Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-25 (486115)

Clipboard (0)

Related Articles

1.  Manuscript Architect: a Web application for scientific writing in virtual interdisciplinary groups 
Although scientific writing plays a central role in the communication of clinical research findings and consumes a significant amount of time from clinical researchers, few Web applications have been designed to systematically improve the writing process.
This application had as its main objective the separation of the multiple tasks associated with scientific writing into smaller components. It was also aimed at providing a mechanism where sections of the manuscript (text blocks) could be assigned to different specialists. Manuscript Architect was built using Java language in conjunction with the classic lifecycle development method. The interface was designed for simplicity and economy of movements. Manuscripts are divided into multiple text blocks that can be assigned to different co-authors by the first author. Each text block contains notes to guide co-authors regarding the central focus of each text block, previous examples, and an additional field for translation when the initial text is written in a language different from the one used by the target journal. Usability was evaluated using formal usability tests and field observations.
The application presented excellent usability and integration with the regular writing habits of experienced researchers. Workshops were developed to train novice researchers, presenting an accelerated learning curve. The application has been used in over 20 different scientific articles and grant proposals.
The current version of Manuscript Architect has proven to be very useful in the writing of multiple scientific texts, suggesting that virtual writing by interdisciplinary groups is an effective manner of scientific writing when interdisciplinary work is required.
PMCID: PMC1180829  PMID: 15960855
2.  Reviewing Manuscripts for Biomedical Journals 
The Permanente journal  2010;14(1):32-40.
Writing for publication is a complex task. For many professionals, producing a well-executed manuscript conveying one's research, ideas, or educational wisdom is challenging. Authors have varying emotions related to the process of writing for scientific publication. Although not studied, a relationship between an author's enjoyment of the writing process and the product's outcome is highly likely. As with any skill, practice generally results in improvements. Literature focused on preparing manuscripts for publication and the art of reviewing submissions exists. Most journals guard their reviewers' anonymity with respect to the manuscript review process. This is meant to protect them from direct or indirect author demands, which may occur during the review process or in the future. It is generally accepted that author identities are masked in the peer-review process. However, the concept of anonymity for reviewers has been debated recently; many editors consider it problematic that reviewers are not held accountable to the public for their decisions. The review process is often arduous and underappreciated, one reason why biomedical journals acknowledge editors and frequently recognize reviewers who donate their time and expertise in the name of science. This article describes essential elements of a submitted manuscript, with the hopes of improving scientific writing. It also discusses the review process within the biomedical literature, the importance of reviewers to the scientific process, responsibilities of reviewers, and qualities of a good review and reviewer. In addition, it includes useful insights to individuals who read and interpret the medical literature.
PMCID: PMC2912703  PMID: 20740129
3.  Structure of a Scholarly Manuscript: 66 Tips for What Goes Where 
Journal of Athletic Training  1996;31(3):201-206.
To share with potential authors tips for constructing a scholarly manuscript and for organizing information in various types of scholarly manuscripts: experimental reports, literature reviews, case reports, and clinical techniques.
The goal of writing a scientific/technical/ medical article is to communicate new information that hopefully has clinical relevance and will improve health care. This information must be organized and presented clearly and logically. We present 66 tips for organizing a scholarly manuscript. We tell not only what goes where in the manuscript but also how to construct each of the elements so as to logically communicate the author's message. The tips are numbered to facilitate referencing.
By becoming familiar with these tips, potential authors can avoid making mistakes that may hinder publication of their manuscripts.
PMCID: PMC1318504  PMID: 16558399
4.  Magazine or journal—what is the difference? The role of the monitoring editor 
Molecular Biology of the Cell  2013;24(7):887-889.
Scientific communication, career advancement, and funding decisions are all dependent on research publications. The way manuscripts are handled by high-visibility, professionally edited magazines differs from the way academic journals evaluate manuscripts, using active scientists as monitoring editors. In this essay, I discuss the benefits that come with the involvement of active scientists. I enumerate the decisions a monitoring editor has to make, and how he or she goes about making them. Finally, I indicate ways in which authors can help to make the process a smoother and more positive experience.
PMCID: PMC3608498  PMID: 23533210
5.  Biochemia Medica appoints Research integrity editor 
Biochemia Medica  2012;22(3):271.
Biochemia Medica has just established the Research integrity editor who will act as the Editorial team member responsible for all matters related to the various aspects of scientific misconduct. The major reason for this is the increasing number of various types of scientific misconduct in manuscripts submitted to our Journal. Research integrity editor will: a) strive to continuously raise awareness for research and publication integrity issues; b) educate our authors, reviewers and readers, by providing educational articles on various topics related to responsible research and writing; c) aim to prevent unethical research and publication practices; and d) responsibly deal with research and publication misconduct attempts in accordance with internationally accepted policies and recommendations. This initiative provides firm evidence of our commitment and respect for publishing ethical and responsible research. By this we hope to further increase the scientific quality of the journal content as well as the quality of the editorial work.
PMCID: PMC3900055  PMID: 23092057
scientific misconduct; plagiarism; editorial policies
6.  Optimizing Scholarly Communication: 30 Tips for Writing Clearly 
Journal of Athletic Training  1996;31(3):209-213.
To share with potential authors tips for communicating their ideas more clearly in a scholarly manuscript.
Communicating scientific, technical, or medical information so that readers can understand its meaning requires logical organization and proper use of language. These 30 tips review basic English grammar and suggest ways authors can clearly and concisely present their material. We admonish authors to avoid common errors such as writing in the passive voice, overusing abbreviations, and emphasizing unimportant facts.
Attention to matters of writing style enhances clear communication, which must be the prime objective of scientific writing.
PMCID: PMC1318505  PMID: 16558400
7.  Hiring a professional medical writer: is it equivalent to ghostwriting? 
Biochemia Medica  2014;24(1):19-24.
Authors of articles published in medical journals are often busy researchers who cannot afford time devoted to writing. Though they are experts in their own therapeutic area, more often than not, researchers find it difficult to actually write and publish their research. Professional medical writers with their expertise in writing clear, concise, comprehensible, and coherent content are often a great support to researchers. Their contribution to the manuscript is usually focused on getting a manuscript ready for publication. They are not authors unless they make substantial contribution to the study according to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). However, medical writing is not the same as ghostwriting. Ghostwriting is unethical. Medical writers can be legitimate contributors to the medical manuscript. Several international guidelines including the ICMJE guidelines require authors to acknowledge the contribution of medical writers in the published article. Medical writers whose name is publicly associated with the article in turn make an extra effort to ensure that all applicable publication ethics and style guidelines are adhered to. This article discusses the current international guidelines about the acknowledgement of writing assistance. It also emphasizes on how acknowledging medical writing support can go a long way in curbing the menace of scientific misconduct including ghostwriting.
PMCID: PMC3936972  PMID: 24627711
medical writer; ghostwriter; authorship; ethics in publishing; acknowledgement
8.  Evaluation Criteria for Publishing in Top-Tier Journals in Environmental Health Sciences and Toxicology 
Environmental Health Perspectives  2011;119(7):896-899.
Background: Trying to publish a paper in a top-rated peer-reviewed journal can be a difficult and frustrating experience for authors. It is important that authors understand the general review process before submitting manuscripts for publication.
Objectives: Editors-in-chief and associate editors from top-tier journals such as Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), Toxicological Sciences, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, and Chemical Research in Toxicology were asked to provide guidance concerning the writing and submission of papers to their journals.
Discussion: The editors reviewed the manuscript review process for their journals, elaborated on the evaluation criteria for reviewing papers, and provided advice for future authors in preparing their papers.
Conclusions: The manuscript submission process was similar for all of the journals with the exception of EHP that includes an initial screening in which about two-thirds of submitted papers are returned to the authors without review. The evaluation criteria used by the journals were also similar. Papers that are relevant to the scope of the journal, are innovative, significantly advance the field, are well written, and adhere to the instructions to authors have a higher likelihood of being accepted. The editors advised potential authors to ensure that the topic of the paper is within the scope of the journal, represents an important problem, is carefully prepared according to the instructions to authors, and to seek editorial assistance if English is not the primary language of the authors.
PMCID: PMC3222983  PMID: 21414890
environmental health sciences; evaluation criteria; peer review; top-tier journals; toxicology
9.  Reporting Guidelines: Optimal Use in Preventive Medicine and Public Health 
Numerous reporting guidelines are available to help authors write higher quality manuscripts more efficiently. Almost 200 are listed on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network’s website and they vary in authority, usability, and breadth, making it difficult to decide which one(s) to use. This paper provides consistent information about guidelines for preventive medicine and public health and a framework and sequential approach for selecting them.
EQUATOR guidelines were reviewed for relevance to target audiences; selected guidelines were classified as “core” (frequently recommended) or specialized, and the latter were grouped by their focus. Core and specialized guidelines were coded for indicators of authority (simultaneous publication in multiple journals, rationale, scientific background supporting each element, expertise of designers, permanent website/named group), usability (presence of checklists and examples of good reporting), and breadth (manuscript sections covered). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Selected guidelines are presented in four tables arranged to facilitate selection: core guidelines, all of which pertain to major research designs; guidelines for additional study designs, topical guidelines, and guidelines for particular manuscript sections. A flow diagram provides an overview. The framework and sequential approach will enable authors as well as editors, peer reviewers, researchers, and systematic reviewers to make optimal use of available guidelines to improve the transparency, clarity, and rigor of manuscripts and research protocols and the efficiency of conducing systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
PMCID: PMC3475417  PMID: 22992369
10.  It's Money! Real-World Grant Experience through a Student-Run, Peer-Reviewed Program 
CBE Life Sciences Education  2013;12(3):419-428.
Grantsmanship is an integral component of surviving and thriving in academic science, especially in the current funding climate. Therefore, any additional opportunities to write, read, and review grants during graduate school may have lasting benefits on one's career. We present here our experience with a small, student-run grant program at Georgetown University Medical Center. Founded in 2010, this program has several goals: 1) to give graduate students an opportunity to conduct small, independent research projects; 2) to encourage graduate students to write grants early and often; and 3) to give graduate students an opportunity to review grants. In the 3 yr since the program's start, 28 applications have been submitted, 13 of which were funded for a total of $40,000. From funded grants, students have produced abstracts and manuscripts, generated data to support subsequent grant proposals, and made new professional contacts with collaborators. Above and beyond financial support, this program provided both applicants and reviewers an opportunity to improve their writing skills, professional development, and understanding of the grants process, as reflected in the outcome measures presented. With a small commitment of time and funding, other institutions could implement a program like this to the benefit of their graduate students.
The authors describe a student-run, peer-reviewed grant program. The program aimed to give graduate students an opportunity to conduct small research projects, to encourage them to write grants, and to give them an opportunity to review grants. Participants showed improved grant-writing skills and an increased understanding of the grants process.
PMCID: PMC3763010  PMID: 24006391
Manuscripts have been subjected to the peer review process prior to publication for over 300 years. Currently, the peer review process is used by almost all scientific journals, and The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy is no exception. Scholarly publication is the means by which new work is communicated and peer review is an important part of this process. Peer review is a vital part of the quality control mechanism that is used to determine what is published, and what is not. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a description of the peer review process, both generally, and as utilized by The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. It is the hope of the authors that this will assist those who submit scholarly works to understand the purpose of the peer review process, as well as to appreciate the length of time required for a manuscript to complete the process and move toward publication.
PMCID: PMC3474310  PMID: 23091777
Peer review; quality control; research publication
12.  Enhancing the reporting and transparency of rheumatology research: a guide to reporting guidelines 
Manuscripts and abstracts from biomedical journals frequently do not contain proper information for meeting required standards and serving the multiple needs of their end users. Reporting guidelines and checklists help researchers to meet those standards by providing rules or principles for specific research areas. Rheumatology research includes a broad range of heterogeneous research areas, each with its own requirements, producing several distinct categories of articles. Our objectives with this article are to raise awareness of the existence and importance of reporting guidelines, to present a structured overview of reporting guidelines that rheumatology journals could apply, and to encourage their use by journal authors, editors, and reviewers, including those of Arthritis Research & Therapy. Internationally recognized reporting guidelines exist for a diversity of research areas. We encourage colleagues to consult the 'Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research' (EQUATOR) network when writing scientific papers. EQUATOR is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of biomedical research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting of studies. We propose specific reporting guidelines for a number of study designs: animal research, randomized trials, reliability and agreement studies, systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses, diagnostic test accuracy studies, and also observational research including cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies. We encourage authors, editors, and reviewers to adhere to and enforce the use of the appropriate guidelines when writing, reading, and reviewing scientific papers.
PMCID: PMC3672749  PMID: 23448311
Acta Informatica Medica  2012;20(3):141-148.
In this paper author discussed about preparing and submitting manuscripts - scientific, research, professional papers, reviews and case reports. Author described it from the Editor’s perspective, and specially talked about ethical aspects of authorship, conflict of interest, copyright, plagiarism and duplicate publication from the point of view of his experiences as Editor-in-Chief of several biomedical journals and Chief of Task Force of European Federation of Medical Informatics journals and member of Task Force of European Cardiology Society journals. The scientific process relies on trust and credibility. The scientific community demands high ethical standards to conduct biomedical research and to publish scientific contents. During the last decade, disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI ), (also called competing loyalties, competing interests or dual commitments), has been considered as a key element to guarantee the credibility of the scientific process. Biases in design, analysis and interpretation of studies may arise when authors or sponsors have vested interests. Therefore, COI should be made clear to the readers to facilitate their own judgment and interpretation of their relevance and potential implications.
Results and Discussion:
Authors are responsible to fully disclose potential COI . In October 2009 the ICMJE proposed an electronic “uniform” format for COI disclosure. Four main areas were addressed: authors´ associations with entities that supported the submitted manuscript (indefinite time frame), associations with commercial entities with potential interest in the general area of the manuscript (time frame 36 months), financial association of their spouse and children and, finally, non-financial associations potentially relevant to the submitted manuscript. Consumers of medical scholarship expect a reliable system of disclosure in which journals and authors make disclosures appropriately and consistently. There is a stigma surrounding the reporting of COI that should be progressively overcome. Further actions are required to increase awareness of the importance of COI disclosure and to promote policies aimed to enhance transparency in biomedical research. In this article author discuss about important ethical dilemmas in preparing, writing and publishing of scientific manuscripts in biomedical journals.
PMCID: PMC3508847  PMID: 23322969
medical science; biomedical journals; ethics; authorship; acknowledgement; conflict of interest; copyright; plagiarism; duplicate publication.
14.  PaperMaker: validation of biomedical scientific publications 
Bioinformatics  2010;26(7):982-984.
Motivation: The automatic analysis of scientific literature can support authors in writing their manuscripts.
Implementation: PaperMaker is a novel IT solution that receives a scientific manuscript via a Web interface, automatically analyses the publication, evaluates consistency parameters and interactively delivers feedback to the author. It analyses the proper use of acronyms and their definitions, and the use of specialized terminology. It provides Gene Ontology (GO) and Medline Subject Headings (MeSH) categorization of text passages, the retrieval of relevant publications from public scientific literature repositories, and the identification of missing or unused references.
Result: The author receives a summary of findings, the manuscript in its corrected form and a digital abstract containing the GO and MeSH annotations in the NLM/PubMed format.
PMCID: PMC2844996  PMID: 20200010
15.  Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay 
The process of manuscript review is a central part of scientific publishing, but has increasingly become the subject of criticism, particularly for being difficult to manage, slow, and time consuming – all of which contribute to delaying publication.
To identify potential sources of delays during manuscript review by examining the review process, and to identify and propose constructive strategies to reduce time spent on the review process without sacrificing journal quality.
Sixty-seven manuscripts published in the Australasian Medical Journal (AMJ) were evaluated in terms of duration of peer review, number of times manuscripts were returned to authors, time authors spent on revision per review round, manuscripts containing grammatical errors reviewers deemed as major, papers where instructions to authors were not adhered to, and the number of reviews not submitted on time.
The median duration of the review process was found to be 74 days, and papers were on average returned to authors 1.73 times for revision. In 35.8% of papers, instructions to authors were not adhered to, whilst 29.8% of papers contained major grammatical errors. In 70.1% of papers reviewers did not submit their reviews on time, whilst the median time spent on revision by authors per review round was found to be 22 days.
This study highlights the importance of communication before and during review. Reviewers should be thoroughly briefed on their role and what is expected of them, whilst the review process as well as the author’s role in preventing delays should be explained to contributors upon submission.
PMCID: PMC3413928  PMID: 22905052
Peer review; article submission process; research evaluation
16.  Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? 
PLoS ONE  2010;5(4):e10072.
Editorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers' recommendations and the editorial outcome of manuscripts undergoing external peer-review at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM).
Methodology/Principal Findings
We examined reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions at JGIM between 2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendations to reject versus accept or revise. Using mixed effects logistic regression models, we estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relation to reviewer agreement and disagreement. The 2264 manuscripts sent for external review during the study period received 5881 reviews provided by 2916 reviewers; 28% of reviews recommended rejection. Chance corrected agreement (kappa statistic) on rejection among reviewers was 0.11 (p<.01). In mixed effects models adjusting for study year and manuscript type, the reviewer-level ICC was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19–0.29) and the manuscript-level ICC was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12–0.22). The editors' overall rejection rate was 48%: 88% when all reviewers for a manuscript agreed on rejection (7% of manuscripts) and 20% when all reviewers agreed that the manuscript should not be rejected (48% of manuscripts) (p<0.01).
Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to reject vs. accept/revise at levels barely beyond chance, yet editors placed considerable weight on reviewers' recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve the reliability of the peer-review process while helping editors understand the limitations of reviewers' recommendations.
PMCID: PMC2851650  PMID: 20386704
17.  Preparing a scientific manuscript in Linux: Today's possibilities and limitations 
BMC Research Notes  2011;4:434.
Increasing number of scientists are enthusiastic about using free, open source software for their research purposes. Authors' specific goal was to examine whether a Linux-based operating system with open source software packages would allow to prepare a submission-ready scientific manuscript without the need to use the proprietary software.
Preparation and editing of scientific manuscripts is possible using Linux and open source software. This letter to the editor describes key steps for preparation of a publication-ready scientific manuscript in a Linux-based operating system, as well as discusses the necessary software components. This manuscript was created using Linux and open source programs for Linux.
PMCID: PMC3227619  PMID: 22018246
Linux; operating system; manuscript; scientific software
18.  Art of reading a journal article: Methodically and effectively 
Reading scientific literature is mandatory for researchers and clinicians. With an overflow of medical and dental journals, it is essential to develop a method to choose and read the right articles.
To outline a logical and orderly approach to reading a scientific manuscript. By breaking down the task into smaller, step-by-step components, one should be able to attain the skills to read a scientific article with ease.
The reader should begin by reading the title, abstract and conclusions first. If a decision is made to read the entire article, the key elements of the article can be perused in a systematic manner effectively and efficiently. A cogent and organized method is presented to read articles published in scientific journals.
One can read and appreciate a scientific manuscript if a systematic approach is followed in a simple and logical manner.
PMCID: PMC3687192  PMID: 23798833
Articles; journal; reading; research; systematic
19.  What Every Author and Reviewer Should Know about the Publication Process in the Journal of Nematology 
Journal of Nematology  1997;29(4S):619-624.
The Journal of Nematology is a publication of the very highest quality for communicating the most recent discoveries in the science of nematology. The authors of this Viewpoint article desire to maintain the status of the journal while lessening the burden placed on the editorial staff. A few simple steps taken by authors during the manuscript preparation phase can greatly improve the quality of their papers. Authors should carefully review the "Author's Publication Handbook and Style Manual" before and during the preparation of a manuscript intended for publication in the Journal of Nematology. In addition, authors should submit a completed "Author's Checklist for Preparation of Papers" with each manuscript submitted to the journal. Reviewers should provide thorough reviews, return mantlscripts in a timely manner, and clearly define statements regarding revisions.
PMCID: PMC2619833  PMID: 19274261
editor; manuscript; publication; reviewer; style manual
20.  What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature? 
PLoS Medicine  2009;6(2):e1000023.
Background to the debate: Ghostwriting occurs when someone makes substantial contributions to a manuscript without attribution or disclosure. It is considered bad publication practice in the medical sciences, and some argue it is scientific misconduct. At its extreme, medical ghostwriting involves pharmaceutical companies hiring professional writers to produce papers promoting their products but hiding those contributions and instead naming academic physicians or scientists as the authors. To improve transparency, many editors' associations and journals allow professional medical writers to contribute to the writing of papers without being listed as authors provided their role is acknowledged. This debate examines how best to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature from the perspectives of a researcher, an editor, and the professional medical writer.
In a debate Peter Gøtzsche argues that ghostwriting in medical literature is scientific misconduct, Jerome Kassirer says more evidence is needed, and Karen Woolley and colleagues propose an explicit role for professional medical writers.
PMCID: PMC2634793  PMID: 19192943
21.  Ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle 
The principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) are: all authors listed on the manuscript have approved its submission and publication as provided to JCSM;no person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors;each author has made an independent material contribution to the work submitted for publication;the submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor has it been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form;all original research work is approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees;all conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors’ ability to present data objectively have been duly declared in the manuscript;the manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true;if any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the editors of JCSM as soon as possible so that the information available online can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.
PMCID: PMC3060648  PMID: 21475697
22.  Ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle 
The principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) are: all authors listed on the manuscript have approved its submission and publication as provided to JCSM;no person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors;each author has made an independent material contribution to the work submitted for publication;the submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor has it been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form;all original research work is approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees;all conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors’ ability to present data objectively have been duly declared in the manuscript;the manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true;if any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the editors of JCSM as soon as possible so that the information available online can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.
PMCID: PMC3060648  PMID: 21475697
23.  Developing Scholarship in Athletic Training 
Journal of Athletic Training  1998;33(3):271-274.
To outline the essential elements of scholarship, identify its role in the development of the athletic training profession, and encourage athletic trainers to increase scholarly activities.
In the process of writing 2 manuscripts for the Journal of Athletic Training about how to write journal manuscripts, we felt something needed to be said concerning why one should write such manuscripts and how individual manuscripts should tie together to advance knowledge. This led us to search the scientific literature for information concerning scholarship and its attainment. Finding no comprehensive discussion on the topic, we then began to investigate components of scholarship and activities that lead to its attainment.
Scholarship, knowledge, truth, and theory are defined. The attributes or characteristics of a scholar delineated and discussed include seeking to establish truth and develop new knowledge, developing and refining theory, being focused in one's work, being honest about one's work, communicating ideas and stirring thinking, being open minded, and recognizing the difference between scholarship and pseudoscholarship. It is important to promote scholarship among undergraduate and graduate students; numerous suggestions are outlined.
Scholarship is essential to our survival as a profession. The guidelines presented here will help individuals examine and improve their scholarship.
PMCID: PMC1320437  PMID: 16558524
knowledge; theory; truth; publication; education; manuscript preparation
24.  A report on case reports 
Case reports are defined as the scientific documentation of a single clinical observation and have a time-honored and rich tradition in medicine and scientific publication. This article discusses the role and relevance of case reports in the current evidence-based medical literature. It also seeks to help and guide authors to understand how to prepare a reasonable and well-written case report and how they may anticipate concerns that peer reviewers may express when scrutinizing their manuscript. An overview of the Journal of Conservative Dentistry’s review process of a manuscript submission is provided for the benefit of future authors. It is important to be able to read a case report critically and to use the information they contain appropriately. This article also discusses the factors to consider in evaluating individual case reports, and discusses a practical conceptual scheme for evaluating the potential value and educational content of a case report.
PMCID: PMC3010033  PMID: 21217956
Case report; dental writing; publishing
Successful production of a written product for submission to a peer‐reviewed scientific journal requires substantial effort. Such an effort can be maximized by following a few simple suggestions when composing/creating the product for submission. By following some suggested guidelines and avoiding common errors, the process can be streamlined and success realized for even beginning/novice authors as they negotiate the publication process. The purpose of this invited commentary is to offer practical suggestions for achieving success when writing and submitting manuscripts to The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy and other professional journals.
PMCID: PMC3474301  PMID: 23091783
Journal submission; scientific writing; strategies and tips

Results 1-25 (486115)