1. Dr Anil Jain MS, MAMS,FRCS
Editor
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics
&
Professor of Orthopaedics
University College of Medical
Sciences,
Delhi

2. Thanks very much indeed

 To
 OSSAP and Organising team
 For inviting to deliver this lecture

3. Why this topic?
Why people do not write?
• tedious process
• writing takes time
•Authors are uncertain – whether accepted or
rejected
•Once rejected- phase of dejection ( whole exercise
was a waste)
•Ideal situation – author know what editor’s think
before deciding
Very little rejection

4. What is the best paper – to be
accepted
 Well methodically performed study
 Well presented to be understood by ---
 Reviewers
 Editor
 Peers should support
 Edited by editors

5. Who rejects ?
 Editor - A big no
 Your premise in the manuscript should be supported by the
peers
 Editors job- to see
 If peers are competent to review the manuscript
 If peers have missed any important issue
 If peer has any conflict of interest
 If everything is good
 Editors to remove redundancy
 Make it more presentable

6. Approach to a manuscript

7. Acceptance rate
 We receive 750/yr
 We publish about 90
 Acceptance rate – 12-15%
 Not rejected because of lack of space
 But
 Because they are not delivering message

8. What can be done to improve
acceptance
 Minimum must for write up

9. Publications – which manuscript
passes editor’s scrutiny
 Addressed lacunae in the literature
 Clear research question
 Variables to test research question
 How results are evaluated
 Results valid or not ( significance)
 Conclusion the same as research question

10. Golden rule
 The acceptance depends on the rigour of planning
and conduction of the study
 Well planned
 Well conducted
 Will be published
 Put more efforts in planning of study

11. Before writing paper
 must read the Guide( instructions ) to Authors
 be familiar with the contents, style carefully

12. Introduction- 500-700 words.
Background -
Nature of problem
Current state of knowledge and lacunae in the knowledge
• Research hypothesis and prediction
Statement of purpose & methodology of study
Retrospective or prospective
 Qualitative or quantitative data
 Meta analysis
 Epidemiological
 length of introduction
 25% of length of paper

13. Materials and methods
Most common cause of rejection
 Detailed disclosure- study can be repeated
 Complete details of any new method
 Measurement undertaken
 Statistical analysis sensibly

14. Experimental work
 Experimental procedure controls
 Why this procedure variables being measured
 Any material used manufacturer name
 Well known procedure give reference
 Modified procedure give in detail

15. Clinical study
 Demographic data
 Period of time
 Where was it done
 Design of the study.
 Number of pts
 Power study - how many patients would be
required to answer the question with statistical
significance

16.  inclusion and exclusion criteria?
 If randomization, how
 Tests and outcome scores and why?
 Are tests and scores - validated?
 new tests or scores - appropriate validation
studies with inter- and intra-observer errors
been undertaken?
 Appropriate references for the tests and scores.
 Measurements undertaken ?
 Who undertook the measurements
 Blinded or not .
 A case control study- how the controls were
chosen,

17. Clinical study
 Followup evaluation – any specific method
 Accurate recording of the data
 Approval of IRB or ethics committee
 Informed consent
 Animal studies – approved of institutional
animal welfare committee
 Statistical method – all test used increases or
decreased (P value)

18.  Use percentages carefully.
 Identify patients lost to follow-up or have died with
reasons.
 Are the results relating to those lost to follow-up
included in any of the data?
 - Length of result section
 Need not to be too long 500-750 words.

19. Results
 Straightforward and clearly presented
 Relevant and representative
 Appropriate use of tables and figures .
 Illustrative radiographs - appropriate number and
quality .
 Facts and figures should match with those in
M&M
 Specifically describe the data with statistician .
 Give p value in bracket.

20. Results
Figure & table is not a substitute of text.
 Avoid – repetition of data in text, figures, tables
 Confusion with bilateral procedure
 Chose graph – suitable for your information
 Decimal places
 Hospitalization was 10.39 days average blood
transfusion was 340.69ml.

21. Discussion
 Evaluate the meaning of your results in term of
original research question and point out a
biological difference if any
 Relate them to other studies.
 Almost invariably too long
 Should not be more than one third of the
manuscript about 1000 words.

22. Discussion
 It includes
 Summarize the major finding
 Describe the possible problem with the method used
 Compare results with the previous work
 Discuss the clinical and scientific implication
 Suggest further work
 Errors in your study
 Succinct conclusion
 Avoid – repetition of data result section
 Preferential citing of previous work

23. Abstract
200-250 words
 Most commonly read
 Challenging to concise
 Structured or not structured
 Purpose of study
 Brief statement of what was done
 What was found
 What concluded
 Should written after entire manuscript

24. Title
 Name of the (organism) studied
 Particular aspect or system studied
 Variable manipulated
 “Should summarizing the studying as completely as
possible in few words”.
 Titles raising or answering questions in a few brief
words.
 Cubitus varus; Problem and solution

25. References
 Reference is a foundation
 Should be collected before starting the study and not
as after thought
 From
 Standard text book or monograph
 Well accepted and stable electronic sources
 no from Abstract or submitted article

26. References
 In the text
 Should write as (Gribb 1977) or Gribb (1977)

 “Do not separate name & data”
 If more than one author has conducted similar
study (Ram 1980, Shyam 1987 , Suresh 1996)
 If more than three authors that et al Ram et al.)

27.  References are listed as -
 Harvard method
 Vancouver method
Harvard method
 Cited as author name &year of publication in
bracket.
 in references as alphabetically.
Vancouver method
 Reference consecutively as appear in text
 cited by numeral in bracket

28. Table
 Do not repeat information
 New information
 Number the table
 Give title of the table

29. Figures
 Graphs, Histogram, Illustration
 Graph & histogram – to compare variables
 Graph shows continuous change
 Histogram shows discrete variable
 Do not plot unrelated trend on one graph

30. Line of
best fit

31. Drawing & Photograph
Illustrable important
point
 Composite photo
 Number them
 Information on legends
 Arrow to highlight
finding
 Journal – neither a
photo album nor testing
the integrity of authors

34. Polishing of an article
Important to make a crisp
 Remove redundancy
 Put a drawer
 Give to collegue

35. Language
 Complete sentence
 Correct and precise scientific terminology
 Abbreviation
 Each paragraph – must address one issue
 No flowery prose only finding
 “Fuzzy writing reflects fuzzy thinking”

36. Avoid
 Words never heard of
 Colloquial speech or slang
 Abbreviation – except unit of measure
 Use – past tense

37. Plagiarism
 Use of other’s work, ideas, images without citation
 Representation of work of others as being your
work

38.  Basically – your manuscript once submitted should be
understood by a readers.
 Who is not associated with the study

39. -A request for revision viewed positively
-Manuscript is publishable
-Authors should therefore view with optimism

40. Common Reasons for revision
requests
- Minor faults in methodology
- Minor inaccuracies in data
- Inconsistencies in data
- Inconsistencies among different sections of
the manuscript

41. Common Reasons for revision requests
- Faulty deductions
- Data do not support conclusions
- Excessive data or text (i.e. manuscript
is too long)
- Poor or excessive illustrations.
- Poor but salvageable writings

47. Resubmit Revised Manuscript
- Resubmit revised manuscript within time
- Each point must be answered and listed
systematically
- Changes should be clearly annotated in
revised text

48. General Rule
General rule is – Editors and reviewers are
always right.
if you think they are not correct
author may disagree but supported evidence
should be given

51. Good revision
• Reply all comments
• Underline changes
• Enter in the table
• Approve the changes already done
• See images
• Give proper legend
• Most important – keep timeline – do prompt revision
• Difference between good publication and rejection

52. Need to be careful while revising
 It is easier to reject if author does not answer or is
aggressive in language of revision
 Very basic-
 If the peers and editor’s are not able to understand
inspite of communication
 Than
 How the readers will understand

55. Decision on case report
 New information about a rare condition
 New or improved method of diagnosis and treatment
 Should be succint

56. Case reports not accepted
 Rare , unusual , but obvious diagnosis and established
treatment
 Just rarity – not prefered
 Rare but obscure diagnosis or treatment not obvious
 Missed diagnosis – not a reason
 Well known tumor in a new location
 Rare organism in an unsuspected location
 New operation in one patient

57. Case reports sometimes accepted
 Reader will benefit from awareness article, quality of
review, educational material
 Time has elapsed since it was reported
 Summarily should contain educational material - to
evaluate diagnose and care the patient

58. Why rejected
 Study is not methodically conducted
 Retrospective thought of making a manuscript after
seeing few cases

59. Why rejected
 Not written well – Not clear
 what is the study
 how done – I can’t repeat the study
 How saying – something is good or bad
 Not clear - significance of the difference in outcome
 Not clear - Is the research question answered
 Not supported by evidence in literature

60. Exercise of editorial decisions
 To present your work-
 Crisp presentation
 Concise
 Present in a manner that it is read
 In nutshell looks after the author’s interest and
interest of the readers

61. Editors
 Are not hostile to you
 To help you – to bring best out of your good work
 Do not get any benefit
 Do for the love to science
 Let us work together to make best out of your work

62. Take Home Message
- Authors should use the editor’s and reviewer’s
comments to try to improve their manuscript, even if
it has been rejected initially
- Requests for revision should be viewed positively as it
is an indication of sufficient potential merit by the
journal
- Before submitting a revised manuscript, it is very
important to answer every point raised by the editor
and reviewers.

63. Publication is important
 your effort should be known to others beyond your life
 To be useful to others to alleviate pain and suffering
 That is how science grows
 That is the objective of IJO

64. Stretegies
 An issue on Scientific communication
 Covered – discussed all types of articles.
 Case series , review , case report, letter to editors

65. Symposium on research methods
 Levels of evidence
 Case series
 Case control study
 Systematic review or meta analysis
 RCT

66. Why research is important ?
 Editorials on need for research
 Perspective articles talking about
 Global research scenerio
 Orthopaedic services and training

67. Who is the best reviewer
Peer who is working in similar milieu –
For our problems- we

68. Impact factor
More awards for good articles

69. How to evaluate a published article

71. Conclusions
 Put more thought process in planning phase
 Write as per the type of article
 No article is rejected if trying to give small message
with reasoning
 Let your work be known to the world through Journals

72. Thank you very much for kind attention

73.  Thanks very much indeed

74. Original article
 Subject – research question
 Methodological conducted
 Trying to address some issue

75. Review article
 Original article – 196
 Case report - 206
 Review article – 41 – rejected largely
 Letter to editor - 11

77. What editor think
 Most of time we solicit the article when a thematic
issue is planned.
 Ask to address the specific issues to the subject expert.
 It can be directly submitted – provided – address a
question comprehensively and not a selective reading
of articles

78. Quality of review article
 Specific purpose of the review
 Source and method of citation search identified
 Explicit guidelines provided to include and exclude the
citations
 Methodological validity of the articles included in the
review
 Data limitations and inconsistancies documented

79. Quality of review article-2
 Was the information systematically integrated or
pooled
 Summary of pertinent findings provided
 Specific direction for new research objectives
(initiatives) specified.

80. Guidelines for reading reviews
 Question and method addressed
 Comprehensive searched to include articles
 Method used to determine which manuscript (
method ) to include.
 Was validity of primary studies assessed.
 Was assessment of primary studies reproducible and
without bias
 Was the finding of primary studies combined.
 Was the reported conclusion cited with evidence.

81. Revision – not to do

82. Revision – not to do

83. Revision – not to do

84. Revision – not to do

85. Revision – not to do

86. Revision – not to do

87. Revision – not to do

88. Revision – not to do

89. Original article – 307
Case report - 297 More manuscripts are casemost of time
Author , reviewers – spent
report
Review article – 10

90. Type of manuscripts
 Original – case series, RCT or case control studies
 Review articles – meta analysis or systematic review
 Case reports
 Letter to editors
 Editorials