1 / 37

PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS:

PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS:. Even when a manuscript has been rejected,the author should not be discouraged because there is great value derived from the review process. The Review Process. Blinded At least two PEER reviews Constructive criticism.

allenflorence
Télécharger la présentation

PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS:

  2. Even when a manuscript has been rejected,the author should not be discouraged because there is great value derived from the review process.

  3. The Review Process • Blinded • At least two PEER reviews • Constructive criticism

  4. WHICH PAPERS ARE ACCEPTED?Those that advance our knowledge and especially those that will enhance patient care (new and better treatment of musculoskeletal conditions)

  5. How is this accomplished? • Good idea • Well designed study • Focused, clear report

  6. Should I write it? • Is the topic relevant? • Will it benefit the orthopaedic patient or community? • Is it already in the literature? (Oops!) • Does our institution have adequate resources to carry it out? • Do I have time to complete the entire project? • Does it require the buy in or support of another party?

  7. The single most important characteristic that distinguishes between acceptance and rejection is the prospective nature of a study

  8. We must be moving beyond retrospective reviews and all of their inherent problems to design and conduct prospective studies

  9. PLAN, PLAN, PLAN • “Plans are nothing, planning is everything” • Have a mentor

  10. KEY ELEMENTS OF A GOOD PROSPECTIVE STUDY

  11. 1. A WELL DEFINED QUESTION • Relevant

  12. RELEVANCE • Find out how relevant your question really is • The first step in the peer review process • Use colleagues, mentors, cynics, enemies

  13. 1. A WELL DEFINED QUESTION • Relevant • Focused • Has a high degree of certainty that an answer will result when study is completed • State the hypothesis • Write the Introduction

  14. 2. Formulate a Study DesignWhat is the best way to address this question (clinical, lab,etc)?

  15. Statistics • There will be an adequate number of study subjects to achieve an answer (power) • The most simple yet appropriate statistical tools will be used • A statistician should always be involved

  16. Useful Measurements • Commonly used measurements (do not invent your own) • Go beyond xray and physician derived information • Use accepted,patient based,outcome measurements for clinical studies

  17. Unbiased assessment • Use independent observers to record and evaluate data in a blinded fashion • No vested interests : industry, surgeons

  18. 3.Do the Experiment • Have a finish line and date • Have an alternative plan • Keep good records • Timely and accurate recording (lab notebook)

  19. 3.Do the Experiment • When data collection nears completion, write Methods (in sufficient detail so that anyone could repeat the experiment) and Materials

  20. 4. Present the Results • Clear, concise • Good graphics • Significant only • Distinguish statistical and clinical significance

  21. 5. Write the Discussion • Hypothesis: prove or disprove • Compare with other studies in the literature (pro and con) • Brief conclusion : A ‘take home message’ • Most papers only have one message

  22. 6. Write clearly • Focused • Concise

  23. I have only made this [letter]longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter Pascal,1627

  24. 6. Write clearly • Focused • Concise • Timely • Follow ‘Instructions to Authors’ • Independent review of manuscript before submission

  25. Local Peer Review • What is not clear? • Heckman test • Abjure pride of authorship

  26. The Ideal Study is The Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT)

  27. We are in the age ofEvidence Based Medicine

  28. The RCT • Represents good science • Prospective • Currently fashionable (popular,accepted) • Enduring credibility • Provides basis for metaanalysis • Very satisfying for investigator • It will get published!!!

  29. Problems with RCTs • Cost • Time • Narrowness of Question • Recruitment (patients, physicians,especially surgeons) • Institutional resources

  30. Important steps in any RCT • Prospective design • Randomization (needs statistician) : by patient,by surgeon, or by institution • Controls (must follow the Helsinki Agreement guidelines) • Multi-institutional • Must follow all local IRB and informed consent rules

  31. OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES: better than traditional descriptive studies

  32. OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES • Still prospective design • Meet IRB approval at the start • Comparisons should always be made: historical controls, concurrent(but not random) controls, or case controlled • Multi-institutional • Use unbiased observers to collect and analyze data

  33. Case Reports and Case Series • Must be truly unique • Must advance our ability to treat patients • Should be interesting to the reader

  34. Authorship • Significant ongoing contribution • More than technical • Can defend entire paper in a public forum • No courtesy authorship

  35. HELPFUL HINTS • Follow the Instructions to Authors • Brevity • Focus on Subject • Limit speculation/opinion • Use easy to read format • Use a few key illustrations

  36. The Final Word of Advice • Never give up • All papers can get published!!!

More Related