UpTo i.t. Home > Medical communication - Writing and editing services > For publishers | For authors | Experience
Our experience
Many manuscripts accepted at peer review still require major scientific revisions before publishing. To better understand the problems that our authors and journals are facing, we informally surveyed, over an 8-month period, 107 consecutive research papers scheduled for publication in the 5 medical journals for which we edit (3 journals are indexed in Medline). We scored manuscripts for 12 different errors and inadequacies that we commonly encountered (and changed) but, if allowed to remain in published reports, would significantly limit the papers' abilities to communicate useful scientific information; in other words, they would reduce the journal's impact, as measured in it's impact factor, but also in its readership and prestige.
Table. Evaluation of 107 consecutive research papers at prepublication editing (after peer review)
Manuscript error or inadequacy Manuscripts, n (%) Presentation of results Results section illogical or cursory; results not systematically explained 40 (37.4) Tables or figures unclear; completely revised 35 (32.7) Figure legends or table titles lacking or grossly insufficient 48 (44.9) IMRAD structure Erratic location of information in Methods, Results or Discussion 27 (25.2) Introduction has no clear statement of hypothesis or motivation 19 (17.8) Precision and attention to details Factual inconsistencies between text and graphic elements 29 (27.1) Factual inconsistencies between text and abstract 31 (29.0) Mathematical errors 19 (17.8) Disregard for correct use of significant digits 15 (14.0) Linguistic issues Major grammar problems requiring rewriting 14 (13.1) Undecipherable sentences 22 (20.6) Absence of structured paragraphs to convey information 15 (14.0) Interpretation Research papers accepted for publication by some European specialty medical journals are often not completely and carefully prepared. The most common problems encountered regard the presentation of the results; conceptual coherency throughout the text, from the abstract to the graphic elements, is also a major concern. These types of flaws can weaken a paper's effectiveness as a conduit for scientific communication.
Contact info@uptoit.org or +39-0423-985191 (tel./fax) for further information regarding these services or to request pricing information.
Top
© Up To infotechnologies. All rights reserved. Document modified: 7 February 2007