How to prepare successful scientific manuscripts

2 downloads 0 Views 246KB Size Report
DOI 10.1007/s00247-014-3050-9. How to prepare successful scientific manuscripts: practical advice from editors of radiology journals. Amaka C. Offiah, Winnie ...
How to prepare successful scientific manuscripts: practical advice from editors of radiology journals Amaka C. Offiah, Winnie C. W. Chu, Razaan Davis, Adrian K. Dixon, Jeffrey S. Klein & Edward Y. Lee Pediatric Radiology ISSN 0301-0449 Volume 44 Number 9 Pediatr Radiol (2014) 44:1056-1057 DOI 10.1007/s00247-014-3050-9

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Pediatr Radiol (2014) 44:1056–1057 DOI 10.1007/s00247-014-3050-9

RESEARCH FORUM

How to prepare successful scientific manuscripts: practical advice from editors of radiology journals Amaka C. Offiah & Winnie C. W. Chu & Razaan Davis & Adrian K. Dixon & Jeffrey S. Klein & Edward Y. Lee

Received: 25 February 2014 / Accepted: 12 May 2014 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Keywords Publishing . Scientific writing . Pediatric radiology . Expert opinion

Comment from Dr Amaka Offiah and Dr Edward Lee: We know that writing scientific manuscripts can be challenging. We therefore asked several editors of prominent radiological journals for their tips and helpful advice on successfully writing a scientific manuscript.

Winnie C. W. Chu, Editor of Hong Kong Journal of Radiology &

An original research paper should provide details about the methodology, including how the subjects are

&

& &

A. C. Offiah (*) Academic Unit of Child Health, Room C4, Stephenson Wing, Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TH, UK e-mail: [email protected] W. C. W. Chu The Chinese University of Hong Kong and Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong R. Davis Tygerberg Hospital and University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa

&

A. K. Dixon Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK J. S. Klein University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, USA E. Y. Lee Divisions of Magnetic Resonance and Thoracic Imaging, Departments of Radiology and Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA

recruited (inclusion and exclusion criteria), the imaging method (technical acquisition parameters, specific preparation for subjects), image interpretation (clear definition of imaging features to be assessed; technical details should be provided if computer analysis is employed), and statistical tests (with definition of significance). A well-written study methodology is as important as the results and conclusion, because it helps the peer reviewers and readers to decide how valid and reproducible the study is. This also allows the reader to implement the described techniques into their own practice. Easily readable diagrams and tables are strongly encouraged for better understanding and summary of important radiologic features or findings. A case report is more likely to be viewed positively by peer reviewers if the disease reported is uncommon but important, especially for a special ethnic group or region. The imaging features should be nicely illustrated in a case report, with representative figures. The significance of the case report is further enhanced when the unique imaging features make an important contribution to the early and accurate diagnosis as well as subsequent optimal patient management. A review article about a disease spectrum should include illustrative figures using the newest-generation imaging modalities because the quality of images differs significantly between old and new models despite use of the same imaging parameters.

Adrian Dixon, Editor-in-Chief of European Radiology (2007–2013) & & &

Define the question. Review the literature first. At the start of the study:

Author's personal copy Pediatr Radiol (2014) 44:1056–1057

& &

& & & & & &

Introduction: Set the scene; pose the question. Methods and results should be structured and ordered. Discussion: Do not repeat the introduction. Attack the paper’s bias/power. Answer the original question posed. Get a friend to read your article. Cut the article by a third. & &

&

Write the paper when designing protocols. Agree on the authorship (include a statistician as author or in the acknowledgement).

“Why use two words when one will do?”—Thomas Jefferson “Le secret d’ennuyer est de tout dire.” (“The secret to being a bore is to say everything.”)—Voltaire

1057

&

&

Razaan Davis, Editor of the South African Journal of Radiology (SAJR) &

OBEY the journal’s instructions to authors! &

Jeffrey S. Klein, Editor of RadioGrapics &

&

&

Submissions should include all components as detailed in the publication information to authors. Learning objectives and a continuing medical education (CME) exercise that assess the objectives and have questions composed of focused stems and plausible answer choices are a must for papers published in a continuing medical education journal. The use of tables that detail acquisition protocols, compare imaging findings in different disease processes, or describe the spectrum of a disease amongst different modalities enhance the practical application of imaging to patient evaluation, and they allow readers to implement new techniques into their own practice. Anatomical diagrams that supplement the normal radiologic anatomy help readers better understand abnormal imaging findings and normal variants.

A review that describes a novel approach or adds incrementally to existing literature on imaging and is not simply redundant with existing publications is more likely to be viewed positively by subspecialty peer reviewers. Recommendations on the approach to specific anatomy, disease processes, patient groups, or image-guided diagnostic or therapeutic modalities must be evidence-based and not proprietary or anecdotal in nature.

&

& &

Authors should read and carefully consider the instructions to authors with regard to manuscript preparation and supplementary file submission. This includes familiarizing themselves with the in-house referencing style of the publisher. Case reports of an established entity should highlight a novel feature or aspect and not merely duplicate the published literature. Ensure that images are of best quality and resolution. Often submissions are accompanied by poor-quality images of either analogue films that have been scanned in and cropped, or of computer screen shots. Images should be annotated and referred to in the text, where appropriate, or in the legends. There should be comprehensive completion of the metadata. Carefully read and consider the feedback from the reviewer. The reviewer may have raised concerns regarding methodology or made statistical queries, or made multiple valuable suggestions including recommendations to journal articles that would improve the manuscript, or suggested assistance from a linguist. Resubmitting on the same day or next day implies that the author/authors did not adequately address the reviewer’s concerns and recommendations.