Search

Background: This study employed bibliometric analysis to ascertain the research focus areas among a group of Mexican physicians affiliated with the Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado (ISSSTE). ISSSTE, a healthcare institution catering to a diverse range of diseases, offers a distinctive perspective on the investigated specialties within the realm of health. The primary objective was to identify knowledge gaps in medical care disciplines through a comprehensive examination of scholarly publications. Methods: We retrieved Scopus papers affiliated with "ISSSTE" and saved them as.CSV files. Subsequently, we employed VOSviewer, biblioshiny, and bibliometrix for bibliometric analysis. This enabled us to identify prominent institutions, prolific authors, highly cited researchers, and their respective affiliations. Results: Our analysis identified 2063 publications; the specialty internal medicine accounted for the greatest proportion with 831 publications. Original papers accounted for 82% of the total, with 52% of them being written in Spanish. The majority of scientific output, 92%, originated from Mexico City. The annual production has steadily increased since 2010, peaking in 2021 with over 200 publications. However, papers on prevalent conditions, such as metabolic syndrome, received limited citations, and the L0 index (percentage of uncited items) for all papers is close to 60%. Scopus mislabeled one affiliation, and some cases show a low paper-to-author ratio of 0.5 Discussion: Additional concerns, such as honorary authorship due to excessive authors per paper, and the underlying causes of low citation rates in Mexican publications, warrant further examination. Moreover, our research emphasizes the urgency of bolstering research and development funding, which was consistently below 0.5% of GDP for the past four decades, falling short of legal mandates and international benchmarks. We endorse the establishment of robust research collectives in Latin America to address these challenges, foster regional scientific output, and transition from knowledge consumers to knowledge producers, thereby reducing dependence on foreign technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research is the key to advancement in medical science. Medical school can nurture the skill of research right from the under graduation. Research forms an integral part of the medical curriculum in western countries. We attempted the same in our medical school in India. We developed a structured research methodology program, which was implemented in the undergraduate (UG) curriculum in two phases. Phase I focuses on research methodology and Phase II on manuscript writing. With the implementation of a competency-based medical education curriculum (CBME), we have extended the research methodology program with manuscript writing and introduction to systematic reviews, which is being offered as electives to UG medical students in the third professional year. Our experience in training students at an UG level has been immensely satisfying. We hope that this article will help other medical schools to adopt a similar method of training UG medical students in research methodology and scientific medical writing.

Case reports are considered the smallest units of descriptive studies. They serve an important function in bringing out information regarding presentation, management, and/or outcomes of rare diseases. They can also be a starting point in understanding unique associations in clinical medicine and can introduce very effective treatment paradigms. Preparing the manuscript for a case report may be the first exposure to scientific writing for a budding clinician/researcher. This manuscript describes the steps of writing a case report and essential considerations when publishing these articles. Individual components of a case report and the “dos and don'ts” while preparing these components are detailed.

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Research is the key to advancement in medical science. Medical school can nurture the skill of research right from the under graduation. Research forms an integral part of the medical curriculum in western countries. We attempted the same in our medical school in India. We developed a structured research methodology program, which was implemented in the undergraduate (UG) curriculum in two phases. Phase I focuses on research methodology and Phase II on manuscript writing. With the implementation of a competency-based medical education curriculum (CBME), we have extended the research methodology program with manuscript writing and introduction to systematic reviews, which is being offered as electives to UG medical students in the third professional year. Our experience in training students at an UG level has been immensely satisfying. We hope that this article will help other medical schools to adopt a similar method of training UG medical students in research methodology and scientific medical writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Academic publishing and manuscript preparation, submission, and appropriate revision can be difficult tasks. Breaking a task such as academic writing or manuscript preparation into manageable segments can allow the author to concentrate more fully on the task at hand and complete the academic or scientific project on time. Aims and Objectives: We explore the role of "Pomodoro" technique: a time-management technique in academic writing. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted to explore the origin of the "Pomodoro" time management technique and its applicability in academic writing or manuscript preparation. Results: Currently there are no defined publications exploring the role of "Pomodoro" technique in academic publishing. However the "Pomodoro" time management technique can have applicability in academic publishing and manuscript preparation. Conclusion: "Pomodoro" time management technique can help break the manuscript preparation and research project in manageable segments. It can have applications in planning, data analysis, editing and revising of academic publications and manuscript preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Manuscript preparation, submission, and appropriate revision can be difficult tasks. Any lack in these processes can lead to manuscript rejection and author's dissatisfaction. We have searched the PubMed and Google scholar and collected information regarding causes of manuscript rejection, correct steps and order of manuscript preparation. We have provided the set format to publish article, tips and tricks of making a research paper for publication. We also have provided guide for the authors to provide essential enclosures during submission process. This review focuses on conventional "Tips and Tricks" that might guide aspiring authors through the submission process and serve as a "Blueprint" for publishing scientific manuscripts in medical journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Case reports are considered the smallest units of descriptive studies. They serve an important function in bringing out information regarding presentation, management, and/or outcomes of rare diseases. They can also be a starting point in understanding unique associations in clinical medicine and can introduce very effective treatment paradigms. Preparing the manuscript for a case report may be the first exposure to scientific writing for a budding clinician/researcher. This manuscript describes the steps of writing a case report and essential considerations when publishing these articles. Individual components of a case report and the "dos and don'ts" while preparing these components are detailed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Statistics are a quintessential part of scientific manuscripts. Few journals are free of statistics-related errors. Errors can occur in data reporting and presentation, choosing the appropriate or the most powerful statistical test, misinterpretation or overinterpretations of statistics, and ignoring tests of normality. Statistical software used, one-tailed versus two-tailed tests, and exclusion or inclusion of outliers can all influence outcomes and should be explicitly mentioned. This review presents the corresponding nonparametric tests for common parametric tests, popular misinterpretations of the P value, and usual nuances in data reporting. The importance of distinguishing clinical significance from statistical significance using confidence intervals, number needed to treat, and minimal clinically important difference is highlighted. The problem of multiple comparisons may lead to false interpretations, especially in p-hacking when nonsignificant comparisons are concealed. The review also touches upon a few advanced topics such as heteroscedasticity and multicollinearity in multivariate analyses. Journals have various strategies to minimize inaccuracies, but it is invaluable for authors and reviewers to have good concepts of statistics. Furthermore, it is imperative for the reader to understand these concepts to properly interpret studies and judge the validity of the conclusions independently.

The venerable clinical case report has been largely reduced to the status of commodity in the present age of dedicated case report journals. Top‐line clinical journals may discourage or even refuse to accept clinical case reports due to their potential adverse effect on the impact factor of the journal. But while the traditional clinical case report, that presents a case history and attempts to extrapolate a lesson from it, may have fallen out of favor, there remains a need for astute clinical observations that serve to stimulate the generation of hypotheses and may lead, ultimately, to medical breakthroughs. Clinicians are very much capable of employing scientific reasoning when approaching an unusual clinical situation. By remaining up to date with the literature, and determining, at the outset of the case, what lessons may be learned from it, they can formulate a scientific approach, using clinical methods, to result in meaningful contributions to the literature in top‐line journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The process of publishing original work in a peer review journal is not complete at the point where the manuscript is first submitted. The journal editors will submit the manuscript to peer review whereby outside experts are asked to vet the manuscript for scientific merit, originality and quality. Reviewers' comments are meant to help authors strengthen their manuscripts for potential publication. Authors benefit from this feedback and should approach the reviewers as volunteer consultants rather than as critics. Authors should respond to all reviewers' comments, completely and politely addressing the points raised. This article is meant to assist junior or inexperienced authors to understand the process of peer review and to function effectively within the process in order to succeed in having their manuscripts published. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A well-written manuscript published in a reputable journal is the deserved end-point of good research. It is important for postgraduates to be trained in scientific writing for their academic progression as well as the advancement of science. Methods: A day-long workshop on scientific writing and publication was conducted at Raipur, India in February 2020. The medical postgraduate (UK equivalent: Core Medical Trainee) participants were engaged with lectures, discussions and a practical session requiring critical appraisal of a manuscript. The lectures also discussed publication ethics and the perils of falling prey to predatory journals. Pre and post-workshop surveys were given to the participants to assess the impact of the workshop on the baseline knowledge of scientific writing and publishing. Results: Out of 69 participants, there were 67 (response rate 97%) and 41 (response rate 59%) respondents to the pre and post-workshop surveys respectively. The former identified a lack of baseline knowledge ranging from 6% for determining the components of the individual sections of the manuscript such as Introduction or Methods, 40% for the use of acronyms, and 55% for knowledge of different referencing styles, to 61% for knowledge of indexing agencies. The post-workshop survey revealed improvement in participants’ knowledge of the contents of various sections of the manuscript and their knowledge about referencing styles and indexing agencies. In the post-workshop survey, 20% of respondents said that they would be open to engaging with predatory journals, which underscored the need to educate them continuously regarding the demerits of such practice. Participants expressed the need for longer workshops, preferably spread over two days, with discussion on research methodology and statistical analysis, and more ‘hands-on’ sessions. Conclusion: This survey underscores the need for structured training in scientific writing. Its inclusion in the medical postgraduate curriculum appears desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Statistics are a quintessential part of scientific manuscripts. Few journals are free of statistics-related errors. Errors can occur in data reporting and presentation, choosing the appropriate or the most powerful statistical test, misinterpretation or overinterpretations of statistics, and ignoring tests of normality. Statistical software used, one-tailed versus two-tailed tests, and exclusion or inclusion of outliers can all influence outcomes and should be explicitly mentioned. This review presents the corresponding nonparametric tests for common parametric tests, popular misinterpretations of the P value, and usual nuances in data reporting. The importance of distinguishing clinical significance from statistical significance using confidence intervals, number needed to treat, and minimal clinically important difference is highlighted. The problem of multiple comparisons may lead to false interpretations, especially in p-hacking when nonsignificant comparisons are concealed. The review also touches upon a few advanced topics such as heteroscedasticity and multicollinearity in multivariate analyses. Journals have various strategies to minimize inaccuracies, but it is invaluable for authors and reviewers to have good concepts of statistics. Furthermore, it is imperative for the reader to understand these concepts to properly interpret studies and judge the validity of the conclusions independently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is the established method for evaluating the quality and validity of research manuscripts in scholarly publishing. However, scientific peer review faces challenges as the volume of submitted research has steadily increased in recent years. Time constraints and peer review quality assurance can place burdens on reviewers, potentially discouraging their participation. Some artificial intelligence (AI) tools might assist in relieving these pressures. This study explores the efficiency and effectiveness of one of the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer), in the peer review process. Twenty-one peer-reviewed research articles were anonymised to ensure unbiased evaluation. Each article was reviewed by two humans and by versions 3.5 and 4.0 of ChatGPT. The AI was instructed to provide three positive and three negative comments on the articles and recommend whether they should be accepted or rejected. The human and AI results were compared using a 5-point Likert scale to determine the level of agreement. The correlation between ChatGPT responses and the acceptance or rejection of the papers was also examined. Subjective review similarity between human reviewers and ChatGPT showed a mean score of 3.6/5 for ChatGPT 3.5 and 3.76/5 for ChatGPT 4.0. The correlation between human and AI review scores was statistically significant for ChatGPT 3.5, but not for ChatGPT 4.0. ChatGPT can complement human scientific peer review, enhancing efficiency and promptness in the editorial process. However, a fully automated AI review process is currently not advisable, and ChatGPT's role should be regarded as highly constrained for the present and near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes a systematic and practical guide on manuscript writing. A step-by-step approach as easy as learning ABC to facilitate authors to plan their manuscript writing. Research has shown that experienced writers plan extensively, in which a writing plan is a road map, without it we will probably lose our way in circles. Generally, authors start writing a manuscript by introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusion. However, this paper proposes a different approach to start writing a manuscript based on the ABC of manuscript writing worksheet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Publication is both an art and a science. For the beginner, not knowing the intricacies of publication, choice of subject and the appropriate journal to get their work published are major obstacles. In this article, the authors share their experience on how to go about getting an article published and selecting the most suitable journal for publication. They hope this article stimulates medical writing.

The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) is a global scientific and advocacy organisation dedicated to ensuring an AIDS vaccine for use worldwide. In Africa, IAVI partners with seven research centres who conduct vaccine trials and studies. This research requires extensive medical and scientific writing support, for regulatory submissions and for the publication of data. IAVI and its African partners publish widely in international peer-reviewed publications; however, African authors are underrepresented as first authors. To address this disparity, IAVI created and honed a series of science writing workshops that so far has reached 85 investigators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT This review article summarizes the content of a series of interrelated workshop presentations from the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology held in Shanghai in November, 2011. The article describes tips and strategies for writing research papers and research grant applications and includes discussion of: the role of pulmonologists in research; the debates around the use of the journal impact factor; tips for writing manuscripts and publishing research in high-impact journals; how journals assess manuscripts and the most common reasons editors reject manuscripts; how to write grant applications and what grant panels look for in successful proposals; and how to undertake research in resource-limited countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Figures and charts are the most influential vehicles for distributing scientific information, for affecting decisions as to the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, and for attracting the attention of the scientific community to study results. Graphical excellence is mainly defined, first, by the highest possible data density (that is, the amount of information provided per graph area); second, by a low ink-to-data ratio (the avoidance of unnecessary shading, three-dimensionality, gridlines and what is often called ‘chartjunk’); and third, by clear and unequivocal labelling of axes. The researcher''s essential graphical toolbox should contain histograms, bar charts (always with measures of error), box-and-whiskers plots, scatter plots and forest plots. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Publication is both an art and a science. For the beginner, not knowing the intricacies of publication, choice of subject and the appropriate journal to get their work published are major obstacles. In this article, the authors share their experience on how to go about getting an article published and selecting the most suitable journal for publication. They hope this article stimulates medical writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although scientific publication is often mandatory in medical professions, writing the first research article for publication is challenging, especially as medical curricula have only a minor focus on scientific writing. The aim was therefore to identify facilitators and barriers experienced by medical doctors writing their first scientific article for publication. An explorative inductive approach made use of semi-structured interviews for collecting data until saturation. Data were analyzed with systematic text condensation. Several barriers were identified: (a) writing in general; (b) writing in English; (c) dealing with content, structure, and presentation; and (d) navigating in the author group. Good supervision in the initial writing phase was a facilitating factor. Medical doctors requested a course in which they could work on their own articles and give feedback to fellow students. They valued skilled lecturers and individual supervision, and they wanted to learn about author instructions, how to present text correctly, and how to sell their core message. Their goal was to create a useful end product and to obtain European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) points. The facilitators and barriers that medical doctors experience when writing their first scientific article for publication and their course requests should be reflected in the learning objectives and content of future courses.

Background With an upsurge in research in developing countries, researchers from allied sciences need to augment their skills for disseminating research work worldwide. Training workshop is one of the quick interventions which can enhance writing skills and ease research publication. Objective We designed this research to explore the perception of the faculty of different higher education institutes (HEIs) regarding manuscript writing and to assess the impact of these workshops in the improvement of cognitive capabilities of preliminary researchers in Pakistan. Methodology We conducted workshops in HEIs of Sindh, Pakistan. Contents of the workshop covered algorithm of writing manuscript and related descriptions, choice of quality journals, correspondence with the editor, and dealing with rejection. The knowledge of the participants was assessed by 15 items pre and post evaluation tests. McNamar's test assessed the significance of the change in knowledge. Kruskal Wallis test was performed to check the difference in the opinion of workshop quality among different institutes. Results A significant improvement was observed in participants' knowledge on the readers' prospects (P=0.001), the algorithm of writing (P<0.001), interpretations of results (P<0.001), and selection quality journal for publication (P <0.001). The agreement with the workshop's quality based on need, knowledge, and content was above average. Conclusion The participants' response regarding the effectiveness of manuscript writing for publication workshop was overwhelmingly positive, and there was a significant impact on the knowledge of the participants. There is a need for research training that will help for better capacity building in different HEIs of Pakistan., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2020, Hussain et al.)

Publishing manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals, such as Hospital Pediatrics, is critical for both the academic development of practitioners in pediatric hospital medicine and the scientific advancement of our field. Understanding the purpose of scientific writing and developing a structured approach to the writing process is essential. Doing so will improve the clarity of your work and likely the ease at which your research is published and disseminated throughout the scientific community. The purposes of this article are to detail the structure of a scientific manuscript, to highlight specific writing strategies, and to provide writing tips that may help or hinder publication. Our ultimate goal is to advance the field of pediatric hospital medicine and its growing membership by promoting the dissemination of high-quality research., (Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)