SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MANUSCRIPTS”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine how dedicated methodology and statistical review affects the quality of manuscripts published in Annals of Emergency Medicine. DESIGN: The dedicated reviewers developed a manuscript scoring form based on previously used instruments. The form contained 84 unique elements. Eight items sought the presence of state-of-the-art features (eg, formal exploration of the sensitivity of results to assumptions); the others sought substandard quality. Two raters independently scored each original research publication appearing in 4 consecutive issues of Annals for the presence or absence of each relevant item. We then reviewed the formal methodology and statistical review and all subsequent correspondence between authors and editors to determine whether the methodology and statistical review provided guidance regarding each of the 84 items and whether the advice was incorporated into the final manuscript. RESULTS: There were 32 original research articles. One was never subjected to methodology and statistical review. Reviewers agreed on 94% of all items; single-item agreement ranged from 77% to 100%. State-of-the-art features were present in 31 (14%) of 217 ratings; the methodology and statistical review had commented on 13 (42%) of these. State-of-the-art features were absent in 186 (86%) ratings; the methodology and statistical review had commented on 33 (18%) of these. Substandard features were deemed present in 166 (12%) of 1,519 ratings; the methodology and statistical review had commented on 82 (44%) of these. Substandard features were absent in 1,333 (88%) ratings; the methodology and statistical review had commented on 132 (10%) of these. We found no fatal flaws in the published manuscripts. CONCLUSION: Methodology reviewers often failed to comment on deficiencies that they had classified as substandard when designing this study. Reviews also did not encourage inclusion of state-of-the-art abstract, article, and references features. When reviews identified areas in need of improvement, only half of the comments led to improved manuscripts. In the other half, authors either rebuked the suggestions or the editors did not act when suggestions were ignored.

Peer Review, Research↗

PubMed1991

Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR.

The fate of rejected manuscripts that were originally submitted to the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) during the first 5 months of 1986 was investigated to learn whether, when, and where they had been published. AJR, a peer-reviewed journal of diagnostic radiology with a circulation of over 21,000, annually publishes about 500 papers and receives over 11,500 citations. MEDLINE searches conducted 45 to 54 months after the dates of rejection by AJR located 162 (64%) published papers out of a consecutive series of 254 manuscripts rejected by AJR, including 69% of the rejected major papers and 62% of the rejected case reports. The papers had been published in 30 different radiologic and 27 different nonradiologic journals. Most of these journals published fewer papers, had smaller circulations, and had lower impact factors (a ratio of citations received to papers published) than AJR does. The mean time lapse between rejection by AJR and publication in other journals was 15 months. The delay in publication was greater for papers published in nonradiologic and foreign journals than for papers published in radiologic and American journals. The results of this study indicate that rejection of a manuscript by a peer-reviewed journal such as AJR delays but by no means precludes publication. At least 82% of the major papers and 70% of the case reports that are submitted to AJR are eventually published, either in AJR or elsewhere. Because a scientific paper represents not only many hours of writing and manuscript preparation but also a great investment of research time and resources, authors are reluctant to abandon rejected manuscripts. In the majority of cases, submission to other journals gains acceptance and publication.

MEDLINE↗

PubMed2000

[Authorship in manuscripts published in biomedical journals].

Multiauthorship shows an increasing trend in biomedical and other scientific journals. A main concern for editors, reviewers and readers is to find out whether all individuals enlisted as authors actually fulfill criteria for authorship as defined in the document "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals". Revista Médica de Chile is addressing this relevant topic with a combined strategy: (1) A retrospective analysis of the manuscripts published in the recent decades in the Revista will quantify and illustrate the local trend in multiauthorship; (2) A "Statement of accountability": signed by all authors in manuscripts submitted to the Revista, is in use since 1997; and (3) A new form of this "Statement of accountability" requests all authors to identify their personal involvement in the work represented by the manuscript. This information will be available to every person participating in the editorial assessment of the manuscript (editors and external reviewers) but during a trial period of six months authors will be allowed to object the publication of this data, stating the reasons for this objection. After six months the editors will evaluate the information collected and the self-declared role of every author enlisted. The terms "Author" and "Main author" will continue being used to designate participants because "contributor" (replacement alternative proposed by Rennie et al., currently in use by several leading general medical journals) has a different main meaning in Spanish than in English and it might have a negative effect.

Authorship↗

PubMed2002

[How to attract more and better manuscripts to be published in Chilean biomedical journals].

A survey was addressed to 57 editors of Chilean biomedical journals, on how to attract more and better manuscripts to their journals. Thirty seven editors (65%) answered this survey. According to them the main motivation of Medical Societies for editing their own journals is to improve information acquisition. To communicate an experience, followed by getting credits in their curriculum vitae, were considered by the editors as the main motivations of authors to submit papers. The most frequent deficiencies of manuscripts received are: disorganization in their presentation and bad adherence to journal's requirements for submitting manuscripts. An improvement in the relationship between author-editor-reviewer was mentioned by most of the editors, as the mechanism to be used to enhance the quality of the manuscripts. Only 14 editors (38%) agree in that there is a decrease in the number of original papers submitted. This decrease was attributed by most of them, to a high pressure for publishing in journals with the highest impact factor. Suggestions on how to improve the Chilean biomedical journals included: a) to professionalize editorial work and to increase meticulousness when reviewing manuscripts; b) to increase the recognition of articles published in Chilean biomedical journals, when applying for academic promotions or research grants and c) to create a "national impact factor".

Chile↗

PubMed1996

Structure of a scholarly manuscript: 66 tips for what goes where.

OBJECTIVE: TO SHARE WITH POTENTIAL AUTHORS TIPS FOR CONSTRUCTING A SCHOLARLY MANUSCRIPT AND FOR ORGANIZING INFORMATION IN VARIOUS TYPES OF SCHOLARLY MANUSCRIPTS: experimental reports, literature reviews, case reports, and clinical techniques. DESCRIPTION: The goal of writing a scientific/technical/ medical article is to communicate new information that hopefully has clinical relevance and will improve health care. This information must be organized and presented clearly and logically. We present 66 tips for organizing a scholarly manuscript. We tell not only what goes where in the manuscript but also how to construct each of the elements so as to logically communicate the author's message. The tips are numbered to facilitate referencing. CONCLUSION: By becoming familiar with these tips, potential authors can avoid making mistakes that may hinder publication of their manuscripts.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2005

How to write an oncology manuscript.

Publications may represent accomplishment in academic medicine, primary documentation of research data, evidence of expertise through writing an authoritative review paper or book chapter or a major determinant in achieving academic promotion and career development. Editors and reviewers appreciate receiving manuscripts that are easy to read and edit. Much of the information in journals instructions to authors is designed to accomplish that goal in ways that meet each journal's particular editorial needs. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) statement is an important research tool that takes an evidence-based approach to improve the quality of reports of randomized trials. The guidance that follows provides a general background and rationale for preparing oncology manuscripts for any journal. Many of these guidelines are based on feedback provided by actual peer reviewers. Even before you start writing, it is good practice to review the typical sections of a manuscript The text of observational and experimental articles is usually (but not necessarily) divided into sections with the headings Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. This so-called "IMRAD". The abstract of the manuscript is usually divided into background, purpose, patients and methods, results and conclusion. The section on patients and methods of an oncology manuscript should include the eligibility criteria for the patients, study design, treatment plan, baseline and treatment assessments and statistical analysis. The results include data on patient characteristics, tumor response, time to event measures, toxicity and dose administration. The conclusion must address the primary objective of the study. Authors will be able to address up front many issues regarding content, organization, presentation, and formatting, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful publication of their papers in peer-reviewed journals.

Humans↗

PubMed1995

Avoiding the question approach: making direct comments in manuscript reviews.

Some reviewers place questions to the author in their manuscript reviews. These questions leave the author uncertain about what to do to revise the manuscript. Reviewers who provide clear directions, instead of posing questions, help the author revise the manuscript and assist the editor in obtaining a quality manuscript for publication. This article provides tips for reviewers and authors on writing or using comments on the manuscript.

Humans↗

PubMed2002

The structure of a neurosurgical manuscript.

Preparing publishable manuscripts is an important aspect of professional life in research or clinical neurosurgery, especially for those in academic circles. Scientific writing skills can be developed through a long process of training and experience, starting with the residency program. The first step in developing a manuscript is to focus on a subject or problem that might be of significant interest to colleagues in the field. Next, the prospective writer must do a detailed survey of the relevant literature, the results of which will help him or her decide whether to actually write about the topic. Since the primary goal is to get the manuscript published, the writer should bear a specific journal in mind and write in accordance with the guidelines of that publication. He or she must also consider general ethics and scientific rules during the writing process. Learning how to assess and use scientific sources, how to relate the collected information to the manuscript, and how to write in good scientific form are all important aspects of neurosurgical training.

Guidelines as Topic↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Quality of manuscript evaluation in Gaceta Sanitaria].

OBJECTIVE: To describe strengths and weaknesses of peer reviews of manuscripts received in Gaceta Sanitaria in order to guide reviewers selection, to improve quality of peer reviews and to establish an internal system to be incorporated to the editorial process of handling manuscripts. METHODS: 100 peer reviews of 55 manuscripts received during 2000 and 2001 were included. A questionnaire containing closed questions assessing specific and general components of reviews' quality was applied (answers Yes/No or on a 5-points scale). Descriptive and correlation analyses were performed for the different items in the questionnaire. An Index of Quality was obtained by adding the ratings on the items in the questionnaire measuring specific quality components. RESULTS: Peer reviews were rated high regarding completeness of the forms for reviewers (84%), constructiveness of the comments (reviews over 3: 63%), identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the method (reviews over 3: 59%) and substantiation of the reviewer comments (reviews over 3: 58%). Assessment of the manuscript's relevance (reviews over 3: 40%) or originality (reviews over 3: 35%) were less frequent. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of peer reviews in Gaceta Sanitaria is good. Some weaknesses in the reviews have been pointed out. It is possible to establish a systematic process for assessing peer reviewers using simple indicators such as general utility of the review for the editorial decision and general quality of the review.

Bibliometrics↗

PubMed2005

How science survived: medieval manuscripts' "demography" and classic texts' extinction.

Determining what fraction of texts and manuscripts have survived from Antiquity and the Middle Ages has been highly problematic. Analyzing the transmission of texts as the "paleodemography" of their manuscripts yields definite and surprisingly high estimates. Parchment copies of the foremost medieval textbooks on arithmetical and calendrical calculation closely fit age distributions expected for populations with logistic growth and manuscripts with exponential survivorship. The estimated half-lives of copies agree with Bischoff's paleographically based suggestion that roughly one in seven manuscripts survive in some form from ninth-century Carolingian workshops. On this basis, many if not most of the leading technical titles circulating in Latin probably survived, even from late Antiquity.

History, 15th Century↗

PubMed2005

Manuscript Architect: a Web application for scientific writing in virtual interdisciplinary groups.

BACKGROUND: Although scientific writing plays a central role in the communication of clinical research findings and consumes a significant amount of time from clinical researchers, few Web applications have been designed to systematically improve the writing process. This application had as its main objective the separation of the multiple tasks associated with scientific writing into smaller components. It was also aimed at providing a mechanism where sections of the manuscript (text blocks) could be assigned to different specialists. Manuscript Architect was built using Java language in conjunction with the classic lifecycle development method. The interface was designed for simplicity and economy of movements. Manuscripts are divided into multiple text blocks that can be assigned to different co-authors by the first author. Each text block contains notes to guide co-authors regarding the central focus of each text block, previous examples, and an additional field for translation when the initial text is written in a language different from the one used by the target journal. Usability was evaluated using formal usability tests and field observations. RESULTS: The application presented excellent usability and integration with the regular writing habits of experienced researchers. Workshops were developed to train novice researchers, presenting an accelerated learning curve. The application has been used in over 20 different scientific articles and grant proposals. CONCLUSION: The current version of Manuscript Architect has proven to be very useful in the writing of multiple scientific texts, suggesting that virtual writing by interdisciplinary groups is an effective manner of scientific writing when interdisciplinary work is required.

Authorship↗

PubMed2006

Teaching how to prepare a manuscript by means of rewriting published scientific papers.

The objective of the course described here is to train undergraduate students to write a scientific manuscript. The students participate in selection of a current topic in contemporary genetics or molecular biology by choosing the most interesting paper of a given year. After the teacher provides all essential background about the selected subject, he or she selects a recent article from the corresponding field and presents the students with all the necessary information contained in the paper without revealing its title and author. The data presented in the paper are reviewed by the class so that each student understands every experiment and the main points of the work. Simultaneously, the students are informed about the basic rules of writing the individual sections of a scientific paper. They are then asked to write and formally submit a manuscript summarizing the data. Finally, the students act as reviewers of their colleagues' manuscripts and compare their papers with the original published articles. This enables them to identify both the strengths and the weaknesses of their manuscripts and to gain confidence in the writing skills that will be so critical for their future scientific activities.

Biomedical Research↗

PubMed2005

A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, we provide a step-by-step guide to reviewing a manuscript that we hope will improve the quality of reviews for the AJR. CONCLUSION: We have provided a detailed series of guidelines for providing excellent reviews of manuscripts. The template we have provided can be used to serve as a checklist for important questions to ask about manuscripts during the review process. Finally, the principles presented here also can be used as a guide for authors by providing a list of important features to include during manuscript preparation and thereby prospectively address questions that good reviewers are likely to ask.

Humans↗

PubMed1997

Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

A small group of editors of general medical journals met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the US National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually; gradually it has broadened its concerns. The Committee has produced 5 editions of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Over the years, issues have arisen that go beyond manuscript preparation. Some of these issues are now covered in the Uniform Requirements; others are addressed in separate statements. Each statement has been published in a scientific journal. The fifth edition (1997) is an effort to reorganize and reword the fourth edition to increase clarity and address concerns about rights, privacy, descriptions of methods, and other matters. The total content of the Uniform Requirements may be reproduced for educational, not-for-profit purposes without regard for copyright; ICMJE encourages distribution of the material. Journals that agree to use the Uniform Requirements (over 500 do so) are asked to cite the 1997 document in their instructions to authors.

Animal Experimentation↗

PubMed2001

Topochemical investigation of ancient manuscripts.

Various modern instrumental techniques for surface analysis were applied for the non-destructive physicochemical examination of works of art. As samples, pieces of ancient manuscripts endangered by iron-gall ink corrosion were used. Surface characterisation of the morphology of the cellulose fibres within corroded and non-corroded parts of the manuscript performed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed seriously damaged cellulose fibres in the written parts. The elemental composition of selected parts of the manuscript was determined by energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence analysis (EDX). A more detailed study of the paper surface was then performed by electron probe microanalysis (EPMA). This technique yields the morphological characteristics of the surface as well as element distribution maps over the written area of the investigated manuscript.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2003

The Southern Thoracic Surgical Association 50th anniversary celebration: the impact of STSA pediatric cardiothoracic surgery manuscripts on surgical practice.

BACKGROUND: Members of the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association (STSA) have presented important pediatric cardiothoracic surgery papers at the annual meetings over the last 50 years. In order to determine the influence of these presentations on the practice of surgery, a review was undertaken. Early papers were characterized by emerging advances in open-heart surgery, anatomic congenital heart studies, and electrophysiologic discoveries that extended life with pacemakers. Later years were characterized by innovative myocardial preservation methods, improved cardiopulmonary bypass techniques, expanded homograft availability, emphasis on accurate repairs, intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary transplantation. METHODS: All but one of the scientific programs of the annual meetings (that of 1964) were located. The programs were reviewed and 180 presentations were identified on topics in congenital heart disease, pediatric thoracic disease, and pediatric thoracic wall abnormalities. Of those 180 oral presentations, 155 manuscripts (86%) were eventually published or in press and available for critical review and analysis. Manuscripts were grouped by diagnosis or therapeutic intervention. We determined a "cumulative citation frequency" (CCF), which measures the number of times an article is cited in the bibliography of related papers in the universe of participating journals. The selected manuscripts were compared with the historic landmark contributions and the existing trends at the time, and the number of articles both by individual authors and from institutions were tallied. RESULTS: Grouping by authors and institutions showed that 100 of 155 pediatric cardiothoracic manuscripts (65%) originated from 13 institutions. The CCF for the 20 leading articles ranged from 26 to 93. CONCLUSIONS: This historical STSA 50-year record of pediatric cardiothoracic advances was accomplished in a milieu of collegial respect and camaraderie. Our annual meetings over the years have provided a venue for thoracic surgeons to share their ideas, innovations, and scientific inquiry. These contributions have significantly affected the practice of pediatric cardiothoracic surgery. The STSA has worked for 50 years and we trust that it will work for another 50 years and beyond.

Bibliometrics↗

PubMed2003

Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.

This article provides an extensive tutorial for writers and reviewers involved with the preparation and evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication in dental journals. The contents were compiled from the Instructions for Authors printed in various peer-reviewed dental journals and from feedback from 10 workshops conducted for the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. The 10 major sections of a scientific manuscript are reviewed in detail in terms of content, format, and common errors; examples of good content are provided. The review process is described, and instructions on conducting fair and expeditious manuscript evaluations are provided for reviewers. In addition, a number of special topics are addressed, including potential conflicts of interest for an author, institutional review of experiments that involve human subjects or animals, and the reproduction of photographs and other images in color versus black and white. In summary, this article presents key guidelines to ensure compliance with the principles of sound scientific writing and the expeditious review of manuscripts prepared for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.

Dental Research↗

PubMed2004

The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication.

This article discusses why many research projects that have been presented in abstract form are never published as full articles, and lists 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication in Respiratory Care. Some of these reasons are easily avoidable or readily overcome. Included in this category is submission of manuscripts that do not correspond to the kinds of articles the Journal publishes, either in subject matter or in format. Poor writing impedes peer review and is unlikely to prejudice editors in an author's favor, although it is seldom the primary reason for rejection. Common deficiencies in the methods, results, and discussion sections prevent initial acceptance for publication but are at least potentially amenable to correction. More serious are fundamental defects in study design, which although correctable at the inception of a project, often doom the paper once the study has been completed. Two problems that are especially unfortunate for authors and potential readers alike are failing to revise and resubmit a manuscript after initial peer review and never preparing a full manuscript in the first place, after presentation of the work in abstract form. This special issue of Respiratory Care and other cited publications offer practical resources for authors to use in overcoming each of these problems.

Biomedical Research↗