雕石琢玉英文醫(yī)學(xué)寫(xiě)作及應(yīng)答審評(píng)的技巧中國(guó)醫(yī)生發(fā)表SCI

雕石琢玉-英文醫(yī)學(xué)寫(xiě)作及應(yīng)答審評(píng)的技巧中國(guó)醫(yī)生發(fā)表SCI論文的問(wèn)題和解決辦法任駿美國(guó)懷俄明大學(xué)健康暨衛(wèi)生學(xué)院副院長(zhǎng)、藥理學(xué)教授美國(guó)懷俄明州生命科學(xué)首席科學(xué)家美國(guó)西部轉(zhuǎn)譯暨臨床醫(yī)學(xué)聯(lián)盟州級(jí)首席執(zhí)行官美國(guó)心血管毒理“CardiovascularToxicology”副主編中國(guó)西安第四軍醫(yī)大學(xué)講座教授

Editor-in-Chief,MedjadenScientificService中國(guó)香港美捷登生物醫(yī)學(xué)服務(wù)公司主編StudydesignLaboratoryexperiments,clinicalinvestigation/review,etc.Literaturesearch/readingSubmissionPreparationofmanuscriptDataanalysisProofPublicationAcceptanceEditor’s

decisionRejectionFlowchartofPublicationProceduresRevision/RepliesPeerreviewResurrectionRecommendedorderofwriting:ResultsTablesandFigureswithP-values(arrangepanelsoffigures)FigurelegendsDescriptionofimportantdatainTablesandFiguresMethodsModificationandrefinementofmanualsorpreviouslypublisheddescriptions(findagoodtemplate–bestfromyourownlab)IntroductionDiscussionAbstract/AcknowledgementSelf-assessmentandPreparationofYourManuscriptSuitableQuality?SufficientGeneralInterest?ConclusionsJustified?ClearlyWritten?ProceduresDescribed?Self-assessmentbeforeaworkisconsideredforpreparationforpublication?CheckpointforClarity-1Clarifyacentralmessagebeforeyoustartwriting.Canyoudescribeyourworktoacolleagueinoneortwosentences?Apapershouldaddressonemainquestion.Irrelevantexperimentaldatashouldbeexcluded.Writeinyourownvoiceortone.Eliminatethepossibilityofbeingmisunderstood.CheckpointClarity-2Puttingoneselfinthereader’sposition.IdentifyreadersKeeptothewordlimit(Shortpapersarenotequaltoshortmanuscripts)BeconsistentPresentFiguresandTablesclearlyAvoidexcessiveabbreviationsUseEnglisheditingservices

Assistreviewersinunderstandingyourwork,andgetconstructivecriticismsAssistreadersinunderstandingyourpaper,andgetmorecitationsWhenshouldwesubmit?Manuscriptwithnovelfindingscannotberejectedeasily.NoveltyCompletenessNoveltyiskey:MechanisticinsightsFindtheunderlyingmechanismofthebiologicalresponse.Studythefunctionalsignificanceofthebiologicalresponse.Findtherelevanceofthebiologicalresponsetopathophysiology.Studythepropertiesoftheendogenousmolecule,usinglossoffunctionapproaches.Studytheinvivosignificanceofthebiologicalresponsestudiedinvitro.Plantheseexperimentsintheearlystagesofyourstudy.HowtoincreaseyourproductivityAssembleFiguresandTablesintheearlystagesofyourwork.Prepareafolderfordataandreferences.Startwritingwhereveryoucan.Writethepaperinparts.Prepareoutlinesandheadingsandwritethefirstsentence.WritequicklyandputthedraftasideforatleastonedaybeforerevisingPreparefortherevisioninadvance.Don’tbeafraidofreceivingcriticisms.Alwaysmakeawishlistforimprovement.WordsSpecific,familiarandshortSyntaxMostofthegrammaticalerrorsareduetofaultywordorderAbbreviationsandjargonShouldNEVERcontainabbreviations,chemicalformulas,proprietary(ratherthangeneric)names,jargonandthelikeTypeoftitlesStraightforward,recommendedSentence,notalwaysrecommendedPhraseorhalfsentenceTitle-subtitle(seriestitle)arrangement,recommendedHowtoPreparetheTitleHowtoconstructanAbstract??Background(oneortwosentence)?Objectives(onesentence)?Methods(howtodotheexpts)?Results(whatyouobserved?)?Conclusion(Whatyoucansay?Theseresultssuggest,reveal,orindicatethat……)TypicalMistakes/ErrorsinanAbstractLackofspecificaims(objectives)LackofdescriptionsofmethodsEithertoobriefortoodetailedresultsLackofaconcreteconclusionOtherweaknessesmentionedinthetypicalexamplesofinappropriatetitlesHowtobestcomposetheIntroductionsection??Background1.Fromgeneraltospecificarea2.Describethecomponentsrelatedtothecurrentstudy3.Unsolvedissuesintherelatedarea?Objectives1.Whathavebeenperformed,butnotdescribetheresultsinmosttimes.2.Comparedtopreviousstudies,whatisthenoveltyofthepresentstudy?CommentproblemsindevelopingtheIntroductionsection:Jumping,lackoflogicaldevelopmentMissingcomponentsUnclearwhytodoit–lackofrationaleofwhy“proteinmarkerA,BandCwereevaluated”NoveltyisunclearWhatshouldbeincludedintheResultssection?Logicaldescriptionoftheresultsingrouponebyone(usesubtitlesornewparagraphsetc)DonotrepeatusethedatainbothtablesandfiguresNodiscussion,butshortbackgroundorconclusionsometimesisacceptableLogicaldevelopmentoftheDiscussion

VeryshortbackgroundandsummaryofthemainresultsandconclusionDiscussionrelatedpreviousresultsAnalysistheresultsofcurrentstudyUsingsomewordssuchasnoveltyorinnovativefinding,importantfindingtoattractreader’sattentionSummaryandconclusion

Experimentallimitation(atreviewer’srequest)StudydesignLaboratoryexperiments,clinicalinvestigation/review,etc.Literaturesearch/readingSubmissionPreparationofmanuscriptDataanalysisProof/ReprintorderPublicationAcceptanceEditor’sdecisionRejectionFlowchartofPublicationProceduresRevision/RepliesPeerreviewSubmissionTargetJournalsReadInstructions/contentsofseveralrelatedjournalsandselect2-3targetjournalswithdifferentimpactfactors,basedonthequalityofyourstudyNormallytrythejournalwithahigherone,thenanotheronewithalowerone,dependingonthecommentsoftheeditor/reviewersOnlinebetterthanpostore-mailTurn-aroundtimeMostjournalsdon’tchargesubmissionfeesMostjournaldon’tchargepublicationfeesStudydesignLaboratoryexperiments,clinicalinvestigation/review,etc.Literaturesearch/readingSubmissionPreparationofmanuscriptDataanalysisProof/ReprintorderPublicationAcceptancePeerreviewEditor’sdecisionRejectionFlowchartofPublicationProceduresRevision/RepliesTheValueofManuscriptPeerReviewThebestopportunitytolearnwhatisnecessaryforacceptanceofthejournal.Itisnotawasteoftime.Agoodwaytopracticetimemanagement.Thebestexercisetoimprovethequalityofyourscience.Makingconstructivecommentsbenefitsyourexperimentaldesignaswell.PeerReviewRecommendedandexcludedreviewers(important!)TimingofreviewprocessNormally4-12weeksNot“thequicker,thebetter”-aresponsewithin1weekmeans“rejection”withoutsendingoutforreviewinmostcases(thereareexceptions)Delayedreviewdoesn’tmean“rejection”,butisindeedfrustrating,especiallyforMOSTChineseauthorswhohavea“deadline”forpublicationRecommendedtimeforinquirywouldbe3monthsaftersubmissionPeerReviewRecommendationofreviewersSeniororfirstauthorsofreferencesyouciteinyourpaper,andyourdataareinagreementwiththeirsGointoPubMedandfindsomeonewhopublishedpapersinagreementwithyourdata;youbettercitehispaper

SeniorauthorswhohassimilarresearchfieldtoyoursandtowhomyouoryourbosshasagoodrelationshipExcludeyourcompetitorsasreviewersFlowchartofPublicationProceduresStudydesignLaboratoryexperiments,clinicalinvestigation/review,etc.Literaturesearch/readingSubmissionPreparationofmanuscriptDataanalysisProof/ReprintorderPublicationAcceptanceEditor’sdecisionRejectionRevision/RepliesPeerreviewEditor’sDecisionTypicalwordinginthedecisionletterAcceptance(excitingmomenteveryoneenjoys!)Iampleasedtoinformyouthatyourmanuscripthasbeenacceptedforpublicationinfutureissueof(journalname)….Minorrevision(verylikelytobeaccepted)Iregretthatyourmanuscripthasnotbeenabletobeacceptedforpublicationinitspresent(current)format.However,wewishtore-consider(wouldliketoinvite)arevisedmanuscriptifyouarewillingtoaddressthecommentsraisedbythereviewers.Majorrevision(howmuchadditionalstudyneeded?)Rejection–(canitberesurrected?)

Editor’sDecisionTypicalwordinginthedecisionletterMajorrevision(revisedpapersentbacktothesamereviewers,andmaybeacceptedifthereviewersaresatisfiedwithauthors’repliesandtherevisedversion)Iregretthatyourmanuscripthasnotbeenabletobeacceptedforpublicationinitspresent(current)format.However,wewouldliketore-considerarevisedmanuscriptifyouarewillingtoaddressthecommentsraisedbythereviewers.PleaseberemindedthatIcannotguaranteethatyourrevisedpaperwillbeaccepted.Iregretthatyourmanuscripthasnotbeenabletobeacceptedforpublicationinitspresent(current)format.However,wewouldliketore-considerarevisedmanuscriptifyouarewillingtoaddressthecommentsraisedbythereviewers.

Pleasebeinformedthatyourrevisedmanuscriptmustbere-submittedasanewmanuscript).Editor’sDecisionTypicalwordinginthedecisionletterRejectionwithreviewers’commentsIregretthatyourmanuscriptisnotacceptedforpublicationinthisjournal,duetoitsrelativelylowpriority(orduetothelimitedspaceofourjournal).However,wewishtoincludethecommentsfromthereviewers,whichmaybeofhelpwhenyousubmityourpapertoanotherjournal.Thanksforyoursubmissionyourworktoourjournal.Rejectionwithoutreviewers’commentsIregretthatyourmanuscriptisnotacceptedforpublicationinthisjournal,becauseitisbeyondthescopesofourjournal(orduetoitslowpriority).Tosaveyourtime,Iwouldreturnyourmanuscriptandwishyoursuccessinanotherappropriatejournal.Thanksforyoursubmissionyourworktoourjournal.StudydesignLaboratoryexperiments,clinicalinvestigation/review,etc.Literaturesearch/readingSubmissionPreparationofmanuscriptDataanalysisProof/ReprintorderPublicationAcceptanceEditor’sdecisionRejectionRevision/RepliesFlowchartofPublicationProceduresPeerreviewReasonsforRejectionDeterminedbyEditors1Fundamentallyweakhypothesis2Lackofclinicalrelevance3Oldknowledgewithnoneworusefulmaterial4Twoorthreeofreasons1–35Reasonabletext,butimagesareofverypoorquality,areinappropriate,orareincorrectlyinterpreted6Toomanymethodologicerrors7Hypothesisadequate,butpoorstudydesign,methodology,orstatistics8Lackinginlogic;initialpremisenotlogicallysupportedbymethodsandresults9Noneoftheotherreasons,butreviewersdonotlikethearticle10Previouslypublished11Samplepopulationtoosmallorbiasedtojustifyresultsandconclusion12Wellwrittenbutbettersuitedforanotherjournal13Majorlanguageproblems;Englishnotprimarylanguageofauthor14Toopoorlywritten,phrased,orpresented15FailuretofollowAJRauthorguidelines16Lackofcorrelationbetweenpurposeandresults17Poorstatistics,beyondsalvageAmJRoentgenol2007;188:W113–W116ReasonsforManuscriptRejectionfor18CountriesCountry CategoryofReasonsforRejection

LackofneworLogicalor ErrorsinPoorRefereesNotsuited p

usefulknowledgemethodologicerrorsdataanalysislanguagedonotlikeforAJRUnitedStates59.6 16.6 7.2 2.49.03.9—Japan50.821.76.16.67.84.9NSSouthKorea70.412.66.32.52.55.0NSGermany45.932.97.11.24.77.1NSCanada55.813.013.05.210.42.6NSTurkey68.89.24.67.37.31.8NSUnitedKingdom57.121.47.13.65.45.4NSFrance63.59.511.14.84.86.3NSItaly72.68.14.86.54.81.6NSTaiwan67.67.04.24.215.51.4NSChina51.913.55.817.37.73.8<0.05Switzerland67.917.90.00.010.73.6NSAustria44.040.012.00.04.00.0<0.05Spain50.012.59.46.36.312.5NSIndia74.11.71.78.68.65.2<0.05Netherlands59.19.19.10.013.69.1NSIsrael76.04.04.04.08.04.0NSAustralia55.614.87.40.011.111.1NSAmJRoentgenol2007;188:W113–W116HowtoDealwith“Rejection”

Rejectionwithreviewers’commentsRevisethepaperaccordingtothereasonablecommentsmadebythereviewers,andignorethoseyoudon’tlike;Formatthepaperaccordingtothenewtargetedjournal;Inmostcases,thenewtargetedjournalhasalowerIFthanthepreviousone.However,ifyoubelievethatthereviewersmadeveryconstructiveandimportantcommentsandyouhavefullyaddressedthecomments,youmaytryajournalwithevenahigherimpactfactor(IF).Oneexample:anewserologyforH.pyloriinfection.Submission1–studyincludeduntreatedpatients,rejectedbyajournalwithanIFof1.8,butwithcommentrecommendinginclusionofpatientswitheradicationtherapy.Submission2-studyincludedbothgroups,andacceptedbyajournalwithanIFof2.5.Rejectionwithoutreviewers’commentsStudydesignLaboratoryexperiments,clinicalinvestigation/review,etc.Literaturesearch/readingSubmissionPreparationofmanuscriptDataanalysisProof/ReprintorderPublicationAcceptanceEditor’sdecisionRejectionRevision/RepliesFlowchartofPublicationProceduresPeerreviewHowtoDealwith“Revision”Mostpapersneed1-2revisionsbeforeacceptanceRecommendedproceduresforrevisionReadtheeditor’sletterandReviewers’commentscarefully,performadditionalexperimentsif“demanded”Trytodraftthe“point-by-point”repliestothecommentsfirstThen,reviseyourpaperaccordingtothedrafted“point-by-point”repliesFinalizeyour“point-by-point”repliesandrevisionsinthepaperIfadditionalexperimentsordataarerequired,doitinareasonabletimeline-neitherindaysnorinmonthsHowtoDealwith“Revision”Recommendedattitudetowardreviewers’commentsforrevisionMostreviewersarehelpingboththejournalandauthorsSomereviewerspointouthowtoimprovethepresentationofthepaper,oreveneditthepaperAlwaysthankthereviewer,evenifhe/sheiswrongNeverblamethereviewersfornotunderstandingyourpaper,ordeliberatelypickinguptheweaknessesofyour