Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 53 (2015) 577–579
Editorial
How do you get your paper published more quickly in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery? Have you ever asked what you thought was a perfectly reasonable question, only to be told “Use your common sense”? It probably left you a bit resentful, irritated, and feeling misunderstood. Think again. Look at the question in the title of this paper. Then put yourself in the position of the editor. His aim is to publish interesting papers on important clinical and research topics that are relevant to oral and maxillofacial surgery. He also wants the papers to bring kudos to the journal, and he wants people to want to read it – so it must be both erudite and distinctive. Last but not least, it should be easy to read and have what is known as a “house style”. If people are to rely on what is published in the journal it must have a consistent, high standard both of content and presentation – and it is to the latter that we draw your attention. It is the presentation that slows down the publication of papers that are scientifically and clinically acceptable. At this point you may interrupt and say “Hang on a minute – how am I to know what he wants and doesn’t want?” To which the answer is: easily, read the Instructions to Authors – that is what they are for – to tell you how papers in the journal are expected to look and to read. If the Instructions do not answer all your questions, look at a recent copy of the journal and follow the style from that. Now is the time to introduce you to the technical editors. It is their job to make sure that the house style is followed to the last letter and punctuation mark. This is not an exaggeration. It means that if you have not written something in the correct style, they will change it. This can best be shown by giving you some examples.
Text The purpose of your paper is to communicate the results of your work as simply and succinctly as possible, and this is what the technical editors ensure. Readers do not have time to spend hours pondering over what you might mean. A rule of thumb is: if you have to read a sentence twice to understand it, it is a bad sentence and should be redrafted. Examples of phrases that could have been put more clearly are given in Table 1. The abstract should answer the following questions, each with one sentence. Why did you start? What did you do? What did you find? What does it mean anyway? The Introduction should answer the first question – why did you start? – in a little more detail, and you should restrict yourself to outlining your hypothesis without deviation. Patients (or Material or Subjects) and methods should describe exactly that – no more, no less – but in enough detail for a person who has read the paper to be able to replicate the investigation. Results should describe what you did, with or without the help of tables and figures. Resist the urge to comment on the results. A trap that catches many is that of repeating in the text data that are clearly shown in the tables. The technical editor will delete such text. Discussion, and at last you can spread yourself a bit and describe how your results differ from or confirm the results of others. Someone is said to have commented that if you
Table 1 Phrases that could be put more clearly.
Examples The journal is the “British” journal, so it follows that it uses British English spelling and phraseology. If you are not certain what British English is, a good start is to make sure that your version of Word uses “English (U.K.)” or “English (United Kingdom)” as its default setting.
Author’s version
Technical Editor’s version
Excessive interposed adipose tissue Mobility of the leg was present In the author’s opinion On account of the fact that One out of every two Surgical procedure Exogenous nutrient elements
Fat The leg moved I think Because Half Operation Food
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.03.019 0266-4356/© 2015 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
578
Editorial / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 53 (2015) 577–579
had answered the first three questions adequately, there was no need to ask the fourth as the results will speak for themselves, but the journal does permit a little latitude. However, the technical editors will come down heavily on repetition, garbled phrases, and convoluted syntax. The last paragraph of the Discussion should contain your conclusion – preferably in one sentence, and preferably with due modesty. Fleming1 concluded his description of penicillin in 1929 with the words: Penicillin, in regard to infections with sensitive microbes, appears to have some advantages over the well-known chemical antiseptics, and Watson and Crick2 finished their letter to Nature in 1953: It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material. In fact this letter was never edited – it could have been, and made more powerful by removing 7 words.
Table 2 Post hoc comparisons of bone gain (mm2 ) between the groups. Groups
Mean
SD
Defect regeneration
ABBM FDBA AUTO Control
4.00 mm2
1.69 1.06 0.34 0.25
50% 32% 28.7% 10.25%
2.56 mm2 2.30 mm2 0.82 mm2
ABBM = anorganic bone mineral; FDBA = freeze-dried bone allograft; AUTO = autogenous bone. Table 3 Post hoc comparisons of bone gain (mm2 ) between the groups. Groups
Mean (SD) (mm2 )
Regeneration of defect (%)
ABBM FDBA AUTO Control
4.00 (1.69) 2.56 (1.06) 2.30 (0.34) 0.82 (0.25)
50 32 28.7 10.25
ABBM = anorganic bone mineral; FDBA = freeze-dried bone allograft; AUTO = autogenous bone.
References
Tables and figures
Look carefully at the references. How are they set out? Every journal has its own quirks, even though superficially their lists may look the same. The Instructions tell you that you should use all authors names if there are 6 or fewer, and 3 names et al. if there are 7 or more – and if you do not it will have to be altered. The journal uses Index Medicus abbreviations for the titles of journals (see the list of references). If you do not abbreviate the title correctly, again, it will have to be altered. The journal does not quote part numbers, so if you include the part number it will have to be removed, and the journal abbreviates the second page number, so extraneous numbers must be omitted. So: Sverzut CE, Kato RB, Rosa AL, Trivellato AE, Sverzut AT, da Silveira KM, de Oliveira PT. Comparative study of bone repair in mandibular body osteotomy between metallic and absorbable 2.0 mm fixation systems. Histological and histometric analysis in dogs: a pilot study. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2012; 41(11):1361–1368.
Table 2 shows a table as submitted, and Table 3 shows how it was simplified for publication. Both tables and figures should be regarded as a means of summarising information for the quickest possible assimilation, and diagrams should be used only if it is not possible to show the data in any other way. They are not supposed to be works of art. Tufte3 coined the concept of “data ink” and “non-data ink”, data ink being the amount of ink that actually shows data (numbers and legends), and non-data ink being the data used for unnecessary lines, shading, and labelling. He also pointed out that figures should be drawn in the proportions of the “golden rectangle” (1:1.6) so that they look correct and fit properly on the page. Jolley4 went into more detail, and explained clearly why three-dimensional graphs (business graphics) are not acceptable for scientific data. Business graphics are designed to give an impression, whereas scientific graphics must above all be accurate. If tables and graphics do not conform to the style of the journal, they have to be made to conform by the technical editors, and each alteration must be made separately, which can be time-consuming and repetitive. Figures often have to be sent back to the authors with corrections marked on them. Most authors return them within 2 days, but the sooner the better. It is your loss.
becomes: Sverzut CE, Kato RB, Rosa AL, et al. Comparative study of bone repair in mandibular body osteotomy between metallic and absorbable 2.0 mm fixation systems. Histological and histometric analysis in dogs: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41:1361–8. The technical editors check that all references are accurate, so make sure that yours are all listed but not duplicated, and that abstracts are quoted in the text in brackets in the same way as “unpublished observations”. The reason for this is that abstracts are incomplete and have not been peer-reviewed, so are not citable as full references. Titles of papers published in languages other than English should be translated and followed by the phrase, for example, “in German” in brackets after the English translation.
General comments Several points that the technical editors deal with apply to all parts of the paper. For example, in some countries a comma is used instead of a decimal point. These all have to be changed – not difficult, but time-consuming, as “find and replace” cannot be used for punctuation marks.
Editorial / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 53 (2015) 577–579
They also check your arithmetic and your percentages. The journal does not use a percentage if the total number is less than 25 as it can be misleading, and percentages and decimals are rounded off if the total number is less than 100, because spurious accuracy has little biological validity. We have not covered statistical analysis, as that is the province of the Statistics Editor. However, it should go without saying that exact p values are requested if “p < 0.05” is given. All computer programs provide them nowadays, so it is no extra work for the author – it just requires a little forethought. In conclusion, you the authors have the solution. Technical editing is the only profession that has a self-destruct mechanism built into its job description. If authors submitted pristine manuscripts, there would be no need for us – so start by reading the Instructions to Authors.
579
References 1. Fleming A. On the antibacterial action of cultures of a penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae. Br J Exper Pathol 1929;10:226–36. 2. Watson JD, Crick FH. Molecular structure of nucleic acids. A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953;4356:737–8. 3. Tufte ER. The visual display of quantitative information. 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2001. 4. Jolley D. The glitter of the t table. Lancet 1993;342:27–9.
M.E. Evans ∗ C.D. Lester D.A. Mitchell ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.E. Evans) Available online 20 April 2015
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 53 (2015) 577–579
Editorial
How do you get your paper published more quickly in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery? Have you ever asked what you thought was a perfectly reasonable question, only to be told “Use your common sense”? It probably left you a bit resentful, irritated, and feeling misunderstood. Think again. Look at the question in the title of this paper. Then put yourself in the position of the editor. His aim is to publish interesting papers on important clinical and research topics that are relevant to oral and maxillofacial surgery. He also wants the papers to bring kudos to the journal, and he wants people to want to read it – so it must be both erudite and distinctive. Last but not least, it should be easy to read and have what is known as a “house style”. If people are to rely on what is published in the journal it must have a consistent, high standard both of content and presentation – and it is to the latter that we draw your attention. It is the presentation that slows down the publication of papers that are scientifically and clinically acceptable. At this point you may interrupt and say “Hang on a minute – how am I to know what he wants and doesn’t want?” To which the answer is: easily, read the Instructions to Authors – that is what they are for – to tell you how papers in the journal are expected to look and to read. If the Instructions do not answer all your questions, look at a recent copy of the journal and follow the style from that. Now is the time to introduce you to the technical editors. It is their job to make sure that the house style is followed to the last letter and punctuation mark. This is not an exaggeration. It means that if you have not written something in the correct style, they will change it. This can best be shown by giving you some examples.
Text The purpose of your paper is to communicate the results of your work as simply and succinctly as possible, and this is what the technical editors ensure. Readers do not have time to spend hours pondering over what you might mean. A rule of thumb is: if you have to read a sentence twice to understand it, it is a bad sentence and should be redrafted. Examples of phrases that could have been put more clearly are given in Table 1. The abstract should answer the following questions, each with one sentence. Why did you start? What did you do? What did you find? What does it mean anyway? The Introduction should answer the first question – why did you start? – in a little more detail, and you should restrict yourself to outlining your hypothesis without deviation. Patients (or Material or Subjects) and methods should describe exactly that – no more, no less – but in enough detail for a person who has read the paper to be able to replicate the investigation. Results should describe what you did, with or without the help of tables and figures. Resist the urge to comment on the results. A trap that catches many is that of repeating in the text data that are clearly shown in the tables. The technical editor will delete such text. Discussion, and at last you can spread yourself a bit and describe how your results differ from or confirm the results of others. Someone is said to have commented that if you
Table 1 Phrases that could be put more clearly.
Examples The journal is the “British” journal, so it follows that it uses British English spelling and phraseology. If you are not certain what British English is, a good start is to make sure that your version of Word uses “English (U.K.)” or “English (United Kingdom)” as its default setting.
Author’s version
Technical Editor’s version
Excessive interposed adipose tissue Mobility of the leg was present In the author’s opinion On account of the fact that One out of every two Surgical procedure Exogenous nutrient elements
Fat The leg moved I think Because Half Operation Food
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.03.019 0266-4356/© 2015 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
578
Editorial / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 53 (2015) 577–579
had answered the first three questions adequately, there was no need to ask the fourth as the results will speak for themselves, but the journal does permit a little latitude. However, the technical editors will come down heavily on repetition, garbled phrases, and convoluted syntax. The last paragraph of the Discussion should contain your conclusion – preferably in one sentence, and preferably with due modesty. Fleming1 concluded his description of penicillin in 1929 with the words: Penicillin, in regard to infections with sensitive microbes, appears to have some advantages over the well-known chemical antiseptics, and Watson and Crick2 finished their letter to Nature in 1953: It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material. In fact this letter was never edited – it could have been, and made more powerful by removing 7 words.
Table 2 Post hoc comparisons of bone gain (mm2 ) between the groups. Groups
Mean
SD
Defect regeneration
ABBM FDBA AUTO Control
4.00 mm2
1.69 1.06 0.34 0.25
50% 32% 28.7% 10.25%
2.56 mm2 2.30 mm2 0.82 mm2
ABBM = anorganic bone mineral; FDBA = freeze-dried bone allograft; AUTO = autogenous bone. Table 3 Post hoc comparisons of bone gain (mm2 ) between the groups. Groups
Mean (SD) (mm2 )
Regeneration of defect (%)
ABBM FDBA AUTO Control
4.00 (1.69) 2.56 (1.06) 2.30 (0.34) 0.82 (0.25)
50 32 28.7 10.25
ABBM = anorganic bone mineral; FDBA = freeze-dried bone allograft; AUTO = autogenous bone.
References
Tables and figures
Look carefully at the references. How are they set out? Every journal has its own quirks, even though superficially their lists may look the same. The Instructions tell you that you should use all authors names if there are 6 or fewer, and 3 names et al. if there are 7 or more – and if you do not it will have to be altered. The journal uses Index Medicus abbreviations for the titles of journals (see the list of references). If you do not abbreviate the title correctly, again, it will have to be altered. The journal does not quote part numbers, so if you include the part number it will have to be removed, and the journal abbreviates the second page number, so extraneous numbers must be omitted. So: Sverzut CE, Kato RB, Rosa AL, Trivellato AE, Sverzut AT, da Silveira KM, de Oliveira PT. Comparative study of bone repair in mandibular body osteotomy between metallic and absorbable 2.0 mm fixation systems. Histological and histometric analysis in dogs: a pilot study. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2012; 41(11):1361–1368.
Table 2 shows a table as submitted, and Table 3 shows how it was simplified for publication. Both tables and figures should be regarded as a means of summarising information for the quickest possible assimilation, and diagrams should be used only if it is not possible to show the data in any other way. They are not supposed to be works of art. Tufte3 coined the concept of “data ink” and “non-data ink”, data ink being the amount of ink that actually shows data (numbers and legends), and non-data ink being the data used for unnecessary lines, shading, and labelling. He also pointed out that figures should be drawn in the proportions of the “golden rectangle” (1:1.6) so that they look correct and fit properly on the page. Jolley4 went into more detail, and explained clearly why three-dimensional graphs (business graphics) are not acceptable for scientific data. Business graphics are designed to give an impression, whereas scientific graphics must above all be accurate. If tables and graphics do not conform to the style of the journal, they have to be made to conform by the technical editors, and each alteration must be made separately, which can be time-consuming and repetitive. Figures often have to be sent back to the authors with corrections marked on them. Most authors return them within 2 days, but the sooner the better. It is your loss.
becomes: Sverzut CE, Kato RB, Rosa AL, et al. Comparative study of bone repair in mandibular body osteotomy between metallic and absorbable 2.0 mm fixation systems. Histological and histometric analysis in dogs: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41:1361–8. The technical editors check that all references are accurate, so make sure that yours are all listed but not duplicated, and that abstracts are quoted in the text in brackets in the same way as “unpublished observations”. The reason for this is that abstracts are incomplete and have not been peer-reviewed, so are not citable as full references. Titles of papers published in languages other than English should be translated and followed by the phrase, for example, “in German” in brackets after the English translation.
General comments Several points that the technical editors deal with apply to all parts of the paper. For example, in some countries a comma is used instead of a decimal point. These all have to be changed – not difficult, but time-consuming, as “find and replace” cannot be used for punctuation marks.
Editorial / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 53 (2015) 577–579
They also check your arithmetic and your percentages. The journal does not use a percentage if the total number is less than 25 as it can be misleading, and percentages and decimals are rounded off if the total number is less than 100, because spurious accuracy has little biological validity. We have not covered statistical analysis, as that is the province of the Statistics Editor. However, it should go without saying that exact p values are requested if “p < 0.05” is given. All computer programs provide them nowadays, so it is no extra work for the author – it just requires a little forethought. In conclusion, you the authors have the solution. Technical editing is the only profession that has a self-destruct mechanism built into its job description. If authors submitted pristine manuscripts, there would be no need for us – so start by reading the Instructions to Authors.
579
References 1. Fleming A. On the antibacterial action of cultures of a penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae. Br J Exper Pathol 1929;10:226–36. 2. Watson JD, Crick FH. Molecular structure of nucleic acids. A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953;4356:737–8. 3. Tufte ER. The visual display of quantitative information. 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2001. 4. Jolley D. The glitter of the t table. Lancet 1993;342:27–9.
M.E. Evans ∗ C.D. Lester D.A. Mitchell ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.E. Evans) Available online 20 April 2015
