This document summarizes tips and strategies for publishing research in high-impact journals. It discusses the importance of publication for career advancement and sharing scientific findings. It outlines the different types of scientific communications and stresses the importance of originality and avoiding plagiarism or fraud. The document provides guidance on structuring manuscripts, including the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, tables/figures, and discussion. It also notes common reasons for manuscript rejection and examines the peer review process. Overall, the document aims to equip researchers with knowledge for effectively disseminating their work through academic publications.

1. Research Sharing Session KOD 2021
IIUM
Tips and tricks on publication in high
impact journal
Zainul A Rajion PhD
Chief-Editor IJOHS
(Formerly Chief-Editor AOFS USM)
1st/February/2021
KOD IIUM

2. Why Write?
 Goal of scientific research is publication
 Correlated to grant funding success
 Required for promotion (AP>P), recognition,
and salary increases - Career Advancement
 No one benefits if results are not shared -
Professional Benefits
 Department / Institutional Pride
 Publish or Perish

3. History - Wilhelm Konrad
RONTGEN - Dec 1895

4. Types of Scientific Communications
 Research Article
 Case Reports – Case Series
 Oral and Poster Presentations
 Conference Proceedings
 Review Article
 Thesis
 Book (Chapter)
It is the dissemination of your findings to the scientific community

5. What is publication?
 Scientific papers ("journal articles") are a special type of
written work that have particular characteristics:
 They are usually published in a periodical called a journal
 They are peer reviewed - subjected to the scrutiny of several
experts in the field
 They are citable - the journal is readily available in libraries
and (usually) through the Web
 They include citations - the paper frequently makes reference
to previous publications that are relevant to the work being
discussed

6. Originality
 “ Submission of a paper to a journal implies
that it presents the results of original
research or some new ideas not previously
published, that is not under consideration
for publication elsewhere, and that, if
accepted, it will not be published
elsewhere, either in English or in other
language, without the consent of the
editors”
(General Notes on the preparation of scientific Papers, The Royal Society,
London)

7. Originality vs Fraud
 Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in
proposing, carrying out, or reporting results of research
are the most common forms of fraud
 WSH, a Korean stem cell researcher published two
articles on research with ground-breaking results in
Science in 2004 and 2005 - both papers have turned out
to be complete and deliberate fakes
 Plagiarism is the act of presenting the words, ideas,
images, sounds, or the creative expression of others as
your own

8. Searching the literature
Data bases and index
 Scopus
 Medline
 Pubmed
 Web of science
 Google scholar

9. Biostatistic
 What sort of data and appropriate
statistical test applied?
 Parametric and non-parametric
 Association, correlation, regression, and
causation test

10. Structure and Content of a
Biomedical Manuscript
 Discussion
 References
 Legends
 Tables
 Figures
 Title
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results

11. Had
Experienced
in Writing
during
UG/PG??
This the
basic…..see
this article n
download

12. Manuscript Reviews
Receipt of
manuscript by
editorial asst
Manuscript
Editor
Title & Abstract
Headings
References
Tables/Figures
Read Through
Journal
Decision Editor
Revise-Acceptance ?
Revise-Accepted
Acceptance - Outright
Rejection - Outright
Editor Reports
Summary of peer reviews
Summary of editor’s review
Appropriate to
journal?
Conform to
guidelines?
Yes
Peer Reviewers
Masked review

13. Journal Editor:
What’s A Good Manuscript?
Title descriptive and specific
Abstract descriptive, specific, and correct length
Introduction and background short and strong
Research question clearly stated
Literature cited is comprehensive and relevant
Methods descriptive enough to be replicated; appropriate statistical analyses
Figures and Tables stand on their own, support conclusions, well constructed
Citations relevant to topic
Discussion within boundaries of findings; demonstrate how findings have helped
resolve stated problem; implications and future work addressed
Writing clear, terse, logical
Manuscript follows journal guidelines

14. Top 10 Reasons Manuscripts Rejected
1. Wrong journal, format, preparation
2. Disorganized study design
3. Defective tables, figures
4. Poor organization throughout, writing, spelling
5. No hypothesis or problem statement
6. No or insufficient conclusion
7. Overinterpretation of results
8. Article unfocused, too verbose and long
9. Inappropriate statistical methods; methods not sufficient to repeat
study
10. Poorly written abstract/title
Pierson DJ, Respiratory Care 49(10), 2004
Byrne DW, Publishing Medical Research Papers, Williams and Wilkins, 1998

15. Excerpts from examiners’ reports on
typos and grammars – outright
rejection
 Proofreading means carefully checking for errors in a
text before it is published or shared - It is the very last
stage of the writing process, when you fix minor spelling
and punctuation mistakes, typos, formatting issues and
inconsistencies
 Reviewer A: I strongly recommend the authors to
proofread or get a friend to proofread before submission
 Reviewer B: The manuscript seems to be completed in a
hurry with little proofreading!
 Reviewer C: It is a rather ‘cheap’ thing to do for an
reviewer to meticulously check all the writing style and
formatting errors!

16. The Byline
 First author
 Corresponding Author
 Names and format
 Institution
 Degrees and Title
 No general rule
 Halo effect

17. Who is an Author?
 Should be decided before the work begins
 Should be intimately involved in the work
 Should participate in at least two of:
 Experimental design
 Experiment execution
 Manuscript preparation

18. The Title

19. The Title
 First reviewed by Journal Editors before abstract
– key to database access and retrieval
 The most read part of the paper
 Short, Specific, Relevant, Descriptive, no
abbreviation and jargon
 Write last—your findings and conclusions may
alter your title

20. Title: Ask Yourself
 What is the single most important point of this
study?
 How would I tell my colleague, in one short
descriptive sentence:
what’s this study about?
 A descriptive, specific title perfectly framing
your study will be apparent only after you’ve
written the paper and abstract.
 Start with a short descriptive working title

21. Unnecessary Title Phrases
 A Study of… A Study to Determine Results of…
 An Innovative Method…
 Contributions to (of)…
 Investigations on (concerning, about)…
 Observations on…
 A Trial Comparing…

22. Title—Specific & Descriptive
 A Study Involving Medical Imaging with Genetic Patients
and Turner’s Syndrome
MRI Brain Imaging in Children With Turner’s Syndrome and
Other X Chromosome Abnormalities
 Nerve Growth Factors and Sodium Channels in Pancreatic
Cells
Nerve Growth Factor Increases Sodium Channel Expression
in Pancreatic (Beta) Cells: Implications for Insulin
Secretion

23. The Abstract

24. The Abstract
 1st Impression to journal editor and the reader!
 Follow the Journal’s Guidelines
 Most abstracts are often too long: ≤250 words: Cannot
upload your paper!
 Structure it (outline it)
“The abstract is the single most important part of a manuscript, yet the
most often poorly written” -JAMA Editor

25. The Abstract
 Sometimes only part available electronically—KEY words!
 Summarizes the main points succinctly:
 Background/Significance
 Objective
 Study design, method
 Primary germane results
 Principal conclusions, implications
 Do NOT be vague / unclear —be substantive and brief

26. Structured Abstract
Context—Summarize the study rationale and provide clinical (or
other) reason for the study question.
Objective—State the purpose or question asked. If more than one
objective, state primary objective and key secondary
objectives.
Design—Describe basic design, including relevant details.
Setting—General community, primary care, hospital, etc.
Patient or other population—describe demographics, disorders,
inclusion/exclusion criteria, etc.
Interventions—name, dose, dosage
Main outcome measure(s)
Results
Conclusions

28. The Introduction

29. Introduction
 Why did you carry out this research? State the specific purpose or
rationale for the study.
 What is the existing state of knowledge of this topic? Synthesize
information tracing the development of the problem and summarize
its current state…ie, the background. You ask (with citations):
 What’s known?
 What’s unknown?
 What are the gaps in knowledge this study will fill?
 What are you going to do and what do you expect to find?
State your hypothesis or question clearly (Objectives, Aims)
 Give only strictly relevant references.

30. Introduction
 This is a vital part of your paper—it convinces (or not) the reader
whether your study:
 Has merit and asks important research questions
 Is focused and supported by relevant recent citations
 Is ultimately important to human health and human disease
 Reviewers and editors will judge the paper’s importance in the
introduction.
 You will better focus your introduction AFTER you construct your
findings (results) and consider them (discussion).
 Your research question is the most important part—in your discussion,
you will address whether the question or hypothesis was answered
based on your data.

31. Observation 3: Recency of literature
review
 Literature review is often not up to date
 When submission about 3-4 years later, there
has not been adequate updating of the
literature review
 Typically, a lag of 6 months for recency of
literature review is tolerable

32. Observation 4: Inadequate critique
of literature review
 Tendency for literature review to be just a
summary of what others have done
 Little attempt to critique the studies and
contextually situate the study in a proper
framework

33. The Methods

34. Methods are Critical: Editors’ Responses
0 5 10 15 20
% Responses
Discussion
Results
Methods
Introduction
What section contains the most flaws?
0 5 10 15 20
% Responses
Discussion
Results
Methods
Introduction
What section responsible for outright rejection?
How frequently do Editors encounter manuscript problems?
Seldom Occasionally Frequently
Poorly written, excessive jargon
Inadequate/inappropriate presentation
Poor description of design
Excessive zeal and self promotion
Rationale confused, contradictory
Essential data omitted, ignored
Boring
Important work of others ignored
Byrne DW, Publishing Medical Research Papers, Williams and Wilkins, 1998

35. Methods
 Editors judge the study on whether your methods are
adequate to answer your specific aim or hypothesis
 Rationale for choosing procedures/tests
 The pivotal point to judge whether the results are valid
 Don’t suggest a method you have no expertise with
Your peer reviewer may uncover this
Use consultants for methods you have no experience with, stating this in
paper
 Methods usually the weakest section
 Often deficient in detail, not providing enough information to replicate
the study
 Statistical shortcomings

36. Methods
 Study design or analysis type and period of study - Inappropriate or
incomplete statistics
 Condition or disease studied - Human subjects approval
 Details of sample (number, recruiting methods of study subjects,
patients, how organized)
 Interventions, outcome measures, statistical analyses
 Include the locations and times that data were collected
 Give enough information to replicate the study; don’t assume only the
specialist in your field will read it

37. Observation 7: Less than optimal
research design
 Difficulty in answering research questions is often due
to the fact that research design has not been properly
thought out before start of study
 It would be useful for authors to get feedback on
research design from a few knowledgeable colleagues
before embarks on study proper

38. Excerpts from examiners’ reports on
design of study
 Reviewer J: A more rigorous methodological design
would have better addressed the questions raised in this
study
 Reviewer K: The research design appears to be the
result of mere convenience or impromptu (work). As
such, it is a pity that it lacks conceptual rigor
 Reviewer M: There was lots of theorizing on research
methodologies, but authors did not translate these
theories into operational frameworks for analyzing data
in his study

39. The Results

40. Results—The Beginning
 State ALL the findings
 Whether significant or not
 Without bias or interpretation
 Do not include weaknesses, strengths of study, ie don’t discuss results
 List experiments in order listed in methods
 Use logical headers and group your findings
 Characteristics of study subjects
 Findings in order listed in methods
 General to specific
 Use past tense
 Results confirm or reject your hypothesis: they do not prove
anything.

41. Results
 Short and to the point—Main or most important findings
first
 Present only data directly relevant to the study—focus
 Don’t repeat methods but you may remind the reader
briefly how you measured something.
 Allow the data to speak for itself—use tables/figures —
construct them first and use as a basis for writing
 In Tables and Figures, be descriptive, specific. Do not
repeat the obvious:
 NO: Results of the kidney lead analysis are shown in Table 1.
 YES: Kidney lead concentrations increased in group 1 over the first 10
study weeks (Table 1).
 Present absolute numbers and percentages so reviewers
can judge the significance of the findings.
 Statistical significance ≠ clinical significance

42. Results or Data?
Results
Mean translational movements in the X (left to right), Y
(back to front) and Z (bottom to top) head directions
were 0.10 ± 0.11 mm, 0.16 ± 0.03 mm, and 0.65 ± 0.58
mm, respectively. Mean rotational movements about
the three axes were 0.44 ± 0.42 degrees, 0.24 ± 0.26
degrees, and 0.18 ± 0.17 degrees, respectively.
Movement was not significantly correlated with age for
translation in the X (r = -0.09; p = 0.69), Y (r = 0.21; p =
0.35) or Z (r = -1.02; p = 0.64) directions. Movement
was not significantly correlated with age for rotation in
the X (r = 0.15; p = 0.51), Y (r = -0.20; p = 0.35) or Z (r
= 0.02; p = 0.94) directions.

43. Tables & Figures

44. Tables and Figures
 Critical to a paper—Editors and readers look at these before
reading the paper!
 Editors judge your paper on how well these are constructed
 Stand alone and tell a complete story
 Unambiguous—immediately clear
 Eliminate numerical data and long explanations in text
 Figures display important trends, procedures, simplify
detailed data, and show basic methodologies.

45. Tables
This requires a table!

46. Bar or Line Graphs-Colors?
 Journals DO NOT allow color graphs unless they are necessary for
understanding the graph
This graph will appear in the journal like this:

47. Simple Graph
 Use graphing software in word/powerpoint
 Keep all lines solid, few symbols
 Put in SD and P values if relevant

48. Results: Common faults
 Illogical sequence of data presentation
 Inaccurate data
 Repetition of data
 Inappropriate presentation of data
 Attempts to interpret and draw conclusions

49. The Discussion

50. Discussion Construction
 Summarize major findings—1st paragraph
 Explain how your findings relate to those of
others—what do they mean?
 Clinical relevance of the findings?
 Limitations and how this influenced your study?
 How will you overcome these in the next studies?
 Explain the implications of findings
 What future direction(s) will you take?

51. Discussion: Getting Carried Away
 Few studies make discoveries changing the course of
scientific direction, and so authors:
 Attempt to overly state or the importance of their findings
 Come to erroneous or unsupported conclusions
 Uncritically accept statistical results
 This all distracts from work’s importance and signals to the
reviewer problems with the research
 Also results in excessive length, a common problem
 Authors should let the data speak for themselves

52. Discussion—Common Mistakes
1. Unwarranted speculations
2. Injecting tangential issues
3. Conclusions not supported by the data
4. Not suggesting future directions for research
hypothesis  study  data/results  conclusions
TIGHT PACKAGE

53. Sections Unbalanced
0 500 1000 1500
Discussion
Results
Methods
Introduction
Abstract
Original
Final
Article 3650 words

54. Observation 8: Discussion section
written in isolation
 In several manuscripts, discussion section is confined to
just an exposition of the results obtained
 There is little or no attempt to situate the findings in
the context of what other researchers have done
 Consequently, the value of the research done by the
authors is not clear

55. Excerpts from examiners’ reports on
discussion done in isolation
 Reviewer N: The manuscript can be more fully
appreciated if the authors were to position and situate
the study within the field and other prior research more
explicitly
 Reviewer P: I find that the findings are not discussed in
the light of the literature review
 Reviewer Q: It would be needful for the authors to help
the reader understand the meaningfulness of the results
by drawing back on the literature for linkages
 Reviewer R: There is very little discussion on the
comparison of the data collected in this work with other
works in the literature

56. Excerpts from examiners’ reports on
discussion done in isolation (cont’d)
 Reviewer T:There were no references made to previous
studies or other relevant literature in your discussion -
How does your study compare with others? How does it
contribute to our pool of knowledge in the area of
technology-supported language learning?
 Reviewer V: The discussion section was devoid of
references to the work of other studies. How does this
study compare with other studies?

57. Acknowledgements
 Courtesy
 Grants
 Thanks to technical assistance
 Access to equipment

58. REFERENCES
 Style varies between publications.
 Conform to required style
 Vancouver style: Uniform Requirements for
manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals
 References numbered consecutive in citation
order
 Titles of Journals abbreviated according to Index
Medicus
 Harvard style:
 Author and year of publication cited in text
 Listed in alphabetical order

59. References
Vancouver system (citation-by-reference)—
 Citation in text: … as previously reported (1).
 Reference: 1. Burke RD, Laing EL, Pryor RJ. Recent
developments… J Psychosom Res 2002;40:201–203.
Harvard system (author-and-year)—
 Citation in text: … as previously reported (Burke et
al., 1992).
 Reference: Burke RD, Laing EL, and Pryor RJ. Recent
developments… J Psychosom Res 40:201–213, 2002.

60. References

61. References

62. Observation 5: Incomplete reference
list
 Important references in research area
missing
 References not cited properly in text and
in bibliography
 References used in text but not cited in
bibliography
 References used in bibliography but not
cited in text

63. Excerpts from examiners’ reports on
references
 Reviewer H: Sloppy references are a sign
of academic tardiness (slow, late) and
cannot be tolerated at this level of study
and have to be fixed

64. Ethical Consideration
 Integrity
 Plagiarize
 Patients consent
 Honorarium

65. Overcome rejection
Read the Reviews Objectively
 Ask your mentor for further insights as to what the
reviewers or editors are suggesting
Revise Manuscript According to Reviewer’s Comments
 Address the comments that can be answered immediately.
 Consider why other comments cannot be addressed and
state the reasons clearly
Write the Response to Reviewers in a Respectful, Clear, and
Identifiable Format
 Use page no., paragraph, and line keyed to the reviewer’s
 responses and the changes in the revised manuscript

66. The proper way to present a point-by-point
response
 Referee Point 1:
The authors make the point that A shows B through C in D cells, but they
do not provide any evidence to show that B works through C in an in vivo
model of E syndrome or in clinical samples from patients with E
syndrome.
Demonstrating B functions through C in the F model of E syndrome would
be required at a minimum.
 Response:
We thank this reviewer for his/her critical and helpful evaluation of our
manuscript. In response to the reviewer’s critique, our manuscript has
undergone a major revision. In Figure 4 we have added new data in the F
model of E syndrome that demonstrate that B goes through C. In Figure 5
we investigated B expression in a case series of biopsies from patients
with E syndrome to confirm the result in human samples.

67. Thank you