REVIEW PAPER
Hints and tricks in the scientific publication

Submitted: 11.10.2005
Accepted: 11.15.2005


Corresponding author:
Prof. Kenneth Dickstein
Division of Cardiology
University of Bergen
Central Hospital in Rogaland
4011 Stavanger, Norway
Phone: +47 51 51 80 00
Fax: +47 51 51 99 21
E-mail: trout@online.no


Authorship
• All authors should have contributed to:
– Hypothesis
– Design
– Data collection
– Interpretation and manuscript revision
Engage your co-authors actively from the start
• First author is the boss
• Senior author
• First 6 authors, et al. >6 authors
• Authorship agreed upon prior to data collection
• Co-authors can present the paper
• Acknowledgements may help limit authorship
• Corresponding author

Congress abstracts
• a rapid communication for an oral or visual public presentation
• not a summary of a paper
• a single message
• can be interpreted on its own
• select topic/category very carefully
• 1 study may support several abstracts
• key words are unimportant
• follow instructions exactly
• title is most important, should be written first and revised last
• remember the theme of a chosen topic
• use recommended subheadings
• design tables simply
• avoid busy figures
• use all space provided
• an abstract should always lead to a full manuscript

Poster
• more relaxed than an oral presentation and more fun
• it is the publication and reference that counts on your CV
• be available to elaborate and argue
• use the opportunity to network
• stay modest, visitors usually know more than you do
• view criticism as free peer review for your paper
• talk to your neighbours
• look at it from 2 meters away while walking
• title must summarise results and is the only part read by 99%
• as little text as possible, telegraph style is best
• indicate participating centres clearly
• illustrations must be simple and very large with clear titles
• people like colours and big fonts
• not too fancy, it is science not show business
• blow-up conclusions
• attach the accepted abstract

Submission
• try a high impact journal if you have time and the paper is strong
• know the journal’s special interests, style and readership
• read some papers
• do not divide findings from 1 study into several papers
• one strong paper is better than two weak papers
• read “instructions to authors” several times

Abstract as a summary for a manuscript
• very different from a congress abstract
• important exercise and should be written before the paper
• briefly summarise the aims and major findings
• invitation to read the paper
• less data necessary
• detailed information is contained in the paper
• may be very short, no tables
• use a lot of time on the impact and conclusion
• make the English perfect, reviewers’ first impression

Title Page
• Presentation is important and demonstrates clarity and organisational skills
• Corresponding author should be first author
• Indicate financial support

Manuscripts
Title
• Most important part of the paper, write it first, make it concise and provocative
• Make a statement that will wake up the reader
• Show it to your colleagues

Introduction
• short (1-3 paragraphs max)
• background and hypothesis
• why the study needs to be done

Methodology
• adequate information, too much detail is better than too little
• describe study design and patient population thoroughly
• get the statistics section right, show it to a statistician

Results
• make it readable and easily digested
• concise short text, repeat same format for reporting
• well-designed illustrations
• refer to tables and only repeat essential data in text
• place references to figures and tables appropriately

Discussion
• use logical headings
• brief review of your results with few numbers
• review current literature and compare or contrast your findings
• interpret results
• speculate on mechanisms
• include limitations section
• separate implications from conclusions
• “appropriate conservatism”

References
• should be current and accurate, they reveal your efforts to the reviewer
• do not use too many of your own references
• do not use reviews, rather the original paper
• editors choose reviewers from senior authors in the reference list

Final touches
• double space
• spell check, show to an Englishman
• if you do not know an Englishman, send it to a Scot or an American
• make the paper and illustrations look good
• presentation counts
• a clean appearance implies organized work
• prepare and mail by express in a clean package to the journal
• follow electronic submission rules exactly
• revise carefully according to co-authors’ comments
• highlight changes, do not touch “accept all changes” button
• resist time pressure
• put it on the shelf for 3 weeks, “cold eye”
• then read it like you have never seen it before

Cover letter
• invest time in the letter
• by the first author on hospital paper
• get the Editor’s name and address right
• well-written, immediately displays your language skills to the editor
• the King’s English, no typos
• short and concise
• explain what is novel about the paper
• potential impact on clinicians and researchers
• include the reference if an abstract was published
• include title in first sentence
• summarise results in 2 sentences
• why you chose this journal
• always include the words “novel” and “impact”
• always suggest potential reviewers if permitted
report important potential conflicts of interest
• end with: “We look forward to the results of the review process”
• a negative result is important if the hypothesis is strong

Revision letter
• do a very thorough job, revision is time-consuming, do not respond too quickly
• detailed and organised revision letter
• “all authors have approved revisions”
• Do not argue unless you can defend well
• paste response into document after reviewer comments
• long is good
• revise exactly according to recommendations
• deal with each criticism separately
• specify modifications; page and paragraph in revised paper
• thank the editor and reviewers for their time
• state that the revised paper was “much improved by the criticism”
• de novo review is increasingly popular

Rejection
• do not get depressed, you have learned something
• discuss a plan of action with co-authors
• if the paper was rejected by a good journal:
• consider sending the editor’s and reviewers’ comments and a detailed revision elsewhere
• or revise the paper according to the reviewers’ comments and re-submit to another journal
• do not resubmit elsewhere without improving the paper
• new reviewers will usually have similar criticism
• never give up, rejection is part of the game

The review is based on the lecture presented during the workshop titled: “Clinical research methodology in heart failure” on the Heart Failure Congress in Lisbon, Portugal, 11-14 June 2005.