1 Writing an Outstanding Scientific Paper for Journal of Clinical Oncology D aniel G. Haller, MD...
-
Upload
lucinda-hudson -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
Transcript of 1 Writing an Outstanding Scientific Paper for Journal of Clinical Oncology D aniel G. Haller, MD...
1
Writing an Outstanding Scientific Paper for Journal of Clinical Oncology
Daniel G. Haller, MDEditor-in-Chief
Journal of Clinical Oncology
AttributionsDavid J Kerr
Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Oncology
Robert J MayerAssociate Editor Emeritus, NEJM
Joe Simone
George CanellosEditors Emeriti, JCO
Ed HuthEditor Emeritus,
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publications Represent:
• accomplishment in academic medicine• primary documentation of research data• evidence of expertise through writing an authoritative
review paper or book chapter• a major determinant in achieving academic promotion
and career development
5
New Manuscripts Submitted, Pages Printed
All Material Submitted
OriginalReports Only
Pages Printed Year
2004 2,731 1,960 5,011
2005 3,716 2,455 9,466
2006 4,102 2,779 5,790
2007 4,371 2,834 5,845
6
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
New Original Report Submissions by Month
2007
2006
2005
7
New Manuscript Submissions by Manuscript Type
2005 2006 2007
Review Articles 153 186 174
Biology of Neoplasia 4 11 15
Total Reviews 157 197 189
Editorials 144 118 135
Correspondence 458 405 473
Art of Oncology 32 42 47
Diagnosis in Oncology
397 429 554
8
Total Submissions
2004 2005 2006 2007
USA 1,074 1,4231,681 1,750
Non-USA 1,359 2,095 2,338 2,295
Initial manuscript submissions based on corresponding author’s country of origin (if indicated).*
Submissions by CountrySubmissions by Country
* If no country indicated, then the manuscript was not counted
9
Final or current decisions rendered on Original Reports by year
2005
2006 2007
900 1051 1070
863 916 861
15 31 47
0 11 77
0 0 19
535 547 460
Manuscript DecisionsManuscript Decisions
Note: Assuming Minors and Majors will be accepted, the Acceptance Rate for Original Reports submitted in 2007 is 21%* Estimate for 2007
*
Priority Reject
Reject
Door Ajar
Major Rev
Minor Rev
Accept
10
Average Time for Manuscript Processing
2005 2006 2007
Submission to first decision 44 3.4(weeks)
Acceptance to print publication 13 13 13(weeks)
Submission to print publication 6 7 6(months)
Note: Only Original Reports submitted within that year are calculated
11
Publish Ahead of Print
Currently:
Accepted manuscripts are prioritized for publication at the time of acceptance, some papers are designated “fast track”, 1/3 are published online ahead of print
Now:
Eliminate fast track and prioritization designations
• All material will be published online ahead of print at weekly intervals
• Original papers with editorials will not be placed online before the accompanying editorial.
12
Impact Factor
• 2006 IF measures citations in 2006 of papers published in2004 and 2005
• Numerator: every detectable citation
• Denominator: only those designated as reviews or original reports
• IF is a mean, not a median
– Number may be skewed by one or two pivotal papers
– JCO: large number of citations, but very large denominator
In 2006, 85% of citations were from original reports, 10% from reviews, 4% from editorials.
See: Rossner M et al. J Cell Biol 179, number 6, December 17, 2007
13
Impact Factor Trends: Peer-Reviewed Oncology Journals
Journal 2005 2006 Change# 2006
Articles
Journal National Cancer Inst 15.171 15.271 0.100 156
Journal of Clinical Oncology 11.810 13.598 1.788 734
Blood 10.131 10.370 0.239 1189
Lancet Oncology 9.608 10.119 0.511 91
Cancer Research 7.616 7.656 0.040 1493
Clinical Cancer Research 5.715 6.177 0.462 946
Cancer 4.800 4.582 (0.218) 675
International Journal Cancer 4.660 4.693 0.033 837
Annals of Oncology 4.319 5.179 0.860 337
JCO.org Usage Statistics
Home Page Visits 1,477,842 1,433,276 1,507,251
Abstracts Only Access 2,461,335 2,729,658 3,457,337
Full-Text HTML Access 3,954,530 3,122,233 3,673,330
PDF Access 2,361,666 2,216,629 2,539,979
Total Usage 10,255,373 9,501,796 11,177,897
2005 2006 2007
16
Top Ten Articles March ’07 – December ‘07
“American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline for Antiemetics in Oncology: Update 2006”
Kris et al (Jun 20, 2006: 2932-2947)
(Read 14460 times)
“2006 Update of Recommendations for the Use of White Blood Cell Growth Factors: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline”
Smith et al (Jul 01, 2006; 24: 3187-3205) (Read 9434 times)
“American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer”
Wolff et al (Jan 01, 2007: 118-145)
(Read 8381 times)
17
Top Ten Articles March ’07 – December ’07 (Continued)
“Initial Hormonal Management of Androgen-Sensitive Metastatic, Recurrent, or Progressive Prostate Cancer: 2007 Update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology Practice Guideline”
Loblaw et al (Apr 20, 2007; 25: 1596-1605)
(Read 8210 times)
“Erlotinib Plus Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Instituteof Canada Clinical Trials Group”
Smith et al (May 20, 2007; 25: 1960-1966) (Read 7761 times)
“American Society of Clinical Oncology Treatment of Unresectable Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Guideline: Update 2003”
Pfister et al (Jan 15, 2004; 22: 330-353)
(Read 7734 times)
18
Top Ten Articles March ’07 – December ’07 (Continued)“Sunitinib: From Rational Design to Clinical Efficacy”
Chow et al (Mar 01, 2007; 25: 884-896)(Read 7724 times)
“Clinical Cancer Advances 2006: Major Research Advances in Cancer Treatment, Prevention, and Screening -- A Report From the American Society of Clinical Oncology”
Ozols et al (Jan 01, 2007; 25: 146-162) (Read 7676 times)
“Phase II Study of Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma”
Abou-Alfa et al (Sep 10, 2006; 24: 4293-4300)
(Read 7239 times)
“American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline: Recommendations for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer”
Lyman et al (Oct 29, 2007; doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.1283.)
(Read 6987 times)
19
Editorial Roster
Daniel Haller Editor-in-Chief
Nora Disis Deputy Editor: Translational Research
David Khayat Deputy Editor: International Editions
20
Editorial Roster (Continued)
Associate Editors
Judith Abrams Biostatistics
George Bosl Genitourinary / Solid Tumors
Stephen Cannistra Gynecologic / Breast Cancer
Bruce Cheson Hematologic Malignancies
Arlene Forastiere Head and Neck / Solid Tumors
Patricia Ganz Breast Cancer / QOL / Supportive Care
Bruce Haffty Radiation
Stephanie Land Biostatistics
Mark Levine Breast Cancer / Cost Effectiveness / Epidemiology
Michael Link Pediatric
Eleftherios Mamounas Breast Cancer / Surgical Oncology
Nicholas Petrelli Surgical Oncology / GI
Joan Schiller Thoracic Oncology
Jaap Verweij Phase I & Clinical Pharmacology
21
Editorial Roster (Continued)
Consultant Editors
Marc Buyse Biostatistics
Daniel Normolle Biostatistics
Stephen Cannistra Biology of Neoplasia
Charles Loprinzi The Art of Oncology
Arthur Skarin Diagnosis in Oncology
22
International Editions
• JCO Chinese Edition Editor, Yan Sun, MD, Beijing
• JCO Greek Edition Editor, Nikolaos A. Malamos, MD, Athens
• JCO Hungarian Edition Editor, József Timár, MD, Budapest
• JCO Middle East Edition Editor, Nagi S. El Saghir, MD, Beirut
• JCO North African Edition Editor, Nagi S. El Saghir, MD, Beirut
• JCO Polish Edition Editor, Maciej Krzakowski, MD, Warsaw
• JCO Russian Edition Editor, Sergei A. Tjulandin, MD, Moscow
• JCO Spanish EditionEditor, Franco M. Muggia, MD, New YorkAssociate Editor, Roman Pérez-Soler,MD, Bronx
• JCO Turkish Edition Co-Editor, Erdem Göker, MD, Bornova Izmir Co-Editor, Erhan Gokmen, MD, Bornova Izmir
23
International Editions
• David Khayat: Deputy Editor
• Not only a business venture, but a palpable effort to deliver current oncology practice to the world, and increase access for patients
• Locally published and distributed
• All material solely chosen from JCO; no additional materials canbe added
• Editors given access to TOCs in advance to enhance timeliness
• Given varying frequency of publication, only a subset of JCO papers are selected for translation and reproduction
• Guidance and monitoring of selections of local editors byDeputy Editor
• German, French and Italian editions are in planning
24
Current TOC
• Celebrating JCO’s 25th Anniversary• Commentary • Editorials • Comments and Controversies • Original Reports
– Gastrointestinal Cancer – Phase I and Clinical Pharmacology– Hematologic Malignancies– Bone Marrow Transplantation– Genetic Testing for Cancer– Thoracic Oncology– Genitourinary Cancer– Breast Cancer– Neurooncology– Pediatric Oncology– Cost Effectiveness– Supportive Care and Quality Of Life
25
Current TOC (continued)
• Review Article • Biology of Neoplasia• ASCO Special Articles • Art of Oncology• Diagnosis in Oncology • Correspondence
27
Upcoming Reviews Series
February 10, 2008 Breast Cancer
April 10, 2008 Stem-Cell Transplantation
June 10, 2008 Methods/Statistics
August 10, 2008 Improving the Quality of Supportive Cancer Care
October 10, 2008 Translational Oncology
December 10, 2008 Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology
The Editor
• “An editor is hired to define the journal’s terrain and direction, and set the tone. … More than anything an editor in biomedicine is there to attract, select, improve and publish the best manuscripts – to improve quality.”
• Rennie (Lancet, 1998)
Pressures on a journal editor
Owners
Legal restraints
Governments/authorities
Readers
Reviewers
Authors
Technicaleditors
Distributors
Printers
Advertisers
Adapted from Albert T. Winning the publications game. 1997
Reporting clinical data collection
• WHO collected the data and from whom?• WHAT data were collected?• WHEN – frequency and intervals• WHERE – describe the setting • HOW – collection and analysis• WHY was this approach taken?
32
Before you write Register your clinical trial—Required by JCO
Remember at the initiation of the trial to consider any ongoing potential sponsor conflict of interest because JCO, like most journals, has policies concerning potential financial conflicts and authorship.
For Phase 3 clinical trials, follow CONSORT guidelines closely
CONSORT = CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trialwww.consort-statement.org
CONSORT
• CONSORT = CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trial• www.consort-statement.org
• A checklist and flow diagram to improve the quality of RCT reports
• A standard way for researchers to report trials• Checklist includes items, based on evidence, that need to be
addressed in the report• Flow diagram provides a clear picture of the progress of all
participants in the trial, from the time they are randomized until the end of their involvement
•
Why CONSORT?•
• RCTs can have great impact on patient care
• Poorly conducted RCTs can be biased and bias the evidence base
• Analysis of published RCTs had consistently shown wide variation in reporting quality
• RCT reports should give meaningful data about
– design
– conduct
– analysis
– generalizability
•
Reporting phase I trials
• There are no CONSORT-like reporting standards for Phase I trials
• Little published research on quality of Phase I reporting
• We might expect similar problems to those seen with other trial reports
Phase II trial reporting is still evolving
•• Reviewed 393 Phase II trials published in 1995 (n=185) and 2000 (n=208) • Neither sample size nor design parameters were specified in 157 (85%) and 113 (46%) papers in 1995 and 2000, respectively.•• Thezenas et al. (Eur J Cancer , 2004)
Journal % Reporting statistical design
1995 2000
Am J Clin Oncol 12.5 36.0
Br J Cancer 29.4 28.6
Cancer 15.1 56.1
Eur J Cancer 8.3 33.3
JCO 20.0 59.3
Ann Oncol 6.9 39.3
Clinical Trials Registration1. Unique Trial number2. Trial Registration Date3. Secondary IDs4. Funding Source(s)5. Primary Sponsor6. Secondary Sponsor(s)7. Responsible Contact Person8. Research contact person9. Title of the Study10. Official Scientific Title 11. Research Ethics Review approval 12. Condition13. Interventions(s).14. Key Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria15. Study Type/ Database16. Anticipated Trial Start Date17. Target Sample Size.18. Recruitment Status19. Primary Outcome.20. Key Secondary Outcomes
Clinical Trials Databases
• Clinical Trials Databases Currently Meeting Requirements of Registration
• www.actr.org.au• www.clinicaltrials.gov• www.ISRCTN.org• www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index/htm• www.trialregister.nl
Clinical Trials Registration and the JCO
• The registration policy is all about public trust in clinical research. The JCO will apply the registration policy to trials whose patient enrollment begins on or after November 1, 2006. Authors will have six months from the start of patient enrollment to register the trial, but registration prior to patient enrollment is recommended. The editors will use the ICMJE definition of a clinical trial as follows: “Any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention and comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention and a health outcome. By ‘medical intervention’ we mean any intervention used to modify a health outcome. This definition includes drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, process-of-care changes, and the like…a trial must have at least one prospectively assigned concurrent control or comparison group in order to trigger the requirement for registration.”.
41
Before you write Consider what you have to say: Is the paper worth writing?
Apply the Editor’s questions:- “So what?”- “Who cares?”
Search the literature—are your findings new?
Be wary of multiple papers from same research- Avoid “salami science”—slicing data too thin- Republish only if there is substantial new data- Don’t plagiarize yourself or violate previous copyright- When in doubt, consult ICMJE and WAME guidelines
42
Before you write
Know the target audience: will your message or findings be new and relevant to JCO readers?
Is the topic within the scope of the journal?
Is the topic represented in the journal frequently, or only rarely?
Check out the formats (categories of papers) accepted by the journal
One of the most frequent reasons for rejection is the priority of the journal for the work that is being considered.
How to Start
• Know what type of paper you are writing
• research report (“original article”)
• review paper
• special article
• editorial
• case report• letter to the editor
How to Start
• What Is the Right Format?– The research paper
• the most articulate paper cannot overcome the deficiencies of an ill-conceived or poorly-executed trial
• requires a detailed report format, to allow the reader to assess the details of the study design and the results
• In general, choose the shortest format for what you have to say
How to StartHow to Start• What Is the Right Journal?
– Colleagues– Quality
• Impact factor
– Prestige journal vs. rapid publication
Writing the PaperWriting the Paper• Authorship: responsibility and content
– Should have generated at least part of the intellectual content of the paper.
– Collected and interpreted reported data– Should have taken part in writing and revising the
intellectual content– Should be able to defend publicly in the scientific
community the intellectual content of the paper for which responsibility is taken
– NEVER submit a paper without all authors taking responsibility
– If a communications firm or company writes your draft (ghostwrites), NEVER have them communicate with the journal directly, and always use their words as a draft…
47
Writing the PaperWriting the Paper Writer’s block: the first draft is not the final draft—
don’t obsess
Start with the Materials/Methods and Results sections—don’t try to write in sequence, from Abstract to Conclusion
48
Writing the PaperWriting the Paper
Finish a first draft—it won’t be pretty, but it’s a working document
Undoubtedly, it will be too long, redundant, and insufficiently focused
Deliver the document to your senior mentor and other authors …expect it to be read and returned within 10-14 days
Use professional editing services if needed to perfect writing (this is not the same as ghostwriting) Content is most important, but appearance also matters.
49
Original Research PapersOriginal Research Papers
Used for research papers
State the problem or pose the question
Present the evidence
Show validity of the evidence
Discuss implications: initial conclusion
Present additional supporting evidence
Assess conflicting evidence
Present final conclusion
50
Research Paper ElementsResearch Paper Elements
The Introduction
Tell the reader why the research was started
Do not re-explain what is in any textbook in the field
Make clear what question the research was designed to answer
Keep it short!
51
Research Paper ElementsResearch Paper Elements
Materials and Methods—the credibility of the evidence
How was the study design selected?
Definition of the subjects
Interventions
Specified measurements and methods
Statistical procedures for assessment of the data
CONSORT (Phase III)
52
Research Paper ElementsResearch Paper Elements
Results: The initial evidencePresent efficiently
- Graphs and tables…don’t repeat the text
Did the study design accomplish what was expected of it?
Order the results from the most known to the unknown (standard to experimental)
Include unequivocal statements of statistical significance; do not inflate statistically insignificant differences (“trends”)
Be sure to present results with both absolute differences and relative differences as well as confidence intervals.
53
The review articleThe review article
Structured differently from research papers or case reports
May be invited or submitted without invitation
Must be clinically oriented
What is the question that the review intends to answer?
Will it be structured and exhaustive?
Will it be a critical review?
Are you an expert in the field?
Can you find it in a standard text? Not a shopping list…. The meta-analysis
- Compilation of published reports
- Individual patient data»Piedbois and Buyse, JCO 2004
54
Consensus/Guidelines statements
The editors feel that a good consensus statement should:
• Describe a topic that has recently changed (being sure not to rehash material not dramatically new)
• Come from an established, high profile cancergroup made up of recognized experts on a topic
• Include a high level of evidence
• Be consistent with the current standard of care
Additionally, if the statement was created in responseto a meeting, then the meeting has to be an openscientific meeting.
Letter to the EditorWhat a Letter to the Editor is:
• A comment or question about an article that appears in (this) Journal, to which the author can respond
• Occasionally, an interesting observation from a study or patient that does not qualify as an original report that might stimulate further research
What it is not:
• A CV stuffer
• A place to report small, non peer-reviewed clinical trial
• Cliff’s notes: a summary of an article, and review of the literature
Remember: All LTEs do not have to start with “We read with great interest…”
55
How to write a boring article….
1. Avoid focus. Introduce so many questions, ideas, and possible relationships that you kill any hope of a clear hypothesis2. Avoid originality and personality 3. Make the article really, really long4. Remove any suggestion of the work's potential implications5. Leave out illustrations, particularly good ones
Chemical & Engineering NewsSeptember 10, 2007Volume 85, Number 37p. 56
6. Omit necessary steps of reasoning7. Use as many abbreviations and technical terms as possible8. Don't even think about being funny or using flowery language. 9. Focus only on statistics10. Support every statement with a reference
How to write a boring article….
Orwell’s rules1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which
you are used to seeing in print2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if
you can think of an everyday English equivalent.6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright
barbarous
George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
60
Submitting the Paper
The cover letter: Your opening argument
State the title of the paper
Describe the paper
Name which manuscript category it best fits
Divulge any (apparent) overlap or prior publication (provide reprints as needed)
State conditions of publication (eg, embargo until after a meeting)
Suggest reviewers
It’s Time to Submit
• Original Reports are the primary presentation mode of scientific communication in the Journal. The Editor-in-Chief and an Associate Editor generally review Original Reports. Selected manuscripts are also reviewed by at least two external peer reviewers, and, when required, a biostatistician. Comments offered by external reviewers are returned to the author(s) for consideration.
• Original Reports are limited to 3,000 words of body text, excluding the abstract, references, figures, and tables. Original Reports are limited to six total figures and tables, not counting panels within figures. Additional figures or tables (eg, the required CONSORT diagram) can be submitted as supplemental information. Reports may be appropriately brief.
62
Information for Contributors
Revisions to be in line with ICMJE/WAME
Proposal:All clinical trials will be submitted with the originalprotocol document as a supplemental file, forboth reviewers and readers when published (online access)
• Eligibility criteria
• Dose modifications
• Stats section/endpoints
It’s Time to SubmitReview Articles Review Articles are usually solicited by the Editor-in-Chief. However, unsolicited
Reviews are considered. Authors should contact the Editor-in-Chief in advance to determine the appropriateness of their Review for publication in the Journal Manuscript Preparation Guidelines, and will be reviewed in the same manner as Reports. The text should be limited to 4,500 words, excluding the abstract, references, figures, and tables. The editors also suggest a limit of 150 references.
Editorials and Comments and ControversiesEditorials are usually solicited by the Editor-in-Chief to accompany a published article
or an accepted manuscript. Editorials offering an opinion on a topic not related to a specific article are published in the Comments and Controversies section. Avoid “cute” titles
Special Articles
Special Articles are manuscripts whose content and style do not fall under the category of Reports or Review Articles. These may include, but are not limited to, guidelines, summaries of consensus meetings, and other scholarly communications. The Editors decide on which articles are “special”;
DISCLOSURES OFPOTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
• Relationships with pharmaceutical companies or biomedical device manufacturers or other corporations whose products or services are related to the subject matter of the submission
• Financial interests or relationships• Disclosures of financial interests or relationships involving the authors
must be addressed on the Author Disclosure Declaration. Each author must complete a declaration form online with every manuscript submission. The corresponding author may complete the form online on behalf of other authors; or authors may also complete their own forms and forward them to the corresponding author. This information will be entered as part of the online submission process, and hard copies of these forms should not be sent to the Editorial Office. Statements regarding financial support for the research must be made on the manuscript title page, and disclosed under question #6 (Research Funding) on the form. This form is available in every issue of the Journal, online, or upon request from the Editorial Office. We recommend that authors complete the Author Disclosure Declaration before starting the formal, online submission. All disclosures will be included in published articles.
DISCLOSURES OFPOTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
• The intent of this policy is not to prevent authors with these relationships from publishing their work. It is merely intended that any relationships be identified openly so the Editors and peer reviewers may make informed decisions about submitted manuscripts, and so the readers may form their own judgments about the publication with the full disclosure of the facts. It remains for readers to determine whether the authors’ outside interests reflect a possible bias in the conclusions presented.
AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS
• Contributions must be substantive in order to justify authorship. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content. All other contributors, who do not meet sufficient criteria for authorship, should instead be noted in the Acknowledgments section. Corresponding authors are responsible for ensuring that all authors have seen and approved the final manuscript prior to submission.
• Every submission must include the Author Contribution Form. Author Contribution Forms must be filled out and submitted as part of the online submission process. These forms are available for reference in the print Journal, but do not need to be sent to the Editorial Office. This form is available in every issue of the Journal, online, or upon request from the Editorial Office. As part of the online submission process, the corresponding author must submit this form on behalf of every author. We recommend, therefore, that each author complete this form and forward it to the corresponding author before the formal, online submission
STATISTICAL GUIDELINES
• All results from clinical studies should be supported by a clear description of the study design, conduct, and analysis methods used to obtain the results. The description should include the originally planned sample size and the power considerations that led to that choice of sample size.
• In the case of randomized clinical trials, authors should follow the guidelines of the CONSORT statement available online at www.consort-statement.org. For randomized clinical trials, two-sided P values should be reported. If the trial design was Bayesian, used one-sided P values, or was not based on a standard two-sided test, the primary result and conclusion may be described in terms of the original design, but the two-sided P value of a standard test must also be included. Differences may be reported in terms of odds ratios or hazard ratios, but there should also be a comparison of an absolute difference of the primary measure such as difference in survival at 5 years or difference in proportions of successes.
• Reports of phase II studies should include a clear definition of the primary end point (from the protocol) and a discussion of possible weaknesses, such as comparison to historical controls.
STATISTICAL GUIDELINES• Reports focused on prognostic markers (eg, those based on clinical factors,
etiologic factors, genetic factors), will receive highest priority when an algorithm obtained in a training set is applied exactly the same way in the validation set as in the training set (i.e., the factors included and the cutoffs must be determined in the training and applied to each patient in the validation set). Further fine tuning should clearly be identified as exploratory. Prognostic studies that report the results of an algorithm from the same data that were used to fit the algorithm will have lower priority, but will be enhanced by the inclusion of cross-validation analyses and a clear statement of the limitations of the study.
• Reports describing data from multiple studies will be considered to be a meta-analysis only if individual patient data are used for analyses and an attempt is made to include data from unpublished studies. Systematic reviews that use summary data should also include unpublished data and a discussion of the limitations of such studies. Systematic reviews will have a lower priority than meta-analyses. Reports of studies of multiple or secondary end points should address the multiple comparison issues and describe the exploratory nature of the studies
69
A letter (email) from JCO arrives!
Outright acceptance (rare)
Minor revisions requested
Major revision
Rejection (may occur without external peer review)
Remember: Every paper will get published somewhere!
“There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”
Rennie (JAMA, 1986)
Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and AlternativesWare M. www.publishingresearch.net
• Peer review is an essential component of scholarly communication. It is the mechanism that facilitates the publication of primary research in respected scientific journals. In recent years there has been a good deal of debate about the effectiveness of peer review. There is, however, little reliable data to inform these discussions.
• 93% of academics believe peer review is necessary• 90% believed that peer review improved quality of papers• Majority of academics believe that current peer review is satisfactory;
criticisms include speed of review and overloading of reviewers• Majority agreed with double-blind review (anonymous)• Most important to reviewers: methodology, relevance,
importance/originality, data• About 2/3 felt that reviewers should have access to authors’ data (protocol
submission)
What we want from referees:
• Promptness • Politeness• Honesty• An assessment of the quality and importance
• There are no absolute rules in refereeing: medical publishing thrives on variety.
73
Reviewers may have differing opinions
Possible reasons:
Complexity of manuscript assessment
Divergent interests of reviewers
Valid differences in the expertise of reviewers
74
Criteria for acceptance
Relevance to the journal’s scope and audience
Importance to most of the journal’s audience
Newness of the message
Scientific validity of the evidence supporting the conclusions
Usefulness to the journal in maintaining a balance of topics (“priority”)
75
Reasons for rejection
Unimportant issue studied
Unoriginal work
Research poorly done
Analysis poorly done
Conclusions not supported by results
Data set too small
Poorly written/presented
Submission does not comply with Information for Contributors
Priority of the journal
76
Responding to a rejection of your paper
Don’t take it personally
Did you shoot too high?
Is the paper more appropriate elsewhere?
Carefully read the comments; don’t be defensive!!
Blatant protest to the editor is rarely successful
On the other hand, even editors and reviewers are not perfect…
77
Responding to a rejection of your paper
Appealing a decision
- Contact the editor to see whether the paper is salvageable
- Plead your case, but don’t whine or get angry
Consider whether the paper would better be submitted to another journal
- Revise using external reviewers comments (the same reviewers may see the paper again)
Don’t let journal #2 know that it was an also-ran….
78
Responding to a major revision request
Respond to the comments
Provide more data (often updated)
Condense—brevity is ideal
Fix the figures