscript being accepted, with a review focusing on writing an original medical article.

Methods

This review reflects the personal experience of the present author, who has extensive experience as an author, reviewer and editor.

Results

To write an original article successfully, there are three essential requirements, the ‘basic triad’ of an original article. These are subjects worth reporting, knowledge of the basic structure of an article, and knowledge of the essential mechanics of good writing. This review details each of the three items.

Conclusions

Writing, like every other art, cannot be learned wholly from books or lectures, but can be learned largely by experience. The best training is to start the task and persevere. The act of writing, like surgical techniques, must be learned the hard way, by practice and perseverance. Anyone can start writing but only a good writer can finish the task.

Peer review process in medical journals

Reviewers play key roles in manuscript processing and publication. This article describes in detail how the reviewer serves their two key roles as a gatekeeper of making publication recommendations for the editorial board and a consultant providing constructive comments to authors to improve the quality of the manuscripts to be published.