Accepted Manuscript Title: So Why Would My Paper Be Rejected? Author: I.D.S. Civil Lillian S. Kao PII: DOI: Reference:

S0020-1383(14)00281-2 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.injury.2014.06.003 JINJ 5772

To appear in:

Injury, Int. J. Care Injured

Please cite this article as: Civil IDS, Kao LS, So Why Would My Paper Be Rejected?, Injury (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.06.003 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

SO WHY WOULD MY PAPER BE REJECTED? No author submits a paper with the expectation that it will be rejected. Yet presently only 22% of original papers submitted to Injury end up being published. Why are not more papers accepted? Clearly there is a limited amount of copy space so there is competitive pressure and better papers are more likely to be accepted, even if lesser papers nonetheless have important messages. So what are the features that mark out a potentially successful paper?

us

cr

ip t

There should be a clear stated hypothesis (usually at the end of the introduction) which the study is well placed to confirm or refute. Sauaia et al note that wherever a statistical test is used then an hypothesis existed and recommend using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) format whenever possible (1). Furthermore, the hypothesis should address a gap in knowledge and should add to the existing literature. Surprisingly many submissions do not have a clear or novel hypothesis and thus are very unlikely to be accepted.

d

M

an

A suitable study method should have been employed to address the hypothesis. While randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for comparing interventions, a minority of surgical studies and particularly those related to trauma, are randomised. Biases resulting from poor study design, small effect sizes due to underpowered studies, and misinterpretation of the results can all lead to poor quality studies that cannot be subsequently replicated (2,3 ). A power analysis should be included where appropriate to demonstrate that the study has an adequate sample size to detect a clinically important treatment effect. Despite published guidelines for different types of research designs, adherence in reporting of study methodology within the surgical literature is poor (i.e. for RCTs) (4 ). While not all journals require adherence to these guidelines, attention to important methodological details will increase the likelihood of paper acceptance.

Ac ce pt e

The statistical analysis is the downfall of many submissions. Many common statistical errors can be easily corrected or avoided, such as those previously outlined in this journal (3). However, including a qualified biostatistician in the design of the study and analysis of the results may be necessary to ensure the quality and reliability of the results. For example, a biostatistician may assist in understanding the nuances between different approaches for deciding which covariates are included in a regression model or how missing data are handled; these decisions can significantly alter the results of risk-adjusted analyses.(5) More importantly, authors may fail to interpret the results of the statistical analysis correctly. Lack of statistical significance is often interpreted as lack of clinical significance (7), and the p-value is frequently cited as incontrovertible evidence of the presence or absence of a treatment effect (8). Failure in correct interpretation of the results often leads to an inevitable paper rejection and a complete rewrite. Size matters! In general a shorter paper is more likely to be accepted than a longer one. While some studies are complex and will be larger than others, when a paper is longer than 5000 words the Editor is likely to take more convincing to accept it than a paper which is 3000-5000 words long. While the methods and results sections are largely determined by the nature of the work itself the introduction and discussion sections can be of variable length. In the introduction it should be clear what is known about the topic, what is unknown and why the study is important. The discussion should interpret for the reader the results of the study in the light of the questions posed. Scientific papers are not opinion pieces however and rambling discussions with considerable text devoted to matters not intrinsic to the study itself or the results are likely to make the paper unnecessarily large and possibly lead to rejection. The discussion however should be just that and no new material should be introduced in the

Page 1 of 3

discussion which is not part of the results. It is not uncommon for authors to introduce new material in the discussion and this is also likely to lead at least to a recommendation for revision. Generally authors write the Abstract after they have completed the paper and are able to include all relevant details in the four main sections. As most papers undergo a number of revisions it is surprising how often authors do not revisit the abstract. The end result can be that the details in the abstract are not congruent with the details in the paper. Another reason why revision is often called for.

us

cr

ip t

As a final check before submission to any journal it is important to check the instructions to authors as highlighted by Kibbe (9). It is vital that the paper is submitted in the format requested by the publisher. For Injury this includes advice that the abstract should be no longer than 350 words, that the references should be listed in order of citation, that the first six authors names should be listed before et al., and that the language of the journal is UK not US English. Not adhering to this advice gives the perception of carelessness and may suggest to the editors that a similar approach was taken in regard to the research.

M

an

One of the final checks run on a paper that otherwise meets the standards for publication is a check for plagiarism, either of the authors own otherwise published work, or of others. Injury uses standard plagiarism checking software which accurately maps the submitted paper against other published works. Short segments of identical text are not a problem in some areas like methods where there may be a standard that the author is adhering to. Duplicate text in the results is more of a concern as it may imply that the authors are looking at a single dataset in a very similar way to other published work. The greatest concern is where there is duplication in the discussion. This is where there is the least leeway for duplication. The discussion of any particular study result should be unique to that study.

Ac ce pt e

d

So to achieve the holy grail of acceptance without revision (a very high bar) then a well designed, sufficiently powered, well written, well analysed original piece of work is needed. There is always room in the journal for such submissions.

REFERENCES

1. Sauaia A, Moore EE, Crebs JL, Maier RV, Hoyt DB, Shackford SR. The anatomy of an article: Title, abstract and introduction. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014; 76:1322-1327 2. 3.

Dimick JB, Diener-West M, Lipsett PA. Negative results of randomized trials published in the surgical literature: equivalency or error? Arch Surg 2001; 136(7); 796-800. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014; 383 (9912): 166-75.

4.

Adie S, Harris IA, Naylor JM, Mittal R. CONSORT compliance in surgical randomized trials: are we there yet? A systematic review. Ann Surg 2013; 258(6): 872-8.

5.

Haider AH, Saleem T, Leow JJ, Villegas CV, Kisat M, Schneider EB et al. Influence of the National Trauma Data Bank on the Study of Trauma Outcomes: Is It Time to Set Research Best Practices to Further Enhance Its Impact? J Am Coll Surg 2012; 214(5): 756-768.

6. Ferrill MJ, Brown DA, Kyle JA. Clinical versus statistical significance: interpreting P values and confidence intervals related to measures of association to guide decision making. J Pharm Pract 2010; 23(4): 344-51

Page 2 of 3

7. Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: The P value fallacy. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130(12); 996-1004.

cr

ip t

8. Prescott RJ, Civil I. Lies, damn lies and statistics: Errors and omission in papers submitted to INJURY 2010-2012. Injury 2013; 44: 6-11

us

9. Kibbe MR. How to write a paper. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2013; 83: 90-92

I.D.S. Civil

an

Auckland City Hospital, Trauma Services, 7th Floor, Support Building,

M

Private Bag 92-024,

Ac ce pt e

Lillian S. Kao

d

Auckland , New Zealand

Department of Surgery

Division of Acute Care Surgery,

University of Texas Health Science Center Houston, TX.

Page 3 of 3

So why would my paper be rejected?

So why would my paper be rejected? - PDF Download Free
67KB Sizes 1 Downloads 4 Views