Evolution and Validation 0f Practice Standards, Training, and Professional Development

iii.

Poorly worded or unclear study objective(s)

iv.

Methods without results; results without methods

Unnecessary duplication of results in tables and body of manuscript

vi.

Rambling, unfocused discussion

vii.

Failure to adequately address weaknesses of the study (all studies have them)

viii.

Conclusions that reach beyond the data

ix.

Several tables that can be consolidated

Unneeded figures (usually, simplistic presentations of data that can be presented parenthetically)

xi.

Failure to cite the literature correctly or according to journal’s requirements

xii.

Exceeding word count limits – Both in abstract and in manuscript

Using citation manager software (EndNote, Reference Manager, RefWorks, etc.)

May contain templates consistent with many biomedical journal requirements

Actively cite the literature while writing

Automatically re-sort the references during revisions

Can include PDF files and your notes in citation file

Develop libraries of commonly used citations

Overall, can ease the writing and formatting process for publication

Submitting the manuscript

Greatly simplified by web-based submission

Follow download instructions carefully.

Assessment of writing style and assurance of plagiarism check

Communication to the editor

ii.

Declare category of publication (though now part of submission template).

iii.

Indicate corresponding author (also part of template).

iv.

Some journals encourage a brief explanation of why paper is being submitted to the journal –

Relevance, importance, target audience. However, this is declining.

Copyright release

Electronic methods are increasingly used.

ii.

Each author must sign/submit.

iii.

Provide assurance that part or all of content has not been previously published and is not

currently under consideration by another publisher. Usually excludes abstracts.

Conflicts of interest: All authors must provide conflict-of-interest statements.

Review and revision process

Editorial review

The editor or a member of the editorial board may review initially.

ii.

Looking for relevance to journal, general quality of the manuscript, composition, and readability

iii.

Failure to get past the editor’s desk results in rejection

Peer or scientific review

Sent to peers with content expertise for review and critique

ii.

Typically, sent to two to five reviewers (varies by journal and internal criteria)

iii.

Most journals request a review to be returned in 10–30 days.

iv.

Reviewers are asked to focus on the quality of the research or content and importance (including

relevance to the journal’s audience), not copyediting details.