FOREWORD Year : 2022  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 279-280

How to get Published?

Marwan Bukhari
Department of Rheumatology, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, Kendal, UK; Editor in Chief, Rheumatology (Oxford)

Date of Submission27-Sep-2022Date of Acceptance11-Oct-2022Date of Web Publication22-Dec-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Marwan Bukhari
University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, Kendal

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Check

DOI: 10.4103/0973-3698.364667

How to cite this article:
Bukhari M. How to get Published?. Indian J Rheumatol 2022;17, Suppl S2:279-80

It is my great pleasure to present this special supplement of the Indian Journal of Rheumatology on Medical Academic Publishing to you. This supplement has chapters covering a broad range of pertinent issues, ranging from how to write a scientific manuscript and nuts and bolts of publication process to publication misconducts. This foreword has given me an opportunity to share my thoughts on what is publishable based on my own experience as an editor.

The adage “publish” or “perish” has become a norm these days not just in rheumatology but in other specialties too. With the publication history of an individual giving them an academic edge during career progress, a worldwide appetite for publishing is on the rise. However, not every manuscript that reaches the editor's desk becomes a publication and a lot of factors are taken into consideration by an editor before deciding the fate of a manuscript.

The types of manuscripts that could be coming to every editor are many and the manuscript submitted should be within the scope of the journal. For example, in many journals including the Lancet, the reviews are generally commissioned.

The readability and impact of the manuscripts submitted are looked at, for example, original articles are interesting to reviewers as they demonstrate a different skill. While a good systematic review could demonstrate the author has been very diligent at searching the literature, narrative reviews are commonly submitted but rarely make it to the top journals as they do not demonstrate the scientific rigor needed to be published in those journals. Reviews are double-edged sword; for journals, systematic reviews are attractive as they are likely to be highly cited whereas if such reviews have only a few studies, the acceptability is understandably low. Acceptance of a systematic review with meta-analysis therefore also depends on the number of papers included and the lack of heterogeneity in the articles. A letter showing a flaw in the analysis or a disagreement about methodology is also a way to be published.

Meta-analyses are very much the province of more specialist units, but if they are done then an expectation is that the question needs to be answered is very topical, there are enough studies in different populations to be analyzed and the right analyses are being done. The outcomes from these studies need to have a measure of heterogeneity or an appropriate adjustment for this. Reviews that are not systematic can occasionally be acceptable provided the message within the papers is coherent and novel.

Single-center experiences on a clinical observation could be tricky as a lot of the data would have been already published prior regarding the prevalence of symptoms, signs, and laboratory parameters, and these all depend on the rigor of applying classification criteria.

If a case series merely mirrors what is already published in the literature, it is unlikely to be accepted, however, if it shows something unusual and it is felt that the case series could be novel, it is always worth emphasizing this to the reviewers. Case reports, on the other hand, are divided into several types, those that are describing an atypical presentation of a common problem or of a new finding in a common problem, including diseases presenting in novel ways. A common pitfall with the case reports is reporting of mere coexistence of two different diseases which could just be incidental. A very easy and quick way to get a publication is to get a clinical vignette, a nice image accompanied by less than 500 words about the clinical course of a patient. The image alone may be either deemed interesting or not. It needs to have the abnormality clearly highlighted and should be eye catching.

Most editors will have the number of cites a manuscript may receive as their main driver, so the thoughts from the author should be if other people would use my work as evidence in this field and if the answer is yes then that would be encouraging. Other considerations include asking why this manuscript is needed to expand current knowledge and understanding of the science or whether it is more about confirming what is already known or something observationally novel. If someone has done a similar analysis to yours and published before you, then it can also be published with any disparities between the previous and your current manuscript being emphasized. But saying I too have seen this is of a low priority for acceptance.

A good example in recent times has been the recent pandemic with an avalanche of COVID-19 and the vaccine-related onset of new rheumatic diseases. Many authors do not understand that the vast majority of manuscripts that say disease x occurred or flared post-COVID or the vaccine are by and large rejected, with only ones showing a clear increase in flares in a time compared to a period before the pandemic would be accepted.

While the type of manuscripts may vary, the quality of the manuscripts plays a very important role in an editor's decision. The elements of quality include readability and the ability to catch the eye of the reviewer.

This supplement, with the objective of informing the authors and researchers regarding various steps and processes involved in publishing, would aid them in attaining a higher acceptance level for their manuscript.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.