دورة إعداد ونشر األوراق العلمية طارق حسن المتولي دبح .د.أ

(1)

ةرود

ةيملعلا قارولأا رشنو دادعإ أ.

د . حبد يلوتملا نسح قراط

ةيبطلا ةيويحلا ءايميكلا ذاتسأ

(2)

(3)

Manuscript Preparation

A General Author/Reviewer/Editor’s Perspective (Biological Sciences)

Prof. Dr. Tarek Hassan EL-Metwally,

PhD (CUMC, NE, USA, 1999)

6642 - 9040 - 0001 - 0000 http://orcid.org/

6507910852 http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=

JmtEAAAAJ&hl=ar 8

https://scholar.google.com.eg/citations?user=oT

Biochemistry Division, Pathology Department, College of Medicine, Jouf University AUMJ Associate Editor-In-Chief

Reference: Web-Based Materials.

16 Jumada AlAwal, 1440 – 22 January, 2019

(4)

Before Starting

 Journal editors expect receiving ethically well-written advanced novel research.

 Understand the publication ethics to avoid violations (Scientific Misconducts):

 Violation of human and/or animal privacy and rights (Intellectual/Publication),

 Republication, Double publication, Slice publication,

 Data manipulation, fabrication, and

plagiarism

^.

 These Misconducts have serious consequences; professionally and legally.

 The Publishing Ethics Resource Kit - The Committee on Publication

Ethics (COPE).

(5)

To Start

 Do not reproduce other’s ideas except:

 When applied to a different population with environmental and genetic/ethnic distinction.

 With new approach and methodology.

 With a new combination of biomarkers and/or endpoint outcomes.

 With a deeper or boarder Application/Mechanistic dissection.

 Sequences of events: Methods, Figures/Tables, Results, Discussion,

Conclusion, Introduction, Abstract, Title, Key words,

Acknowledgement and References.

(6)

Themes

Ethical Writing.

Reviewer’s Expectations.

 Manuscript Preparation

– Abstract, Figure/Tables and Main Body are 3 independent parts.

Peer Reviewing Process.

(7)

How would Writing be Ethical?

 You can not disclose results of a work that was not ethically approved.

 Secure ethical approval before you start.

 Use consented human participants or animals to the ethical standards, e.g., Helsinki Declaration.

 Readers expect that your report is honest and accurate; do not betray their trust.

 Acknowledges contributions of the others (ideas, data, words, images, explanation, etc.).

 Simultaneously multiple journal submission is a misconduct.

 Notify the publisher of any errors discovered even after publication (Erratum).

 Disclose conflict of interest and funding sources.

 Consult at least 3 recent reviews/meta-analyses + 30 recent major relevant

original articles (full-text) in the topic.

(8)

The Reviewer‘s Checklist

 Within the scope of the journal.

 Concise but contain sufficient new data.

 Linguistically acceptable and organized as instructed.

 Introduction is enlightening.

 Rational hypothesis and study design.

 Setting, design, methods and experiments are ethical, clear and reproducible.

 Results are genuine (no plagiarism or fabrication), properly statistically analyzed, clearly presented, consolidated (no contradiction).

 Discussion is comprehensive, inclusive, and documented; Yet concise.

 The conclusions are data-supported.

 References properly cited, updated, complete and traceable?

(9)

Original Research Manuscript

Title:

Authors: Affiliations/Communication Information.

Abstract:

Key Words:

Introduction:

Setting, Materials/Methods, Model, Participants:

Results:

Discussion:

Conclusion: Limitations and Future Directions.

Conflict of Interests and Funding:

Acknowledgement:

References:

Appendices and Supplementary Materials.

(10)

A Good Title –

Advertizes your work

:

 Concise but Descriptive and Informative (adequately describe the contents) with the fewest possible # words.

 Justified: Accurate, clear, specific, and complete.

 Attractive: Highlights main issue of the paper.

 Avoids infrequently-used abbreviations.

 Mentioning the study type and main findings.

 Thesis/Conference title is not appropriate.

Running Title: Is a short title that contain the main key words of the paper.

(11)

Authors:

Proper Authorship – Substantial Contribution in:

 Conception and design.

 Acquisition of data.

 Analysis and interpretation of data.

 Drafting the article.

 Critical revision for intellectual content.

Authorship and Order – Finalized Before Submission.

Unjustified Authorship:

Fund and Chemicals/Tools Provision.

Un Approved/False Authorship:

Is a scientific misconduct.

 Is controlled by Submission Approval.

(12)

Abstract – Concise/Precise

 Importance: Editor and Referee assessed.

 Use: Indexing/Searchability.

 Understandable without reading the whole article.

 Background/Rationale/Hypothesis:

Why the research is important?

 Aim/Objectives:

The simply stated purpose(s) of the study.

 Materials and Methods:

Briefly describe the setting and experiments.

 Results: A brief overview of the results.

 Conclusion: Inference on the main findings.

 Key words are the barcode of your paper. Firmly established standard abbreviations are acceptable.

Stick to word limits and make sure abstract is data-based.

(13)

Introduction (

Teach me how to understand your article

):

 Concise Enlightening Background:

 Sufficient to help evaluate the work.

 Cite the main recent relevant references (those usable also for discussion) – not an extensive review.

 Avoid extensive self-citation.

 From the global to the particular.

 Existing limitations in solutions and/or knowledge.

 State the Hypothesis and Aim of the study, why is it important (Significance), Brief Plan, and Foreseeable Achievement. Do not exaggerate.

Referenced? If not, Speculation! Or Yours?

Text – Listen to the Computer.

Do not write and Translate!

(14)

Setting, Materials & Methods & Participants:

Setting: Where, When and How?

Ethical Clearance/Approval and Registration.

Participation Consents, Protection, Right-to-Withdraw, Privacy (Anonymity). Say Participants not subjects! Say Gender not sex!

Calculated Sample Size.

Exclusion/Inclusion Criteria and Proper Controls.

Reference standard methods – Do not describe.

New/modified methods/experiments – a concise reproducible Description.

Describe Materials, Chemicals and/or Animals, Model.

Describe Instruments & Procedures (cite established ones). Data collection tools and their Validation/Permission to use.

Safety considerations (hazardous procedures/chemicals).

Statistical methods and form of data presentation.

Nomenclature: Chemical, genes, species, units, etc.

Avoid comments and discussion.

(15)

Results (

What did you find

):

 Simple and direct description of the main and convincing properly statistically analyzed findings.

 Logically ordered subheadings – if allowable.

 Do not use references.

 Do not present data in more than one form.



Text for simple findings.

2 – 3 decimal digits.

 Figures, Tables and Schematic sketches are simplifying tools for complicated findings:

 Include Scale and Error bars for SDM/SEM.

 Clear and understandable.

 Text-independent (self-explanatory).

 Figure legend succeed the figure.

 Table title precedes the table.

 Well-balanced scales, label and font size.

 Define abbreviations.

Avoid use of shadows/glows/reflections

.

(16)

Discussion ( Yours vs. Others’ )

 Most important section; the easiest to write, but the hardest to get right.

 The interpretation of the results in relation to the proposed objectives – what do the results mean?

 Precise comparison between your approach/results vs. previous publications - Considering:

Advantages and disadvantages.

Valuable concordance vs. discordance.

Explanation of contrary findings.

Highlight the new findings – Do not exaggerate.

Hypothesis; Answered? Partially? Unexpected?

Build on previous knowledge.

Neither bring data nor refer to tables/figures.

Discuss weaknesses and discrepancies.

 The minimum rational speculations (data/literature unsupported statements) are acceptable.

(17)

Conclusion –

The manuscript merit for publication

:

 Data-supported global and specific conclusions - in relation to the objectives.

 Not a summary of the paper.

 Shows points of advancement in current Knowledge/Application.

 Do not make judgments about impact.

 Do not use uncertain words, e.g., might, probably, suggest, etc.

 Indicate limitations.

 Points to further future research necessary to answer the questions raised by the results.

 Indicates what is already ongoing.

(18)

Conflict of Interest and Funding:

Justified and Specific Acknowledgement:

A contribution that does not justify authorship; e.g., technical assistance (tools, advice and proofreading) and funding (Grant #). False acknowledgment is a misconduct.

(19)

References:

EndNote or Mendeley

.

 Were used. Initial submission keep names not numbers.

 Up-to-date.

 Inclusive for the major recent previous publications.

 Complete. Authors names!

 Stylistically Unified – As instructed.

 Homepage (Orgizational)- Date last accessed.

 Traceable.

 Recently! Previous studies!

 Bracketed [……]!

 Personal communications! Not published in English!

(20)

Common Errors –

Proof reading

 T y p o g ra p h ic a l, s p e llin g a n d g ra m m a tic a l e rro rs .I n c o rre c t v e rb te n s e – F o r introduction/discussion use present and past tenses but for Methods and Results use past tense.

 Undefined abbreviations. Non-standard abbreviations!

 Missing reference citations.

 Comparing of unlike findings.

 Not specifying type of data and Inconsistent formatting.

 Missing or out-of-order figure and table citations.

 Un-italicized gene/species names.

 Repeat describing results in figures, tables and text.

 Commenting and/or discussing results in Results section.

 Leaving space between digits and each of % and < > signs.

 Connecting unrelated data into a curve.

 Ignoring previous works in disagreement with yours.

(21)

Now, I want You to Remember that:

The title.

Abstract.

Introduction.

Original Methods and Study Design.

Results.

Discussion.

Conclusion.

Are All Results of your own thoughts and work.

They are all with the same weightage in the

Plagiarism Balance

(22)

Manuscript Submission:

Is it Publishable?

Only when Original/Novel, Ethically Written & Prepared to the Quality of Standards and as Instructed.

 New and interesting?

 Challenging?

 Relates to a current hot topic?

 Solves a difficult problem/dilemma?

 Prepared to the Quality of Standards and as Instructed?

(23)

Cover Letter to the Editor

Consider the Journal Scope and Rank.

Make it direct and as short as possible.

Contents:

Title of the manuscript.

Article Type (Review or Original, etc).

New method used; advantages & limitations.

Application of published techniques.

Build on your previous publication.

Highlight:

Why is this topic important?

Why are these results significant?

What is the key result? (breakthrough!)

Why are you submitting to this journal?

Why will this journal’s readers be interested?

(24)

Peer Reviewing – Is not a battle with enemies

But a cooperation with a Coach to improve performance

(25)

Initial Editorial Revision

 It insures suitability for peer reviewing & The Journal Rank, Scope and Reader’s Interest.

 The editor may send the manuscript back for amendments before reconsideration.

 It is based on:

 Journal scope and rank.

 Article type.

 Language suitability.

 Formatting and completeness.

 Significance and Impact.

 Readership.

(26)

Peer Reviewing (PR)

A Quality-Control Process by Peers

By qualified competent professionals in the same field

 It assures the following prerequisites:

 Work reproducibility.

 Standards-of-quality.

 Improves performance (Knowledge/Application).

 Credibility and Responsibility.

 Clear rationale, motivation and hypothesis.

 Novel and original with no ethical problems.

 Important results with sound statistics.

 Conclusions are data-justified.

 Consolidated - No contradictions, flaws, etc.

 Parts to add or remove.

 Considers prior works in the field.

 Suggestions for improvement.

(27)

Publication Decision

1. Minor revision.

2. Major revision.

3. Rejection.

Minor revision:

 Referee's comments are gifts for further development and improvement of your paper.

 Carefully consider reviewer’s comments.

 Prepare point-by-point letter of response.

 Not all changes have to be made;

 Prepare convincing arguments.

Your response may go back to reviewers, Major revision and Resubmission:



Require new experimentations and/or data analysis.

(28)

Why would a manuscript be Rejected?

 Journal rank, scope and structure not considered.

 Technical/scientific issues; Sample size, Controls, etc.

 Hypothesis unclear, invalid or unanswered.

 Absence of novelty/originality.

 Inaccurate conclusions - not data-supported.

 Results are uninteresting/Fabricated.

 Ethical questions.

 Imprecise Statistics, Poor Presentation/Language.

 Not updated/inclusive references/self-citations.

 Failure to meet submission requirements.

 Failure to refute/answer reviewer's criticism.

Should you appeal a rejection decision?

 Usually, no, Criticisms is mostly valid.

 Occasionally, yes, When? Valid missing points.

(29)

Rejection is not the end of the world !

Almost researcher has papers rejected (Actually it could be planned!).

The Repair Plan:

 Do not take it personal.

 Understand and dissect the rejection causes.

 Seriously read and consider the editors’ and reviewers’ advice.

 Make significant revision and alternations to the manuscript (writing it a new).

Revision is not just paper work. Further experiments, analyses, or simulations may be required.

 Submit the manuscript elsewhere after thorough revision of the instructions

of the new journal.

(30)

Not Yet! Be Vigilant!

Open Post-Publication Revision Correction, Comments, & Reply

One Retracted Discredited Article Destroys What 100

Article built

(31)

References for Further Reading

Research Writing and Publication:

https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/

https://www.wlc.edu/uploadedFiles/Content/Academics/Student_Success_Center/ResearchPap er.pdf

http://dbis.rwth-aachen.de/~derntl/papers/misc/paperwriting.pdf

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/learning/learning-article/how-to-write-a-research- article-to-submit-for-publication/20201933.article?firstPass=false

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/publication https://www.journalprep.com/FILES/101Tips.pdf

The Ethics of Research, Writing, and Publication

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/193758671400800103 Potential predatory Journals and Publishers:

https://beallslist.weebly.com/

(32)

مكروضحو مكعامتسلا ًاركش

بييردتلا جمانبرلا مييقت لمأن تاراهلما ةيمنت سكرم عقىم ةرايز وأ