The best science for better lives
How to avoid common problems in research and manuscripts
Dr. Bill Summerskill Senior executive editor, The Lancet Statement of interests
Dr. Summerskill is an employee of and holds stock in RELX Group, a company that publishes scientific journals. He has received hospitality, accommodation, and travel from academic organisations, health charities, government agencies, and non-governmental organisations.
The best science for better lives Aims
▪ Review Taiwan’s publications in The Lancet
▪ Show common errors in worldwide submissions to The Lancet and how to avoid them
▪ To reaffirm The Lancet family of journal’s commitment to improve health in Asia and to publish the best research from Taiwan
The best science for better lives Objectives
▪ Reflect on research goals and strategies
▪ Empower you to submit more competitive manuscripts to scientific journals
▪ Help to strengthen Taiwan’s research presence
The best science for better lives Publications from Taiwan, 2012
800 700 600 500 Accepted Articles 400 Total 300 Submissions 200 Accepted - 100 Other 0 PR China Hong Taiwan Kong The best science for better lives Publications from Taiwan, 2013
▪ Original research articles 6 (3%)
▪ Seminars and Reviews 2
▪ Clinical pictures 3
▪ Correspondence 2
The best science for better lives Publications from Taiwan, 2017
▪ 81 research submissions
▪ 0 accepted
▪ How / Why have things changed?
▪ I would like to work with you to understand and correct the recent under-representation of Taiwan in The Lancet
The best science for better lives Avoiding 14 avoidable problems
▪ There are many aspects of research that influence publication which you cannot control
▪ There are others which you can control, but that are commonly ignored and weaken a submission
The best science for better lives 1) Wrong research question
▪ Formulate a clear research question
▪ Meaningful
▪ Specific
▪ Answerable
▪ PICO
The best science for better lives Clinical questions
P I C O Population Intervention (Comparator) Outcome Age Test None Survival Gender Treatment Placebo Symptoms Co-morbidity Exposure Gold Complication (aetiology) standard etc. etc. etc. etc. 2) Poor planning
▪ How is this study going to make a contribution to the understanding or practice of health care?
▪ REWARD (Reducing rEsearch Waste And Rewarding Diligence)
The best science for better lives Reducing research waste and rewarding diligence (REWARD) 3) Wrong methods
▪ Apply the correct methods to answer your research question
▪ Involve a statistician
The best science for better lives 3) Wrong methods
▪ Involve a statistician to advise on
▪ Power calculation
▪ Analyses
▪ Endpoints
▪ Data collection
The best science for better lives 4) Weak administration
▪ Registration
▪ Ethical / institutional approval
▪ Funding (retain right to publish)
The best science for better lives 5) Lax conduct
▪ Failure to recruit
▪ Missing data
▪ Reporting delays
▪ No independent monitoring
The best science for better lives 6) No consent
▪ Written
▪ Informed
▪ By participant
▪ If not required, explain
The best science for better lives 7) Post-hoc analysis
▪ Analysis guided by protocol
▪ Pre-specified endpoints
▪ Pre-specified methods
(importance of a sound protocol)
▪ Let the data speak for themselves
The best science for better lives 8) Sloppy reporting
▪ Follow reporting guidelines
▪ Report all pre-specified endpoints in order
▪ Major journals will be interested in your science, not your language
▪ Avoid jargon
▪ Limit abbreviations
The best science for better lives
9) Text recycling
▪ Unattributed to other authors
▪ Even if written by yourself
▪ Do not be tempted by what might seem better use of English to convey the same idea – use your own words
▪ Constitutes scientific misconduct
The best science for better lives 10) Failure to declare interests
▪ All potential competing interests should be disclosed
▪ It is up to readers, not authors, to determine what constitutes a competing interest
The best science for better lives 11) Wrong journal
▪ Who is your audience?
▪ Where does your manuscript fit (references)?
▪ Does journal have a relevant section?
▪ Type of research (eg animal research)
The best science for better lives 12) Unfamiliar with journal
▪ Be familiar with your chosen journal
▪ Philosophy
▪ Interests
▪ Landmark papers
▪ Calls for papers
The best science for better lives 12) Unfamiliar with journal
▪ Be familiar with the journal’s requirements
▪ Format (structure, length)
▪ Supporting material (protocols, signatures)
▪ If in doubt, ask (and mention in cover letter)
The best science for better lives
13) Weak cover letter
▪ Does not explain why the manuscript is important for that journal or its readers
▪ Does not convey enthusiasm
▪ Length 250-300 words (as short as necessary to interest, but do not overwhelm the reader)
The best science for better lives 14) Not revising seriously
▪ An invitation to revise does not imply acceptance
▪ Engage wholeheartedly with the process
▪ Be respectful, rely on the science
The best science for better lives Why are the 14 points important?
▪ Often occur together
▪ Suggest a lack of awareness about research
▪ Undermine confidence in other parts of the study of paper that may have been done well
▪ Many can be easily fixed
The best science for better lives What do editors look for?
▪ Research that is going to change thinking
▪ Interest to a wide audience
▪ “First” and “last” publication
▪ Ethically sound
▪ Methodologically robust
▪ Reported fully
1) Right research question
▪ Meaningful
▪ Specific
▪ Answerable
The best science for better lives
2) Good planning
▪ Make a contribution to the understanding or practice of health care
The best science for better lives
3) Right methods
▪ Power calculation
▪ Analyses
▪ Endpoints
▪ Data collection
The best science for better lives
4) Strong administration
▪ Registration
▪ Ethical / institutional approval
▪ Funding (retain right to publish)
The best science for better lives
5) Strict conduct
The best science for better lives
6) Include consent
▪ Written
▪ Informed
▪ By participant
▪ If not required, explain
The best science for better lives
7) Pre-planned analysis
▪ Guided by protocol
▪ Pre-specified endpoints
▪ Pre-specified methods
(importance of a sound protocol)
▪ Let the data speak for themselves
The best science for better lives
8) Careful reporting
▪ Follow reporting guidelines
▪ Report all pre-specified endpoints in order
▪ Major journals will be interested in your science, not your language
▪ Avoid jargon
▪ Limit abbreviations
The best science for better lives
9) No text recycling
▪ Unattributed to other authors
▪ Even if written by yourself
▪ Do not be tempted by what might seem better use of English to convey the same idea – use your own words
▪ Constitutes scientific misconduct
The best science for better lives
10) Clearly declare interests
Statement on data sharing
The best science for better lives 11) Right journal
▪ Important clinical topic
▪ Substantial disease burden
▪ Ability to change practice
▪ Multi-centre
▪ Well-done
▪ RCT The best science for better lives RCTs and total research published in 2017
250 RCTs Articles
200
150
100
50 62% 59% 43% (60%) (55%) (40%) 0 NEJM Lancet JAMA
The best science for better lives 12) Familiarity with journal
▪ Philosophy
▪ Sections
▪ Content
▪ Requirements
▪ Calls for papers
The best science for better lives 13) Convincing cover letter
▪ Does not explain why the manuscript is important for that journal or its readers
▪ Does not convey enthusiasm
▪ Length 250-300 words (as short as necessary to interest, but do not overwhelm the reader)
The best science for better lives
13) Convincing cover letter
EV71 infection is an important public health issue in Asia-Pacific region and beyond, including Brazil, Western Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and mainland China. 13) Convincing cover letter
The clinical spectrum of EV71 infection ranges from asymptomatic infection, to mild hand-foot- mouth disease, and severe complications with central nervous system, and cardiopulmonary involvement. From 2010 through 2011, 1*6 million cases and 509 deaths were reported in China. 13) Convincing cover letter
The development of vaccine against EV71 is currently a dynamic topic with paramount relevance for public health. The phase II clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01399853) reported here … written according to CONSORT guideline … 14) Revise seriously
▪ An invitation to revise does not imply acceptance
▪ Engage wholeheartedly with the process
▪ Be respectful, rely on the science
The best science for better lives What do editors look for?
▪ Research that is going to change thinking
The best science for better lives What do editors look for?
▪ Research that is going to change thinking
▪ Interest to a wide audience
The best science for better lives
What do editors look for?
▪ Research that is going to change thinking
▪ Interest to a wide audience
▪ First and last
The best science for better lives
What do editors look for?
▪ Research that is going to change thinking
▪ Interest to a wide audience
▪ First and last
▪ Ethically sound
The best science for better lives
What do editors look for?
▪ Research that is going to change thinking
▪ Interest to a wide audience
▪ First and last
▪ Ethically sound
▪ Robust methods
The best science for better lives
What do editors look for?
▪ Research that is going to change thinking
▪ Interest to a wide audience
▪ First and last
▪ Ethically sound
▪ Robust methods
▪ Reported fully The best science for better lives
Conclusion
▪ Taiwan is a world-leader in science
▪ The Lancet family of journals want to bring excellent research from Taiwan to the world
▪ Observing the 14 details discussed today can strengthen your manuscript and increase your chance of publication in The Lancet
The best science for better lives Taiwan’s expertise
▪ Methodological rigour
▪ Gastroenterology: H pylori, hepatitis, HCC
▪ Oncology: lung cancer
▪ Health registries
▪ Health systems
The best science for better lives The Lancet
Digital Medicine