How to avoid common problems in research and manuscripts Dr. Bill Summerskill Senior executive editor, The Lancet

Transcription

1 How to avoid common problems in research and manuscripts Dr. Bill Summerskill Senior executive editor, The Lancet

2 Statement of interests Dr. Summerskill is an employee of and holds stock in RELX Group, a company that publishes scientific journals. He has received hospitality, accommodation, and travel from academic organisations, health charities, government agencies, and non-governmental organisations.

3 Aims Review Taiwan s publications in The Lancet Show common errors in worldwide submissions to The Lancet and how to avoid them To reaffirm The Lancet family of journal s commitment to improve health in Asia and to publish the best research from Taiwan

4 Objectives Reflect on research goals and strategies Empower you to submit more competitive manuscripts to scientific journals Help to strengthen Taiwan s research presence

5 Publications from Taiwan, Accepted Articles Total Submissions Accepted - Other 0 PR China Hong Kong Taiwan

6 Publications from Taiwan, 2013 Original research articles 6 (3%) Seminars and Reviews 2 Clinical pictures 3 Correspondence 2

7 Publications from Taiwan, research submissions 0 accepted How / Why have things changed? I would like to work with you to understand and correct the recent under-representation of Taiwan in The Lancet

8 Avoiding 14 avoidable problems There are many aspects of research that influence publication which you cannot control There are others which you can control, but that are commonly ignored and weaken a submission

9 1) Wrong research question Formulate a clear research question Meaningful Specific Answerable PICO

10 Clinical questions P I C O Population Intervention (Comparator) Outcome Age Gender Co-morbidity etc. Test Treatment Exposure (aetiology) etc. None Placebo Gold standard etc. Survival Symptoms Complication etc.

11 2) Poor planning How is this study going to make a contribution to the understanding or practice of health care? REWARD (Reducing research Waste And Rewarding Diligence)

12 Reducing research waste and rewarding diligence (REWARD)

13 3) Wrong methods Apply the correct methods to answer your research question Involve a statistician

14 3) Wrong methods Involve a statistician to advise on Power calculation Analyses Endpoints Data collection

15 4) Weak administration Registration Ethical / institutional approval Funding (retain right to publish)

16 5) Lax conduct Failure to recruit Missing data Reporting delays No independent monitoring

17 6) No consent Written Informed By participant If not required, explain

18 7) Post-hoc analysis Analysis guided by protocol Pre-specified endpoints Pre-specified methods (importance of a sound protocol) Let the data speak for themselves

19 8) Sloppy reporting Follow reporting guidelines Report all pre-specified endpoints in order Major journals will be interested in your science, not your language Avoid jargon Limit abbreviations

20

21

22 9) Text recycling Unattributed to other authors Even if written by yourself Do not be tempted by what might seem better use of English to convey the same idea use your own words Constitutes scientific misconduct

23 10) Failure to declare interests All potential competing interests should be disclosed It is up to readers, not authors, to determine what constitutes a competing interest

24 11) Wrong journal Who is your audience? Where does your manuscript fit (references)? Does journal have a relevant section? Type of research (eg animal research)

25 12) Unfamiliar with journal Be familiar with your chosen journal Philosophy Interests Landmark papers Calls for papers

26 12) Unfamiliar with journal Be familiar with the journal s requirements Format (structure, length) Supporting material (protocols, signatures) If in doubt, ask (and mention in cover letter)

27

28 13) Weak cover letter Does not explain why the manuscript is important for that journal or its readers Does not convey enthusiasm Length words (as short as necessary to interest, but do not overwhelm the reader)

29 14) Not revising seriously An invitation to revise does not imply acceptance Engage wholeheartedly with the process Be respectful, rely on the science

30 Why are the 14 points important? Often occur together Suggest a lack of awareness about research Undermine confidence in other parts of the study of paper that may have been done well Many can be easily fixed

31 What do editors look for? Research that is going to change thinking Interest to a wide audience First and last publication Ethically sound Methodologically robust Reported fully

32

33 1) Right research question Meaningful Specific Answerable

34

35 2) Good planning Make a contribution to the understanding or practice of health care

36

37 3) Right methods Power calculation Analyses Endpoints Data collection

38

39 4) Strong administration Registration Ethical / institutional approval Funding (retain right to publish)

40

41 5) Strict conduct

42

43 6) Include consent Written Informed By participant If not required, explain

44

45 7) Pre-planned analysis Guided by protocol Pre-specified endpoints Pre-specified methods (importance of a sound protocol) Let the data speak for themselves

46

47 8) Careful reporting Follow reporting guidelines Report all pre-specified endpoints in order Major journals will be interested in your science, not your language Avoid jargon Limit abbreviations

48

49

50 9) No text recycling Unattributed to other authors Even if written by yourself Do not be tempted by what might seem better use of English to convey the same idea use your own words Constitutes scientific misconduct

51

52 10) Clearly declare interests Statement on data sharing

53 11) Right journal Important clinical topic Substantial disease burden Ability to change practice Multi-centre Well-done RCT

54 RCTs and total research published in RCTs Articles % (60%) 59% (55%) 43% (40%) NEJM Lancet JAMA

55 12) Familiarity with journal Philosophy Sections Content Requirements Calls for papers

56 13) Convincing cover letter Does not explain why the manuscript is important for that journal or its readers Does not convey enthusiasm Length words (as short as necessary to interest, but do not overwhelm the reader)

57

58 13) Convincing cover letter EV71 infection is an important public health issue in Asia-Pacific region and beyond, including Brazil, Western Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and mainland China.

59 13) Convincing cover letter The clinical spectrum of EV71 infection ranges from asymptomatic infection, to mild hand-footmouth disease, and severe complications with central nervous system, and cardiopulmonary involvement. From 2010 through 2011, 1*6 million cases and 509 deaths were reported in China.

60 13) Convincing cover letter The development of vaccine against EV71 is currently a dynamic topic with paramount relevance for public health. The phase II clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT ) reported here written according to CONSORT guideline

61 14) Revise seriously An invitation to revise does not imply acceptance Engage wholeheartedly with the process Be respectful, rely on the science

62 What do editors look for? Research that is going to change thinking

63 What do editors look for? Research that is going to change thinking Interest to a wide audience

64

65 What do editors look for? Research that is going to change thinking Interest to a wide audience First and last

66

67 What do editors look for? Research that is going to change thinking Interest to a wide audience First and last Ethically sound

68

69 What do editors look for? Research that is going to change thinking Interest to a wide audience First and last Ethically sound Robust methods

70

71 What do editors look for? Research that is going to change thinking Interest to a wide audience First and last Ethically sound Robust methods Reported fully

72

73 Conclusion Taiwan is a world-leader in science The Lancet family of journals want to bring excellent research from Taiwan to the world Observing the 14 details discussed today can strengthen your manuscript and increase your chance of publication in The Lancet

74 Taiwan s expertise Methodological rigour Gastroenterology: H pylori, hepatitis, HCC Oncology: lung cancer Health registries Health systems

75 The Lancet Digital Medicine

76