Writing like a scientist: a research assignment for undergraduates inspired by the publishing process

Students that graduate with degrees in science may pursue a variety of career roles. Many of these roles may require them to read primary scientific literature (PSL) or even write up their own manuscripts for submission. While literature has recognized the importance of integrating PSL into undergraduate curriculum, it is also important for students to recognize the writing process that one may need to take part in if they seek to disseminate their own publications. This article will go through a research assignment that was given to an introductory journal club class for biology majors at a large R1 Hispanic-serving Institution. This assignment was designed to mirror the publication process at many journals including drafting a manuscript, integrating editor recommendations, and drafting a letter to the editor. In the end, students produce a review paper while becoming more familiar with the traditional publication process. In turn, this can prepare them to eventually seek to publish their own manuscripts.

Letters generated by ChatGPT: Author who?

AIM

ChatGPT's role in medical writing is a topic of discussion. I experimented whether ChatGPT almost automatically generates Correspondence or Letter addressed to a "translated" article, and thereby wish to arouse discussion regarding ChatGPT use in medical writing.

METHODS

I input an English article of mine into ChatGPT, tasking it with generating an English Disagreement Letter (Letter 1). Next, I tasked ChatGPT with translating the manuscript addressed to from English-French-Spanish-German. Then, I once again tasked ChatGPT with generating an English Disagreement Letter addressed to a German manuscript (triplicate translated manuscript) (Letter 2).

RESULTS

Letters 1 and 2 are readable and reasonable, shooting the point that the author (myself) felt as the weakness of the article. Letters addressed to French (single translation) and to Spanish (double translation) and longer Letters (corresponding to Letters 1 and 2) are also readable, and thus stand.

CONCLUSIONS

Solely based on this experiment, one may be able to write a letter even without understanding the meaning of the paper being addressed, let alone the language of the paper. Although this humble experiment does not conclude anything, I plea for a comprehensive discussion on the implications of these findings.

The Peer Review Process

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific merit of the submitted work and to assess suitability for publication. This process is intended to provide an unbiased, independent critique to ensure publication of high-quality manuscripts that demonstrate validity and reliability. Reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time to participate in peer review. A proper review provides constructive and helpful feedback in a timely manner that authors can use to improve both current and future work. When given the opportunity to revise, authors should carefully consider all comments and adequately address all concerns. This paper provides guidance to clinicians for both aspects of the peer review process: participating as a reviewer and responding to reviewer feedback.

Writing manuscripts for peer review

Little instruction in writing manuscripts for peer review is provided in nursing school or medical school. To relatively inexperienced would-be authors, including junior physicians and allied health professionals, this avenue of professional communication may sometimes seem to be unattainable. Yet many of them are energetic and insightful, and have the potential to make contributions to the literature. This article aims to provide an explanation of the components of the peer review manuscript and advice regarding how to go about writing one so as to overcome the writer's block that inexperienced authors may frequently experience.

Detecting manuscripts written by generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the field of pharmacy practice

Generative AI can be a powerful research tool, but researchers must employ it ethically and transparently. This commentary addresses how the editors of pharmacy practice journals can identify manuscripts generated by generative AI and AI-assisted technologies. Editors and reviewers must stay well-informed about developments in AI technologies to effectively recognise AI-written papers. Editors should safeguard the reliability of journal publishing and sustain industry standards for pharmacy practice by implementing the crucial strategies outlined in this editorial. Although obstacles, including ignorance, time constraints, and protean AI strategies, might hinder detection efforts, several facilitators can help overcome those obstacles. Pharmacy practice journal editors and reviewers would benefit from educational programmes, collaborations with AI experts, and sophisticated plagiarism-detection techniques geared toward accurately identifying AI-generated text. Academics and practitioners can further uphold the integrity of published research through transparent reporting and ethical standards. Pharmacy practice journal staffs can sustain academic rigour and guarantee the validity of scholarly work by recognising and addressing the relevant barriers and utilising the proper enablers. Navigating the changing world of AI-generated content and preserving standards of excellence in pharmaceutical research and practice requires a proactive strategy of constant learning and community participation.

Moving From Abstract to Manuscript

Research is often presented at scientific conferences in abstract form. Unfortunately, a large percentage of abstracts are never published as a full manuscript, but having a strong department process for research can increase the number of abstracts published as manuscripts. Publishing as a full manuscript is critical to the advancement of science due to the rigor of the peer review process. This manuscript covers common reasons abstracts are not published as manuscripts, tips to overcome mistakes, how to respond to reviewer comments, and specific tips to avoid flaws in each manuscript section.

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

Peer Review: How to Review a Plastic Surgery Manuscript

ABSTRACT

Little information is available regarding how to review a plastic surgery manuscript. This vital responsibility ensures that publications meet an acceptable scientific standard. Thoughtful and thorough reviews are essential to protect patients and surgeons from unscientific practices and products. This discussion provides information for the reviewer, gained from the author's experience, including examples of a thorough review, likely to be useful to the editor, and a cursory one that is unhelpful.The first consideration is relevance. Prerequisites for publication include institutional review board approval, disclosure of financial conflicts, and discussion of the regulatory status of devices. Particular attention is needed to check for conflicts of interest, which are endemic in plastic surgery today. In view of the common practice of using computer-generated imaging, reviewers need to be especially vigilant for inauthentic "photoshopped" photographs. Examples of published images that have been digitally altered are provided.If data are available, it may be possible to check the statistical tests. Reviewers need to be aware of the practice of p-hacking. A quick literature search can identify relevant but unreferenced publications. The manuscript needs to be properly organized into sections. Minor points may be made regarding style. The study design and methodology need to be evaluated to be sure that the conclusions are well supported by data. Randomized studies are rarely feasible. Fortunately, well-done prospective observational studies in consecutive patients can be just as useful. Realistic complication rates are expected. Meta-analyses in plastic surgery are often subject to confounding variables. Comments should be available to the authors; confidential comments hidden from authors are discouraged. Like honesty, transparency is the best policy. Manuscripts should be evaluated solely for merit, not the identity of the author or institution. Timeliness of submission of the review is appreciated by authors.Evidence-based medicine is concerned solely with the facts. The 2 basic criteria are a solid scientific basis and reliable evidence of efficacy. Reviewers need to keep an open mind. Studies that challenge the status quo are often the most valuable ones and are needed for the advancement of the specialty.

Peer review? No thanks!

The peer review process is an inalienable necessity in the modern scientific world. Published manuscripts are founded on feedback, a process in which reviewers evaluate the scientific values of the submitted paper and provide comments and criticisms. The aim of this process is to assist authors by improving their papers, to promote good science. The peer-review process can be represented as a hurdle race with the ultimate prize of innovative accurate scientific knowledge being published. In this process, we have on the one side the authors and originators of ideas and on the other editors and reviewers. In the process of publishing a scientific article, it is important to respect the time and efforts of both actors.

Practical Steps to Writing a Scientific Manuscript

Writing a scientific manuscript can be a very intimidating process for new writers. However, writing a scientific research article can be broken down into discrete steps to make the process more digestible. Radiology manuscripts have common conventions that differ from research in technical and other medical fields. The practical steps summarized within describe what to do before you start writing, successful writing strategies, and common writing styles. Templates for producing an abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion are outlined, along with tips to collect references and produce high quality figures. All writers can benefit from an outside writing perspective, and the practical steps described should ease the transition from a blank page to a finished manuscript.

Incidence of Scholarly Publication by Selected Content Experts Presenting at National Society Foot and Ankle Meetings From 2016 to 2020

Continuing medical education (CME) is an important element to maintain licensing requirements, enhance professional competence, and disseminate up to date, evidence-based, treatment recommendations. A key resource of CME are the 2 annual society meetings hosted by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). It is assumed that the selected speakers at these meetings are content experts, providing validated expertise on treatment recommendations, rather than anecdotal experience or opinion. Across all medical specialists, peer-reviewed publication(s) on a particular subject matter have long bestowed the ultimate validity of "expertise." The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of scholarly publication for invited speakers at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020, in relation to the topic they were selected to present. A review of invited lectures given at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020 was conducted, and lecturer demographics were categorized into predetermined content areas for assessment. Selected speakers were individually cross-referenced with content-specific peer-reviewed published literature, and overall h-index using Scopus. Topic and society specific comparisons were then made. Overall, 1028 lectures were identified during the temporal period. Only 300 (29.18%) presentations were given by a speaker with least one or more publication on the society specific lecture-topic presented. The greatest proportion of lecturers with content-specific publications was Charcot reconstruction (67.57%) followed by ankle fusion/replacement (55%). The average presenter h-index was greatest among total ankle replacement/ankle fusion (12.16 ± 6.90) and Charcot reconstruction (11.27 ± 7.10) content. The results of the present study illustrate a disparity of expertise among different content areas. While both meetings provide well-published lecturers, this study reveals areas for improvement.

Why Do Manuscripts Get Rejected? A Content Analysis of Rejection Reports from the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine

BACKGROUND

A proportion of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals get rejected, for varied reasons. A systematic analysis of the reasons for rejection will be relevant to editors, reviewers, and prospective authors. We aimed to analyze the reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, the flagship journal of Indian Psychiatric Society South Zonal Branch.

METHODS

We performed a content analysis of the rejection reports of all the articles submitted to the journal between January 1, 2018, and May 15, 2020. Rejection reports were extracted from the manuscript management website and divided into three types: desk rejections, post-peer-review rejections, and post-editorial-re-review rejections. They were analyzed separately for the rejection reasons, using a predefined coding frame.

RESULTS

A total of 898 rejection reports were available for content analysis. Rejection was a common fate for manuscripts across the types of submission; figures ranged from 26.7% for viewpoint articles to 72.1% for review articles. The median time to desk rejection was 3 days, while the median time to post-peer-review rejection and post-editorial-re-review rejection was 42 days and 96 days, respectively. The most common reasons for desk rejection were lack of novelty or being out of the journal's scope. Inappropriate study designs, poor methodological descriptions, poor quality of writing, and weak study rationale were the most common rejection reasons mentioned by both peer reviewers and editorial re-reviewers.

CONCLUSIONS

Common reasons for rejection included poor methodology and poorly written manuscripts. Prospective authors should pay adequate attention to conceptualization, design, and presentation of their study, apart from selecting an appropriate journal, to avoid rejection and enhance their manuscript's chances of publication.

Publish or Perish: Five Steps to Navigating a Less Painful Peer Review

This Perspective presents comments intended for junior researchers by Carol A. Lange, Editor-in-Chief, Endocrinology, and Stephen R. Hammes, former Editor-in-Chief, Molecular Endocrinology, and former co-Editor-in-Chief, Endocrinology.

PRINCIPAL POINTS

1. Know when you are ready and identify your target audience.2. Select an appropriate journal.3. Craft your title and abstract to capture your key words and deliver your message.4. Tell a clear and impactful story.5. Review, polish, and perfect your manuscript.

The 100 most-cited articles on chronic venous disease: a bibliometric analysis

Objective

To use bibliometric analysis to understand characteristics and trends in the research on chronic venous disease (CVD), which affects patients’ quality of life by causing pain, swelling, and ulceration.

Methods

We searched the Thomson Reuters Web of Science citation indexing database to identify the 100 most-cited manuscripts on CVD. The resulting articles were analyzed by title, author, institution, topic, year of publication, and country of origin.

Results

The Journal of Vascular Surgery published the most manuscripts on CVD (n = 36) and was the most-cited journal (n = 5356). The United Kingdom was the country with the greatest number of publications (n = 32). Imperial College London was the institution with the highest number of publications (n = 6). Endovenous thermal ablation was the most widely studied research specialty (n = 30).

Conclusions

Our analysis showed that the majority of CVD research is carried out in Western countries, and that the number of research studies is increasing in line with recent advances in CVD.

Conducting Surveys in Dental Education Research: Guidelines and Reminders

The use of surveys is popular in dental education research. However, designing and conducting a survey can have many pitfalls. This article aims to prepare a new researcher or one with little experience to undertake survey research. It covers points such as survey design (including question construction), pilot testing for validity and reliability, sampling strategy, methods to increase response rates, logistical considerations, and items to include when writing the manuscript. Careful consideration of a survey from beginning to end can help one design and conduct a successful study that meets its research aims and adds valuable evidence to the literature.

A Brief Tutorial on Manuscript Preparation: From Journal Selection to Manuscript Review

Description This article is designed to introduce the novice researcher to the process of journal selection, manuscript submission and manuscript review. PubMed indexing, journal readership, scope, focus, impact factor, fees and acceptable manuscript types are discussed in the first section. The remainder of this article focuses on manuscript preparation, submission and review, including formatting, pre-submission inquiry, submission portals, and the manuscript review process. Specific recommendations are provided to assist the reader in navigating these stages.

Lessons Learned From AJR Neuroradiology Manuscript Reviews: Informative Advice for Prospective Authors in All Fields of Radiology

OBJECTIVE. Comments from manuscript reviews are helpful for guiding a decision about publication and also afford a source of valuable information about how to improve a manuscript. This article is a compendium of comments from reviews of AJR Neuroradiology/Head and Neck Imaging manuscripts that, collectively, serve as a guide for writing a manuscript in any field of radiology. The comments provide examples of previously published AJR guidelines for a manuscript that will have a high likelihood of being published. CONCLUSION. Reviewers devote substantial time and effort to manuscript reviews and provide them to authors at no cost. Their comments provide an important and valuable supply of instruction for authors. Those comments often reflect criteria for judging the worth of a manuscript and reflect sound principles for composing a manuscript. Authors are encouraged to avail themselves of these resources.

Peering Into Peer Review: AJR Neuroradiology Reviewers Discuss Their Approaches to Assessing a Manuscript

OBJECTIVE. This article provides comments from a small group of highly qualified reviewers of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) regarding their approach to assessing manuscripts. The objective is to educate authors about the issues to which reviewers particularly attend and about errors that will decrease the likelihood of publication. CONCLUSION. By following the advice provided in this article, authors should be able to compose better manuscripts and reviewers should be able to generate better reviews.

Publication Barriers of Oral Abstracts From the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons: 2010-2014

Despite possessing the highest oral abstract publication incidence for any national foot and ankle society conference to date (76.9%), it remains unclear why almost a quarter of the oral abstracts accepted to the annual American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) conference fail to achieve journal publication. The purpose of the present study was to assess the publication barriers of oral abstracts from the ACFAS conference: 2010 to 2014. Unpublished oral abstracts from the temporal period were procured from a database. A questionnaire was then distributed to the primary authors to determine the current status of the abstract, as well as the reasons for the failure to pursue or achieve journal publication. Of the 25 oral abstracts that failed to achieve journal publication before July 1, 2017, a total of 11 questionnaires were completed. At the time of the survey, 4 oral abstracts had since been published in a journal, 1 had been published outside of a journal, and 6 had never been submitted for publication consideration. An insufficient amount of time for manuscript preparation (42%), difficulties with co-authors (30%), and a low perceived priority (17%) were the 3 primary reasons authors cited for the failure to publish. Based on the principal barriers identified, a series of recommendations have been proposed to improve the future publication incidence of oral abstracts from the ACFAS conference and research productivity amongst foot and ankle surgeons.

Publication rate of abstracts orally presented at the Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation National Congresses

Objective

The most widely accepted parameter in evaluating the quality of research presented at scientific congresses is the success of publishing that research in a peer-reviewed journal. There are limited data in the literature about the publishing rates of abstracts orally presented at national congresses of the Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation (TARD) in scientific journals. The aim of the present study was to investigate the literary contribution of oral presentations at the TARD Congresses (TARK) and to present proposals for future congresses with detailed evaluation of the literature.

Methods

Overall, 319 orally presented abstracts at the TARK between October 2011 and October 2014 have been reviewed in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Abstracts were evaluated with respect to the institution of the principal author, type of research, publication status in scientific journal, type of publication, year of publication, rate of citation, order of authors and changes in title.

Results

The distributions of investigated papers were as follows: 73.1% clinical research, 21.9% experimental research, 2.5% case presentations and 2.5% survey studies. Moreover, 57.7% of the abstracts had authors from universities, 16% from research-training hospitals and 26.3% from mixed institutions. Further, 42.3% of the abstracts were published as articles in a scientific journal, 65.9% of the manuscripts were published in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) indexed, 8.1% in non-SCIE indexed international journals and 25.9% in national journals. There was no statistically significant difference between institution from which publications were sent and the index status of the journal (p=0.068). The average publication time of the abstracts was 15.01±12.26 months.

Conclusion

The publication rate of abstracts orally presented at the TARK between October 2011 and October 2014 is 42.3%, which is in accordance with other international studies. This indicates that the reports in the congresses were assessed by the jury according to international selection criteria and meticulously scored. The majority of the abstracts were published in journals that are listed in SCIE, indicating a quantitative data regarding the scientific quality of research in anaesthesiology.

Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key

This article deals with formulating a suitable title and an appropriate abstract for an original research paper. The "title" and the "abstract" are the "initial impressions" of a research article, and hence they need to be drafted correctly, accurately, carefully, and meticulously. Often both of these are drafted after the full manuscript is ready. Most readers read only the title and the abstract of a research paper and very few will go on to read the full paper. The title and the abstract are the most important parts of a research paper and should be pleasant to read. The "title" should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and should not be misleading. The "abstract" needs to be simple, specific, clear, unbiased, honest, concise, precise, stand-alone, complete, scholarly, (preferably) structured, and should not be misrepresentative. The abstract should be consistent with the main text of the paper, especially after a revision is made to the paper and should include the key message prominently. It is very important to include the most important words and terms (the "keywords") in the title and the abstract for appropriate indexing purpose and for retrieval from the search engines and scientific databases. Such keywords should be listed after the abstract. One must adhere to the instructions laid down by the target journal with regard to the style and number of words permitted for the title and the abstract.

Clinical Predictors for Unsafe Direct Discharge Home Patients From Intensive Care Units

PURPOSE

To describe factors (demographics and clinical characteristics) that predict patients who are at an increased risk of adverse events or unplanned return visits to a health-care facility following discharge direct to home (DDH) from intensive care units (ICUs).

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of all adult patients who survived their stay in our medical-surgical-trauma ICU between February 2016 and 2017 and were discharged directly home. Patients were followed for 8 weeks postdischarge. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse events or unplanned return visits to a health-care facility following DDH from ICU.

RESULTS

A total of 129 DDH patients were enrolled and completed the 8-week follow-up. We identified 39 unplanned return visits (URVs). There was 0% mortality at 8 weeks postdischarge. Eight potential predictors of hospital URVs (P < .2) were identified in the univariable analysis: prior substance abuse (odds ratio [OR] of URV of 2.50 [95% confidence interval: 1.08-5.80], hepatitis (OR: 6.92 [1.68-28.48]), sepsis (OR: 11.03 [1.19-102.29]), admission nine equivalents of nursing manpower score (NEMS) <24 (OR: 2.28 [1.03-5.04], no fixed address (OR: 22.9 [1.2-437.3]), ICU length of stay (LOS) <2 days (OR: 2.95 [1.28-6.78]), home discharge within London, Ontario (OR: 2.44 [1.00-5.92]), and left against medical advice (AMA; OR: 6.06 [2.04-17.98]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified 8 covariates that were potential predictors of URV: prior substance abuse, hepatitis, sepsis, admission NEMS <24, no fixed address, ICU LOS <2 days, home discharge within London, Ontario, and left AMA. The practice of direct discharges home from the ICU would benefit from adequately powered multicenter study in order to construct a clinical prediction model (that would require further testing and validation).

The Impact of Manuscript Learning vs. Video Learning on a Surgeon's Confidence in Performing a Difficult Procedure

Introduction: Operative surgical videos are a popular educational resource, not commonly a part of a peer-reviewed article. We wanted to evaluate the impact of either reading a peer-reviewed manuscript or watching an operative video on a surgeon's confidence in performing a complex case. Methods: Pediatric surgeons and fellows were asked to complete an initial questionnaire to assess their confidence (formulated as a score) in the diagnosis and operative repair of anal stenosis and rectal atresia. Results: Of 101 pediatric surgeons and fellows, 52 (51%) were randomized into a "manuscript" group and 49 (49%) into a "video" group. The mean confidence before the intervention was the same in the two groups (6.4 vs. 6.6). Attending surgeons started with more confidence than trainees (7.1 vs. 5.3, p < 0.001). In the manuscript group, the average confidence increased to 7.7 (p = 0.005), and in the video group the average confidence increased to 7.9 (p = 0.001) globally. Trainees in the video group significantly improved their confidence to a score of 6.6 (p = 0.035), as did attending surgeons to 8.5 (p = 0.01). In the manuscript group, only attendings significantly improved their confidence by 1.5-8.3 (p < 0.001), whereas trainees did not with a difference of 1.3 (p = 0.194). When considering experience level, physicians who reported never having performed this surgery improved only by reading the manuscript (3.9-6.2) (p = 0.004), not by watching the video (5.4-6.6) (p = 0.106). Surgeons with experience doing this operation (>5 times) did not improve their confidence by reading the manuscript (p = 0.10), nor by watching the video (p = 0.112). Conclusion: Reviewing either a detailed manuscript or operative video on the surgical management of rectal atresia and anal stenosis demonstrated a significant increase in self-reported confidence. Trainees benefitted the most from operative videos, whereas experienced surgeons did not improve their confidence by reading the manuscript nor watching the video.

The effectiveness of journals as arbiters of scientific impact

Academic publishers purport to be arbiters of knowledge, aiming to publish studies that advance the frontiers of their research domain. Yet the effectiveness of journal editors at identifying novel and important research is generally unknown, in part because of the confidential nature of the editorial and peer review process. Using questionnaires, we evaluated the degree to which journals are effective arbiters of scientific impact on the domain of Ecology, quantified by three key criteria. First, journals discriminated against low-impact manuscripts: The probability of rejection increased as the number of citations gained by the published paper decreased. Second, journals were more likely to publish high-impact manuscripts (those that obtained citations in 90th percentile for their journal) than run-of-the-mill manuscripts; editors were only 23% and 41% as likely to reject an eventual high-impact paper (pre- versus postreview rejection) compared to a run-of-the-mill paper. Third, editors did occasionally reject papers that went on to be highly cited. Error rates were low, however: Only 3.8% of rejected papers gained more citations than the median article in the journal that rejected them, and only 9.2% of rejected manuscripts went on to be high-impact papers in the (generally lower impact factor) publishing journal. The effectiveness of scientific arbitration increased with journal prominence, although some highly prominent journals were no more effective than much less prominent ones. We conclude that the academic publishing system, founded on peer review, appropriately recognizes the significance of research contained in manuscripts, as measured by the number of citations that manuscripts obtain after publication, even though some errors are made. We therefore recommend that authors reduce publication delays by choosing journals appropriate to the significance of their research.

Impact of a remotely delivered, writing for publication program on publication outcomes of novice researchers

INTRODUCTION

Increased publication of clinician-led health research is important for improving patient care and health outcomes. The aim of this retrospective cohort study conducted in rural Australia was to determine the impact of a writing for publication (WFP) program delivered by teleconference on the publication rates and skill acquisition of novice researchers who have graduated from the New South Wales (NSW) Health Education and Training Institute Rural Research Capacity Building Program (RRCBP).

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2015, eight WFP 'bootcamp' programs were offered by the New South Wales Health Education and Training Institute to 112 RRCBP graduates, resulting in 50 participants completing at least one bootcamp. Participants completed a once-weekly WFP group teleconference for six consecutive weeks, and were expected to complete homework activities between sessions and participate in two follow-up teleconferences within 3 months of program conclusion. The primary outcome measure was manuscript publication resulting from participation in bootcamp, with secondary measures being changes in skills, knowledge and confidence in WFP, publication rate and cost per publication.

RESULTS

Twenty-one participants (42%) published their bootcamp paper or a related paper that directly resulted from bootcamp WFP skills. Five other participants submitted their bootcamp manuscript for publication, but had not yet had it accepted for publication. The overall publication rate of RRCBP graduates who completed bootcamp was 0.80 compared to 0.23 who did not complete bootcamp. On a 1 to 5 scale, mean scores increased for writing (knowledge, experience, confidence) from 2.0 to 3.5 (p<0.01) and for publishing from 1.1 to 3.4 (p<0.01). The estimated cost incurred by the RRCBP to deliver the program was $230 per publication.

CONCLUSION

WFP workshops delivered by teleconference support rural clinician researchers to improve their skills in writing and publishing. A remotely conducted WFP program was effective in increasing publication rates among novice researchers who had conducted a clinically based research project. This shows that novice researchers respond to similar intervention features as experienced researchers do when engaging with WFP, and that WFP outcomes can be increased substantially with modest investment of funding and resources by the host organisation.

Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development

Objectives. To identify peer reviewer and peer review characteristics that enhance manuscript quality and editorial decisions, and to identify valuable elements of peer reviewer training programs. Methods. A three-school, 15-year review of pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration faculty's publications was conducted to identify high-publication volume journals for inclusion. Editors-in-chief identified all editors managing manuscripts for participation. A three-round modified Delphi process was used. Rounds advanced from open-ended questions regarding actions and attributes of good reviewers to consensus-seeking and clarifying questions related to quality, importance, value, and priority. Results. Nineteen editors representing eight pharmacy journals participated. Three characteristics of reviews were rated required or helpful in enhancing manuscript quality by all respondents: includes a critical analysis of the manuscript (88% required, 12% helpful), includes feedback that contains both strengths and areas of improvement (53% required, 47% helpful), and speaks to the manuscript's utility in the literature (41% required, 59% helpful). Hands-on experience with review activities (88%) and exposure to good and bad reviews (88%) were identified as very valuable to peer reviewer development. Conclusion. Reviewers, individuals involved in faculty development, and journals should work to assist new reviewers in defining focused areas of expertise, building knowledge in these areas, and developing critical analysis skills.

Raman spectroscopic analysis of an important Visigothic historiated manuscript

Raman spectroscopy has been used to study fragments of early Visigothic historiated manuscripts from the important mediaeval library at Santo Domingo de Silos which were a part of a Beato dating from the tenth to the mid-eleventh centuries. These fragments are from some of the oldest manuscripts in the scriptorium of the monastery. In this study, a comparison is made between the pigments and inks used on these manuscripts and those used in a previous study of the unique Visigothic Beato de Valcavado in Santa Cruz, Valladolid, completed in the year 970, which is noted for its quality of execution as well as its content and is remarkable eschatologically in being identifiable as the complete work of only a single scribe. For comparative purposes, the pigments and inks used in the Silos Monastery Beato and a series of historiated early manuscripts from mediaeval times through to the Renaissance also held in the monastic library were analysed. Raman spectroscopy identified a range of mineral and organic pigments such as cinnabar, orpiment, minium, azurite and indigo. In addition, a number of admixtures were found, for example, indigo and orpiment to produce vergaut (green) and a mixture of cinnabar with iron-gall ink and cerussite to produce darker and lighter shades of red. Some interesting conclusions were drawn about the use of iron-gall and carbon-based inks.This article is part of the themed issue 'Raman spectroscopy in art and archaeology'.

Peer review and the publication process

AIMS

To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals.

DESIGN

Discussion paper.

METHODS

This paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing.

RESULTS

There are various types of peer review: single blind; double blind; open; and post-publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and academic community remains important.

Ready! Aim! Fire! targeting the right medical science journal

Inadvertently submitting a paper to a journal that is unlikely to publish it is a waste of resources and ultimately delays dissemination of one’s research. A high proportion of manuscripts are rejected by their author’s first-choice journal. The aim of the present work was to review guidance provided within the literature for journal selection that might minimize the chance of manuscript rejection. We also consider papers that encompass more than one main medical science and describe the selection process that we used with a paper that was published in Cardiovascular Endocrinology.

Young hands, old books: Drawings by children in a fourteenth-century manuscript, LJS MS. 361

This article scrutinises three marginal drawings in LJS 361, Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts, University of Pennsylvania Libraries. It first considers the provenance of the manuscript, questioning how it got into the hands of children. Then, it combines developmental psychology with close examination of the material evidence to develop a list of criteria to attribute the drawings to children. There is consideration of the features that help us estimate the age of the artists, and which indicate that one drawing was a collaborative effort between two children. A potential relationship is identified between the doodles and the subject matter of the text, prompting questions about pre-modern child education and literacy. Finally, the article considers the implications of this finding in both codicology and social history since these marginal illustrations demonstrate that children were active in the material life of medieval books.

Case reports: Brief overview of reporting and submission to biomedical journal

A case report is a specific type of research design that reports on an aspect of the management of patients. Case reports have significantly influenced the evolution of medicine. In general, case reports should be short and focussed and should contain abstract, introduction, description of the case, discussion and conclusion. The aim of this article is to provide useful details and tips to the young anaesthesiologists in the writing of a case report and then to publish it.

Preparing manuscript: Scientific writing for publication

Publication has become a burning issue among Indian medical fraternity owing to certain academic and professional necessities. The large number of submissions to the anaesthesia journals has resulted in accumulation of too much below average scientific material. A properly written manuscript is the dream of every editor and reviewer. The art of preparing a manuscript can be acquired only by following certain basic rules and technical aspects, besides knowledge and skills. Before preparing the manuscript, a target journal should be considered. All the instructions to the authors pertaining to that particular journal should be followed meticulously before preparing the manuscript for submission. The basic structure of the manuscript to be followed can be summarised by the acronym IMRaD (introduction, methods, results and discussion). The current review article aims to highlight all those mandatory and desirable features which should be kept in consideration while preparing a scientific manuscript for publication.

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.

Breaking into the International Arena: Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences publishing Report 2013

The most recent Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences (MJMS)-MyCite report has shown that it has achieved a level becoming of a leading national medical science journal. This editorial reports on submission and acceptance rates of MJMS throughout the year 2013 and their geographical contributors. Our rejection rate of 29.76% with a 21.95% withdrawal rate because of poor quality of content and data as well as plagiarism indicates the seriousness of this journal to maintain the integrity and quality of it's scientific data.

Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences Striving towards Visibility

The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences has in its 25 years "Silver Jubilee" achieved another milestone of being visible to the biomedical community when it was accepted in PubMed. The journal aim to increase its readership so as to increase impact in the biomedical field amongst its Asian readers despite having a high rejection rate. This was done to maintain quality of the manuscripts published over the years. PubMed listing should enable more manuscripts to be cited as its the leading biomedical journal for the Asian community.

Avoiding manuscript mistakes

Writing a scientific manuscript can be a consuming, but rewarding task with a number of intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. The ability to write a scientific manuscript is typically not an emphasized component of most entry-level professional programs. The purpose of this overview is to provide authors with suggestions to improve manuscript quality and to provide mechanisms to avoid common manuscript mistakes that are often identified by journal reviewers and editors.

How to write an article: Preparing a publishable manuscript!

Most of the scientific work presented as abstracts (platforms and posters) at various conferences have the potential to be published as articles in peer-reviewed journals. This DIY (Do It Yourself) article on how to achieve that goal is an extension of the symposium presented at the 36^th European Congress of Cytology, Istanbul, Turkey (presentation available on net at http://alturl.com/q6bfp). The criteria for manuscript authorship should be based on the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. The next step is to choose the appropriate journal to submit the manuscript and review the ‘Instructions to the authors’ for that journal. Although initially it may appear to be an insurmountable task, diligent organizational discipline with a little patience and perseverance with input from mentors should lead to the preparation of a nearly perfect publishable manuscript even by a novice. Ultimately, the published article is an excellent track record of academic productivity with contribution to the general public good by encouraging the exchange of experience and innovation. It is a highly rewarding conduit to the personal success and growth leading to the collective achievement of continued scientific progress. Recent emergences of journals and publishers offering the platform and opportunity to publish under an open access charter provides the opportunity for authors to protect their copyright from being lost to conventional publishers. Publishing your work on this open platform is the most rewarding mission and is the recommended option in the current modern era.

[This open access article can be linked (copy-paste link from HTML version of this article) or reproduced FREELY if original reference details are prominently identifiable].

Digital plagiarism--the Web giveth and the Web shall taketh

Publishing students' and researchers' papers on the World Wide Web (WWW) facilitates the sharing of information within and between academic communities. However, the ease of copying and transporting digital information leaves these authors' ideas open to plagiarism. Using tools such as the Plagiarism.org database, which compares submissions to reports and papers available on the Internet, could discover instances of plagiarism, revolutionize the peer review process, and raise the quality of published research everywhere.

What Every Author and Reviewer Should Know about the Publication Process in the Journal of Nematology

The Journal of Nematology is a publication of the very highest quality for communicating the most recent discoveries in the science of nematology. The authors of this Viewpoint article desire to maintain the status of the journal while lessening the burden placed on the editorial staff. A few simple steps taken by authors during the manuscript preparation phase can greatly improve the quality of their papers. Authors should carefully review the "Author's Publication Handbook and Style Manual" before and during the preparation of a manuscript intended for publication in the Journal of Nematology. In addition, authors should submit a completed "Author's Checklist for Preparation of Papers" with each manuscript submitted to the journal. Reviewers should provide thorough reviews, return mantlscripts in a timely manner, and clearly define statements regarding revisions.