1 / 20

Jim Catto Associate Editor European Urology

How to Write a Manuscript and Get It Published in European Urology. How your submission will be evaluated by European Urology reviewers: Reviewer template and Publication guidelines . Jim Catto Associate Editor European Urology. Reviewer template and Publication guidelines .

senwe
Download Presentation

Jim Catto Associate Editor European Urology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How to Write a Manuscript and Get It Published in European Urology How your submission will be evaluated by European Urology reviewers: Reviewer template and Publication guidelines Jim Catto Associate Editor European Urology

  2. Reviewer template and Publication guidelines The manuscript The author The reviewer

  3. 1. The manuscript Content: • Quality of work • Novelty of question • Report Type • Manuscript Structure • Checklists etc.

  4. 1. The manuscript Content: • Quality of work • Novelty of question • Report Type • Manuscript Structure • Checklists etc. Quality metrics: • Content • Strength of Message

  5. 2. The review: Tasks for the reviewer a). Judge the work • Quality of work • Novelty of question • Level within the field • Interest to readership… • Checklists etc.

  6. 2. The review: Tasks for the reviewer a). Judge the work • Quality of work • Novelty of question • Level within the field • Interest to readership… • Checklists etc. b). Improve the work • Structured review http://europeanurology.com/about-the-journal/reviewers

  7. Structured reviews • Originality • Importance to readers • Science • Defined question • Study design • Participants • Methods • Results • Interpretation/Disc/Conclusion • References • Add enough to the published literature? • What does it add? • Cite relevant references to support your comments on originality

  8. Structured reviews • Originality • Importance to readers • Science • Defined question • Study design • Participants • Methods • Results • Interpretation/Disc/Conclusion • References • Does this work matter? • Will it help our readers to make better decisions and, if so, how?  • Is a European Urology the right journal for it?

  9. Structured reviews • Originality • Importance to readers • Science • Defined question • Study design • Participants • Methods • Results • Interpretation/Disc/Conclusion • References • Clearly defined: • Question or • Aims or • Objectives or • Hypothesis • Is this appropriately answered?

  10. Structured reviews • Originality • Importance to readers • Science • Defined question • Study design • Participants • Methods • Results • Interpretation/Disc/Conclusion • References • Design • Appropriate • Adequate • Participants: • Clearly described and defined • Inclusion and exclusion criteria described? • How representative are of this category of patients?

  11. Structured reviews • Originality • Importance to readers • Science • Defined question • Study design • Participants • Methods • Results • Interpretation/Disc/Conclusion • References • Adequately described? • State main outcome measure? • Reporting standards: • RCTs • Systematic reviews • Observational studies • Health economics studies • Checklist’s? • Ethics • IRB/EC approval • Reviewer opinion

  12. Structured reviews • Originality • Importance to readers • Science • Defined question • Study design • Participants • Methods • Results • Interpretation/Disc/Conclusion • References • Do they answer the question? • Are the outcomes credible? • Are the data well presented • Justify and pay attention to the • Tables • Figures • ? Supplementary data

  13. Structured reviews • Originality • Importance to readers • Science • Defined question • Study design • Participants • Methods • Results • Interpretation/Disc/Conclusion • References • Are these warranted by the data • Discussed in the light of previous evidence • Is the message clearly stated?

  14. Structured reviews • Originality • Importance to readers • Science • Defined question • Study design • Participants • Methods • Results • Interpretation/Disc/Conclusion • References • Up to date and relevant • Any glaring omissions? • Pertinent to European Urology • ? Adherence to & role of limited numbers

  15. The Abstract • Does it reflect the data? • Is it clear? • Does it serve purpose? • Does it stand alone or lead into the paper? • Consistency The Abstract is very important

  16. Reporting guidelines • Used to standardize reporting of clinical studies • Aim to enhance quality and transparency of health care research • We advocate their use for these reasons • But for you …. they are a wealth of helpful information about what and how to write? • Manuscripts conforming to CONSORT are more likely to be accepted

  17. Reporting guidelines http://www.equator-network.org/

  18. Reporting guidelines http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

  19. Reporting guidelines CONSORT: For RCT’s, but also excellent general advice STARD: For diagnostic studies PRISMA: For systematic reviews and meta- analyses STROBE: Epidemiology REMARK: Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

  20. Thank-you

More Related