Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Manuscripts as Topic”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Contribution to the history of plastic and reconstructive surgery from Dubrovnik and split during the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries.

Medieval contracts for medical treatment are, without doubt, evidence of proper and adequate insight into the quality of operations performed centuries ago. Historical archives in Dalmatian cities have preserved a certain number of such contracts. Their contents assist in better understanding our historical heritage. This paper submits contracts, kept in Dubrovnik and Split, for the operation of inguinal hernia. A case depicting a defective palate treated by Amatus Lusitanus, who lived in Dubrovnik from 1555 to 1558, is also presented.

Croatia↗
PubMed1992

Modification in amino acids of Dead Sea Scroll Parchments.

Fragments of Dead Sea Scroll Parchments were extracted for collagen and subjected to amino acid analysis. In modern parchment samples, 90% or more of the protein could be extracted in hot aqueous solution as collagen. In the ancient specimens, 70% or less was extractable. The hot-solution insoluble material was analyzed for collagen. In the soluble extract, the quantity of tyrosine, histidine, and methionine was reduced. Dityrosine was detected. The need to extend such studies is discussed.

Amino Acids↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal?

BACKGROUND: Timeliness is an important attribute of peer review because it brings information promptly to its users. This has become even more important with the development of on-line submission and on-line peer review. Small journals usually must rely on regular mail and traditional peer review. We evaluated the review time in a small medical journal outside of mainstream science. METHODS: We analyzed 1,346 editorial requests for manuscript peer review sent from the Croatian Medical Journal to 690 reviewers from February 1998 to December 2001. RESULTS: Peer reviewer response rate was 78.6% (1,057 of 1,346 requests for review) and median review time was 29 days (95% confidence interval [95% CI]=28-31 days). Of returned reviews, 554 (52.4%) arrived on time (before the deadline established by the editor) and the others arrived late. Median delay was 12 days (95% CI=10-15 days). There was no difference in delay for Croatian- and non-Croatian-authored manuscripts, but more reviews of articles on clinical medicine were delayed than those on public health. More reviews from non-Croatian or male reviewers were never returned to the editors. For reviews that arrived late, those from male reviewers were more delayed than those from female reviewers (median, 13 days, 95% CI=11-15 days vs. median, 8 days, 95% CI=5-12 days, respectively). Logistic regression analysis revealed that odds for reviewer's positive response to an editorial request for manuscript review were greater for female Croatian reviewers, who received up to three review requests. CONCLUSIONS: Peer review time in a small general medical journal may be comparable to review times in larger and more prestigious journals. Choice of reviewers may improve the expediency of peer review: editors from small journals may profit from building and educating local peer reviewers, bearing in mind that female reviewers may provide more expedient reviews.

Female↗
PubMed2005

Selling the silver: country house libraries and the history of science.

Country houses have long acted as scholarly research centres, and the contents and organization of their libraries reveal how knowledge was created and transmitted through scientific networks: they provide material evidence of intellectual and social cultures. Manuscripts are particularly appreciated in this regard because they are unique, but individual books also differ and copies of the same book are not always identical -- they might be annotated by authors and readers, and the printed text can vary as well -- so they also carry invaluable historical information. When libraries are broken up, access to the past is permanently blocked.

Biological Science Disciplines↗
PubMed2004

How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication.

BACKGROUND: The publication of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals is a fairly complex and step-wise process that involves responding to referees' comments. Little guidance is available in the biomedical literature on how to deal with such comments. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to provide guidance to novice writers on dealing with peer review comments in a way that maximizes the chance of subsequent acceptance. METHODS: This will be a literature review and review of the author's experience as a writer and referee. RESULTS: Where possible, the author should consider revising and resubmitting rather than sending an article elsewhere. A structured layout for responding to referees' comments is suggested that includes the 3 golden rules: (1) respond completely; (2) respond politely; and (3) respond with evidence. CONCLUSION: Responding to referees' comments requires the writer to overcome any feelings of personal attack, and to instead concentrate on addressing referees' concerns in a courteous, objective, and evidence-based way.

Editorial Policies↗
PubMed2004

Phylogenetics of artificial manuscripts.

Biological evolution has parallels with the development of natural languages, man-made artifacts, and manuscript texts. As a result, phylogenetic methods developed for evolutionary biology are increasingly being used in linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, and textual criticism. Despite this popularity, there have been few critical tests of their suitability. Here, we apply phylogenetic methods to artificial manuscripts with a known true phylogeny, produced by modern 'scribes'. Although the survival of ancestral forms and multiple descendants from a single ancestor are probably much more common in manuscript evolution than biological evolution, we were able to reconstruct most of the true phylogeny. This is important because phylogenetic methods are influencing the production of critical editions of major written works. We also show that the variation in rates of change at different locations in the text follows a gamma distribution, as is often the case in DNA sequences.

Language↗
PubMed2000

The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal.

PURPOSE: The fate of research manuscripts that have been rejected by medical journals is of interest to authors, editors, and peer reviewers, but previous studies were conducted before the widespread availability of computerized literature searches. We update the previous investigations of the fate of rejected research manuscripts by using an electronic literature search and a larger sample, a longer follow-up, and more descriptive journal indexes. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we examined 350 manuscripts rejected by the Annals of Internal Medicine, a general medical journal, during 1993 and 1994. We assessed the number of manuscripts that were published after initial rejection, time to eventual publication, journal type (general versus specialty), and journal impact factor (higher scores indicated greater impact) and immediacy index. RESULTS: Of 350 rejected manuscripts, 240 (69%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64% to 73%) were eventually published after a mean of 552 days (95% CI: 479 to 544 days, range 121 to 1, 792 days). Of 226 rejected research articles and reviews, 159 (70%, 95% CI: 64% to 76%) were subsequently published in specialty journals. During 1993 and 1994, the mean impact factor for articles published in the Annals was 9.60 (95% CI: 9.56 to 9.64), compared with a mean of 3.09 (95% CI: 2.80 to 3.37) for the journals in which the rejected articles were subsequently published (mean difference 6. 52, 95% CI: 6.24 to 6.81, P < 0.0001). The immediacy index was also lower for these journals. Time to publication had a weak negative correlation with the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published (correlation coefficient -0.15, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the manuscripts that were rejected from a large general medical journal were eventually published after an average of 18 months. Most were published in specialty journals with lower impact factor and immediacy index ratings.

Cohort Studies↗
PubMed2002

Language and publication in "Cardiovascular Research" articles.

BACKGROUND: The acceptance rate of non-mother English tongue authors is generally a lot lower than for native English tongue authors. Obviously the scientific quality of an article is the principal reason for publication. However, is editorial rejection purely on scientific grounds? English mother tongue writers publish more than non mother-tongue writers--so are editors discriminating linguistically? We therefore decided to survey language errors in manuscripts submitted for publication to Cardiovascular Research (CVR). METHOD: We surveyed language errors in 120 medical articles which had been submitted for publication in 1999 and 2000. The language "error" categories were divided into three principal groups: grammatical, structural and lexical which were then further sub-divided into key areas. The articles were corrected without any knowledge of the author's nationality or the corrections made by other language researchers. After an initial correction, a sample of the papers were cross-checked to verify reliability. RESULTS: The control groups of US and UK authors had an almost identical acceptance rate and overall "error" rate indicating that the language categories were objective categories also for the other nationalities. Although there was not a direct relationship between the acceptance rate and the amount of language errors, there was a clear indication that badly written articles correlated with a high rejection rate. The US/UK acceptance rate of 30.4% was higher than for all the other countries. The lowest acceptance rate of 9% (Italian) also had the highest error rate. DISCUSSION: Many factors could influence the rejection of an article. However, we found clear indications that carelessly written articles could often have either a direct or subliminal influence on whether a paper was accepted or rejected. On equal scientific merit, a badly written article will have less chance of being accepted. This is even if the editor involved in rejecting a paper does not necessarily identify language problems as a motive for rejection. A more detailed look at the types and categories of language errors is needed. Furthermore we suggest the introduction of standardised guidelines in scientific writing.

Cardiology↗