Charles Clark MD Marc Swiontkowski MD 1 JBJS Editor Chair DSMB METRC Consortium Royalties Lippincott Acknowledgement Vernon Tolo MD Disclosure Increased Publication numbers ID: 804436
Download The PPT/PDF document "Advance your career in scholarly publica..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Advance your career in scholarly publications-The how and why of reviewing for an Orthopaedic Journal- How to work towards selection for an Editorial Board
Charles Clark MDMarc Swiontkowski MD
1
Slide2JBJS Editor
Chair DSMB METRC ConsortiumRoyalties Lippincott
Acknowledgement- Vernon
Tolo MD
Disclosure-
Slide3Increased Publication numbers Increased Author misbehavior Increasing Published retractionsExplosion of scientific activity China, IndiaExperimentation with post-publication review
Increase in the use of publication metrics
Change Internal to Scholarly Publication
Slide4Growth in New Authors PeerJ
5/13- 10/14 Phil Davis, Scholarly Kitchen
10-22-14
Slide5Decreasing Advertising $
Library BudgetsSociety Publications move to the Big 3? Future of PrintAccess via Google and Pub Med
Change External to the Scholarly Publishing Industry
Slide6ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
SOME MEDICAL LIBRARIES ONLY ONLINELIBRARIANS
INFORMATIONALISTS
LIBRARY BUDGET FACTOR50% OF WHAT IT WAS IN 19821.8% OF INSTITUTION BUDGET IN 2011
INSTITUTIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONSCASCADING JOURNALS?NEED TO PROTECT BRANDMORE PRODUCTS PER SUBSCRIPTION JBJS HAS THIS APPROACH
Slide7ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
THREATS TO TRADITIONAL PUBLISHINGPRINT JOURNAL OR ONLINE OR BOTH?PRINT ADVERTISING REVENUE DOWN
PRINTING COSTS UP
ONLINE ADVERTISING LESS $$
Slide8ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
PRINT WILL ESSENTIALLY DISAPPEAR IN __YEARS
ONLINE VERSION THE DEFINITIVE
JBJS VERSIONPERSONAL PREFERENCES FOR PRINT PERSISTCONVERSION HAS BEEN SLOWER THAN PREDICTEDPRINT JOURNAL STILL VALUED HIGHLY
PRINT ADVERTISING REVENUE DOWNONLINE ADVERTISING CHEAPERPRINT AND MAIL MORE EXPENSIVECOPYEDITING COSTS ONLINE = PRINT
Slide9ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
PEER REVIEW ORTHOPAEDIC LITERATURE CORNERSTONE
REVIEWS BY EXPERTS IN SAME FIELD
VALIDATION + FILTRATION
METHODOLOGY AND STATISTICS INCLUDED
RELAVANCE-BASED REVIEW
APPROPRIATENESS FOR THAT JOURN
AL
GIVES “TRUSTED INFORMATION” FOR PATIENT CARE
9
Slide10ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
WHAT IS ‘OPEN ACCESS’?
DIGITAL
ONLINE
FREE OF CHARGE FOR READER
FREE OF MOST COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS
“PEER-REVIEWED”
‘FREE AVAILABILITY + UNRESTRICTED USE’
INCREASED USE
ESPECIALLY IN BASIC SCIENCE FIELDS
Slide11GROWTH OF OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING FROM 1993 TO 2009
Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, et al. (2011) The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 6(6): e20961. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020961
Slide12OPEN ACCESS DIFFERS FROM PRINT JOURNALS
PEER-REVIEW DIFFERENT
NOW FILTER MANUSCRIPTS BEFORE PUBLISHING
PRE-PUBLICATION REVIEW
OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING
READERS DO FILTERING
PEER REVIEW IS POST-PUBLICATION
Slide13PERCENTAGE OPEN ACCESS ANNUAL INCREASES
RUNNING AT ABOUT 20% PER YEAR INCREASES
Slide14PLoS
(Public Library of Science)
AUTHOR CHARGED A FEE TO PUBLISH
USUAL FEE
FREE OR $500 FOR DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
FEW COPY-EDITING COSTS
PLOS Biology
US$2900
PLOS Medicine
US$2900
PLOS Computational Biology
US$2250
PLOS Genetics
US$2250
PLOS Pathogens
US$2250
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
US$2250
PLOS ONE
US$1350
Slide15ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
FROM PLoS, BioMed Central, and Hindawi open access journals
15
Slide16PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE (
PLoS
)
4199 academic editors
Published > 2000 articles in May 2013In 2008, 170/month publishedIn 2012, received 3100 manuscripts/month
60%-70% acceptance rate
75,000 reviewers
3% of all STM literature
in 2012
No “
orthopaedics
” section at present
Some under “surgery”
16
Slide17OPEN ACCESS AND SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
POTENTIAL TO SPEED KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATIONINCREASE KNOWLEDGE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES THREATENS SOCIETY FINANCIAL VIABILITY? JOURNAL MAIN INCOME SOURCE FOR MANY
HARDER TO FUND PROGRAMS
OA OPINION OF SOCIETIES VARIES
Slide18ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
NUMBER OF RETRACTIONS INCREASING
18
Slide19PRIMARY REASONS FOR RETRACTION
STUDY OF 213 RETRACTED ARTICLES42% PLAGIARISM52% FALSIFICATION OR FABRICATION OF DATA1
ST
AUTHORS FROM LOWER INCOME COUNTRIESODDS RATIO = 15.4NATIONAL LANGUAGE NOT ENGLISHODDS RATIO = 3.2
NON-ORIGINAL RESEARCH vs. ORIGINAL RESEARCHODDS RATIO = 8.4 Stretton et al., 2012, Curr Med Res Opin 28:1575-83
19
Slide20VIOLATIONS OF PUBLICATION ETHICS
DUPLICATE PUBLICATION
MAY BE SAME ARTICLE IN 2 LANGUAGES
SAME DATA BUT DIFFERENT AUTHORS
PLAGIARISM
USE PUBLISHED MATERIAL WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION
ESPECIALLY DON’T DO IN RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SOFTWARE TO CHECK USED BY MANY JOURNALS
Slide21ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org
PROVIDES FLOWCHARTS FOR AUTHOR ISSUES
DUPLICATE PUBLICATION
PLAGIARISM
FABRICATED DATA
AUTHORSHIP CHANGES
UNDISCLOSED CONFLICTS
(COMPLAINTS AGAINST EDITOR)
21
Slide22ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
REFERENCE ACCURACY IMPORTANT
CITATION OR QUOTATION ERRORS
NOT CONSIDERED UNETHICAL BUT AUTHOR ERROR
200 REFERENCES IN 20 ARTICLES IN 4 JOURNALS
CITATION ERROR = 26%
ONLY 4 NOT RETRIEVED FROM PUBMED, USUALLY MINOR
IMPACT FACTOR AND RATE INVERSELY RELATED
QUOTATION ERROR RATE = 38%
SIMILAR TO OTHER MED JOURNALS
Davids
, et al., JBJS 2010
REFERENCE ACCURACY RESPONSIBILITY OF AUTHOR
ONLY REFERENCES FROM PRIMARY SOURCE
22
Slide23ClinicalTrials.org
REGISTRATION OF CLINICAL TRIALS MUST IMPROVE
To assure that all patients entered in trial with same protocol
Can change entry criteria and variables mid-study if not registered at start
Change may occur after initial results seen to better prove hypothesisMany journals require RCTs be registered to be published
Required by ICMJE member journals since 2005
Required by JBJS
23
Slide24ClinicalTrials.org
Problem with large % not registering before study begins
From 2007-2010, 48% of eligible trials registered at start
96% less than 1000 patients, 62% less than 100 patients (low power)
Use of DMCs (data monitoring committees) less in industry-sponsored than NIH studies (odds ratio 0.11)
Califf
et al., JAMA, 2012
24
Slide25LEVELS OF EVIDENCE BETTER
IMPROVING FOR JBJS
LEVEL IV DECREASED 50% PAST YEAR
HIGHER LOE CITED MORE
JBJS IMPACT FACTOR UP TO 5.2
Slide26AAOS LOE 2001-2010
Year
2001
2004
2007
2010
Level I
13 (2%)
22 (3%)
54 (5%)
93 (7%)
Level II
113 (15%)
133 (18%)
245 (23%)
372 (29%)
Level III
165 (22%)
195 (26%)
309 (29%)
425 (33%)
Level IV
465 (62%)
406 (54%)
458 (43%)
399 (31%)
Level V
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Total
756
756
1066
1289
26
TABLE III Number and Percentage of LOE of 2001, 2004,
2007, and 2010 AAOS Presentations
Year 2001 2004 2007 2010
Level I 13 (2%) 22 (3%) 54 (5%) 93 (7%)
Level II 113 (15%) 133 (18%) 245 (23%) 372 (29%)
Level III 165 (22%) 195 (26%) 309 (29%) 425 (33%)
Level IV 465 (62%) 406 (54%) 458 (43%) 399 (31%)
Level V 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Total 756 756 1066 1289
e50(3)
THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY d JBJ S .ORG
VOLUME 94-A d NUMBER 8 d APRIL 18, 2012
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE OF PRESENTATIONS AT AMERICAN ACADEMY
OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS ANNUAL MEETINGS
Slide27ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DECLARED FUNDING SUPPORT/LOE
Review of JBJS 2003-2007
246/889 studies funded by industry
50% level IV evidence, 37% I or II274 funded by government, foundation, universities
29% level IV,55% I/II
366 studies with no funding
57% level IV
Association between industry funding and lower LOE (P<0.0001)
Noordin
, et al., JBJS 2010
27
Slide28POSITIVE FACTORS
IMPROVED LEVEL OF EVIDENCEIMPROVED DETECTION OF UNETHICAL AUTHORSDELIVERY OF INFORMATION FROM MANY SOURCESNEGATIVE FACTORS
FINANCIAL PRESSURES ON PUBLISHERS
INCREASED NUMBER OF RETRACTIONSTHREAT OF OPEN ACCESS
Slide29ORTHOPAEDIC PUBLISHING ISSUES
PRE-PUBLICATION PEER REVIEW SERVICE
www.rubriq.com
Phase II features cost $600
Turnaround time = 1 week
BUT ARE PEER REVIEWERS EXPERT IN THAT FIELD?
29
Slide3030
Author Resource Services via WK-Editage Partnership
30
Slide3131
Author Services at a Nominal Cost Pre-submission or During Review
Visit
Editage
to learn more:
http://wkauthorservices.editage.com/
Manuscript Editing Service
Manuscript editing prices vary depending on:
Word count of article
Service option chosen (Advanced, Premium, or PLUS)
Turn around time requested (2-day, 5-day, or 7-day)
Prices (March 2016)
Advanced
Premium
Premium PLUS
1000-2000 words (7-day
turnaround)
$214 USD
$357 USD
$411 USD
3000 – 6000 words (7-day
turnaround)
$255 USD
$406 USD
$
467 USD
Slide32Authorship
Good authorship standards give credit only to those who earn it. ‘‘Gift authorship’’ abuses this principle. When a senior investigator allows his or her name to be added to a paper out of ‘‘respect,’’ or because he or she has provided mentorship, material support, or patients for a clinical series, that mentor diminishes the efforts—and harms the career advancement—of the
protege
´ whose career he or she seeks to support. Good authorship standards protect authors. Clear authorship standards protect authors from being held responsible for important errors in data collection or acts of scientific misconduct they did not commit.
Good authorship standards recognize that science is a team sport. The advancement of clinically relevant basic science and the well-being of our patients depend on answering those big questions. To get the answers, we will need to collaborate across departments and institutions.
Slide33Authorship
An ‘‘author’’ is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study…An author must take responsibility for at least one component of the work, should be able to identify who is responsible for each other component, and should ideally be confident in their co-authors’ ability and integrity….
As well as:
Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.
Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.And most importantly:(1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3 (emphasis added).
Slide34Advance Your Career Through Participation in Scholarly Publications
The Why and How of Reviewing for an Orthopaedic Journal and Being Selected for an Editorial Board
COMOC 2016 Cape Town
Charles R Clark, MD
Deputy Editor, JBJSDr Michael Bonfiglio Professor of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Slide35Disclosure
I am a Deputy Editor of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
This is a position for which I receive compensation
Slide36Slide37“
Two-thirds of the American medical literature is not especially valuable”
Editorial
JAMA
July 21, 1900
Slide38The original account of the
double helix by Watson andCrick occupied only one page of the journal Nature
Nature
171:737-738, 1953
Slide39How to Review a Manuscript for a Peer-Reviewed
Orthopaedic
Publication
(Clark)
Introduction
-
Can’t
learn it in a day
-
Can
learn an approach
Goal
-
Enable
an individual, particularly a young reviewer, to critically assess a manuscript in order to provide a quality review
Slide40The Basics
Know the topicDo a good literature review
Is it new?
many “novel” ideas have been pursued beforeMore data doesn’t always mean better dataOld adage, ‘garbage in/garbage out’
Slide41Reviewing a Manuscript
Prior to the Formal Review
Did the author(s) use an outline?
Essential for the manuscript to flow in an orderly manner
Did the author(s) follow Instructions to Authors?Become familiar with particular style requirements
Be conversant with and review the relevant literature as necessary
Slide42Manuscript Review
Parts of Manuscript: Introduction
Focus: Why?
Concise statement of the problemUsually 3 paragraphs/1 page
Brief reference to pertinent literatureMore detailed literature citation: DiscussionConcludes with a statement of purpose/hypothesis
Slide43Reviewing a Manuscript
Materials and Methods I
Focus: How?, on Whom?
Population (demographic data); its not Results
Period of studyLocation of studyPatient selection: inclusion/exclusion criteria
Slide44Reviewing a Manuscript
Materials and Methods II
Statement of patient protection: informed, consent, IRB approval, study registration (www.clinicaltrials.gov)
Description of patient treatment: technique, indications, contraindications
Statistical techniqueSource of funding
Slide45Preparing a Manuscript
Results
Focus: What did the Study Find?Detailed data report (tables helpful)
Consistency Bilateral confusion (# patients, # procedures)Per cent (decimal places, N<20, #s and %s)Accuracy counts
Problem words (jargon, cases, incidence/prevalence, significant, sacrifice)
Slide46Bilateral Procedures
78 total knee replacements
were performed in 50 patients
and 47 were successful.
47 patients?47 knees?
Slide47Reviewing a Manuscript
Percent
Overly accurate
- 93 patients, 79.612%
N < 20 - misleading - 1 of 2 versus 50%Corresponding numbers
Slide48Reviewing a Manuscript
Discussion
Focus: Why important? Who cares?
Should briefly restate purpose
Should briefly describe important findings: purpose achieved or notVis a vie most relevant
literature
Strengths/weaknesses/limitations
Conclusions: were they overstated?
Must be based on findings
Slide49Reviewing a Manuscript
Illustrations
Not a photo album
Exclude normal side
Plan as part of textIllustrate important points
Color helpful
Slide50Reviewing a Manuscript
Tables
Organize detailed information from study
Take up spaceShould add information; not rehash it!
Not a PowerPoint from a presentationConsider appendix for supplementary tables
Slide51Reviewing a Manuscript
Appendix
Surgical technique
Raw data
Technical informationPublish electronically?
Slide52Reviewing a Manuscript
References
Carefully review the references
Did the authors actually read them (not just Abstract)?
Make sure the authors didn’t “double reference,” i.e. use them incorrectly“et al.” should be added in the text to cite the authors’ names when more than 1
Slide53Preparing a Manuscript
Abstract
Background: state the problem
Methods: what was done
Results: report resultsConclusionsClinical Relevance (basic science)
Should exclude interesting but non essential information, be concise and written after the manuscript is completed:
Review First!
Slide54Reviewing a Manuscript
Authorship I
Order: reflects preference of authors
Criteria: each author must have contributed significantly to, and be willing to take public responsibility for, one or more aspects of the study:
- design - data acquisition
- data analysis
- data interpretation
Slide55Reviewing a Manuscript
Study Issues
Level of evidence
Sex and gender considerationsLength of manuscriptManuscript processing
Slide56Important Consideration:
Level of Evidence
Oxford update
Slide57Reviewing a Manuscript
Sex and Gender Considerations
Disease prevalence differs between men and women
Innate and unexamined differencesWomen not “little men”Sex: ChromosomesGender: a person’s self representation as male or female
Slide58Length of Manuscript
Varies with journal: Instructions to Authors
Manuscript: typical 3000 - 3500 words
maxStructured Abstract: 300 - 325 max
No detailed review of the literatureTypical manuscript:1 page: Abstract and Introduction3 pages each: Methods*, Results* and Discussion
Slide59Manuscript Processing
Submission - In house evaluation/processing
Editor assigned to manuscript - 2 reviews typical - conflict of interest issues
Decision options - Accept (typically with revision[s] required) - Reject - Additional review
Conflicting reviews - Most journals: adjudication processMethods/statistics reviewEditing/copy editingPublication
Slide60Approach
Focus on the Methods first -
“fatal flaws” often can be identified here
Have the authors asked the correct question?- is it an important question?- is the answer
already known?Critically analyze whether the study passes the feasibility test- adequate patient numbers, long enough follow-up, etcetera
Slide61Study Design
Was the study design appropriate? - need appropriate design to answer the question - ‘
tension
’ between design and feasibility - ‘conflict’ between Level I/RCTs and retrospective review - value in retrospective reviews (may be the basis for more rigorous study)
- RCT may be cost prohibitive
Slide62Engage ‘Partners’ Early
Successful reviewer surrounded by smarter and more experienced personsLearn from a “pro”Seek wisdom and
liste
n even if painful‘Friendly fire’ better than ‘polite nods’ and preferred to a poor review
Partner early with a statistician if need beStatistician is not a ‘hired hand’Value to survey work with peers to establish value of clinical question
Slide63‘Big Data’/Database Studies
Useful when the topic is complicatedOften a methodology that few understand Ask whether
traditional
methods could answer the question better; they generally can!
Slide64Know and Seek Valuable Resources
Consult Instructions to Authors for the particular journal:
JBJS
: http://jbjs.org/instructions-for-authors
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): - CONSORT checklist: http://www.consort-statement.org
Cohort, Case-Control and Cross-Sectional studies:
- STROBE Panel format:
http://www.strobe-statement.org
Meta-analyses:
- PRISMA criteria:
http://www.prisma-statement.org
Slide65Summary
Ask correct questionsKnow/review the literatureSeek wisdom and listen
Partner with a statistician
Assess feasibiltyAppropriate study design?Know and did authors use resources for study design?Consult the Instructions for Reviewer/Authors
Slide66Slide67Slide68Slide69Publication Ethics
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)Self-plagiarism:
Test Recycling
Duplication of data: always seriousCommon Methods: always
citeSignificant concerns – duplicate: - hypothesis - discussion
- conclusions
Journal editor actions:
correction or retraction of article
Slide70Previous Publications/Plagiarism Check
- Pub Med search for related articles
- Cross Check
for plagiarism
Plagiarism
Slide71COPE Flow Sheet
for suspected redundant (duplicate) publication
Slide72Slide73Advance Your Career Through Participation in Scholarly Publications
The Why and How of Reviewing for an
Orthopaedic
Journal and Being Selected for an Editorial Board
COMOC 2016 Cape Town
Exemplary Practices to Endear a Reviewer to the Editorial Board (Clark)
Slide74Exemplary Reviews:
It’s How You Say It!
Slide75Consider the Following
Authors usually put a great deal of effort into their workAuthors take our comments very seriouslyEnglish may not be the authors’ primary languagecut them some slack
focus on their message
suggest obtaining help with the language
Slide76General Points
Provide adequate rationale for your decisionYou can be
concise and specific
at the same timeMany manuscripts we receive have some merit but may not have enough of an impact
to warrant publication in the particular journalIf the manuscript has some merit yet you recommend rejection, encourage the authors to consider your constructive comments if you believe it deserves a place somewhere else in the literature
Slide77http://
jbjs.org
/content/
jbjs-consultant-reviewer-guidelines
Slide78Your Review
Make your review objective and evidence-basedAlways provide
constructive criticism
Typically there are 2 fields for the review: comments to the corresponding author and (typically confidential) comments to the editors
Focus on the overall message of the manuscript: do not spend a lot of time correcting language, grammar or spelling. If errors in these areas interfere with the overall message, make a general comment to this effectYour review should support your recommendation
Slide79Structure of Your Review
Summary: summarize the manuscript in a short paragraph before providing your comments
General Comments – Answer Questions:
Intro appropriate and unbiased? Appropriate Methods? Adequate follow-up? Results answer the questions posed? Discussion put study in proper context? Limitations described? Conclusions supported by the data? EtceteraSpecific Comments
Slide80Some Reviewers “Shoot form the Hip”
Carefully review your comments and some editing may be needed – a criticism may be valid but often can be worded in a manner which is
not pejorative
You can and need to be firm and gentle at the same time
Slide81Closing Comments
It’s hard to be rejectedProvide sound rationale with your decisionTake time with the review: re-review prior to submitting
Provide constructive comments
The key: It’s how we say it!
Slide82Slide83How does excellence as a reviewer shape your career opportunities in the Scholarly Publication area of Orthopaedics
? Editors and Governing Boards look for accomplished reviewers to recognize as “Key” or “Primary” or “Premier” reviewers
Editors look to this group to advance to boards of Associate Editors
Editors look to the Board of Associate Editors to Advance to Deputy EditorsEditors and Governing Boards look to the Board of Deputy Editors to select as Editors in Chief
83
Slide84What are the Responsibilities?
Maintain confidentialityDeclare conflict of Interest issues to the editorGet help from a colleague if you need supportDon’t spend extra effort to identify authors
Provide timely review
Slide85How Do I Get Started?
Be sure you have adequate research/clinical experienceAsk a colleague to share their review processes with youApproach a Deputy Editor to ask if you would qualify Never say No and produce quality reviews ahead of the deadline
Use Journal Resources
Slide86JBJS Update
JBJSJBJS ReviewsEssential Surgical TechniquesCase ConnectorJOPAJBJS Open Access