Ten Principles for Increasing the Likelihood of Manuscript Publication

Transcription

1 Ten Principles for Increasing the Likelihood of Manuscript Publication James M. Provenzale, MD Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center Departments of Radiology, Oncology and Biomedical Engineering, Emory University School of Medicine

2 Aims of this Presentation To provide practical advice on composing a manuscript for a scientific publication To show that the process of manuscript preparation consists of a series of routine, but important, steps JM Provenzale. Ten principles to improve the likelihood of publication of a scientific manuscript. AJR 2007; 188:

3 Before You Start the Study Identify a previously unanswered question Review published articles or abstracts of meetings Consider ways to increase the practical import of your research question Seek the opinion of honest, interested individuals not involved in the study

4 Initial Words of Advice When organizing a study, determine who will perform most of the writing Assign roles, including detail person Have a few different projects on-going at once Initially, score runs by hitting singles and doubles rather than homeruns

5 The 4 Building Blocks of a Manuscript Introduction Methods Results Discussion

6 1. Determine the Writing Sequence that is Best for You The order of writing the 4 sections in a manuscript is not fixed Ask successful authors how they do it My suggestion: write the Methods first, while you are performing the study

7 2. Clearly State the Study Question and Study Rationale Beginners often fail to state goals and why the study was done I usually start my reviews by summarizing what the goal of the article is. In the case of this manuscript, I am having a hard time figuring out what the real goal of the article is: - is it a comparison between ASL and? - is it a description of an ASL approach to characterize? - is it a study to assess prognosis in patients based on ASL?

8 2. Clearly State the Study Question and Study Rationale State the study goal in plain language, using a simple sentence, e.g., the goal of this study was to. Provide a rationale for the study, e.g., previous authors have shown but not adequately explained

9 3. Explain Methods in a Systematic Manner "If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over? -UCLA coach John Wooden

10 3. Explain Methods in a Systematic Manner Write the Methods as if you were providing a recipe Outline each step in the experiment Don t expect the reader to fill in the gaps Divide the Methods into subsections, each with its own subheading

11 3. Explain Methods in a Systematic Manner 1. Patient selection, entry criteria, etc. 2. Explain why certain populations were excluded 3. Outline sequence of tests 4. Indicate statistical tests used 5. Make sure everything done in the Methods has a counterpart in the Results

12 4. Similar Structure of Results and Methods Structure the Results in a manner that closely reflects the organization of the Methods Use the same subheadings for both the Methods and the Results

13 Parallel: Methods and Results Methods: Paired t tests were performed for comparison of FA values in the two hemispheres and the same was performed for ADC values. Results: Mean FA values ranged from 0.41 ± 0.04 in the PCFW to 0.61 ± 0.06 in the SCC (Table 1). In general, no significant differences were seen with regard to hemispheric asymmetry. However, a small but significant degree of

14 5. Make the Discussion Section Concise Paragraph 1- again state goal of study and indicate major findings Paragraph 2- elaborate on meaning of findings Paragraph 3- explain differences from prior studies Paragraph 4- explain limitations

15 6. Explain Importance of Results Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Discussion are the place where one explains why this study should be published If your study advances the state of knowledge on a topic, explicitly state so, e.g., new findings, revocation of previously published findings, new understanding, etc.

16 7. Avoid Over-interpretation of Results Do not overemphasize the importance of your study beyond what the data support Avoid sweeping conclusions Provide alternative explanations for findings Avoid speculation; if the exact significance of a finding is unclear, simply state so

17 8. Explain Limitations of the Study Every study has limitations Note limitations of your study in Discussion paragraph 4, in order of importance Indicate how study limitations may have affected your results Suggest how the study might be performed differently in the future

18 9. Account for Unexpected Results Explain unexpected results in a reasonable manner Explain what new insights (if any) the unexpected results provide

19 10. Incorporate Reviewers Suggestions All manuscripts receive requests for change, even provisionally accepted manuscripts Courteously address all requests, whether major or minor Make the changes in a revised manuscript very apparent to reviewers and editors

20 10. Incorporate Reviewers Suggestions Using fluorescent microscopy, the extravasation of fluorescent-labeled particles from vessels can then be used to measure permeability in a quantitative manner (Figure 1) [6]. [reviewer 1, #4] Examination of surgical resection specimens from human brain tumors has shown significant correlation of VEGF

21 Summary Provided some insights into successful preparation of manuscripts Seek advice from mentors who have a track record of success in publishing Persevere- revise your manuscript without taking criticism personally James.provenzale@dm.duke.edu