In delineating scientific findings, authors should avoid assertions of primacy and novelty, in favor of measured descriptions of advance and potential importance for the field.

The desires to advance existing knowledge, describe and characterize previously unrecognized phenomena and their underlying mechanisms, and devise distinct approaches for studying, diagnosing and treating cancer are all key drivers of scientific efforts in oncology. It is also natural for researchers to wish to highlight their contributions and the ways in which these go beyond prior efforts. Thus, this journal quite frequently receives manuscripts that frame their contents as a first discovery, a novel finding or a scientific advancement that is paradigm-shifting. Among other considerations, editors evaluate submitted papers on the basis of the level of advance they represent in light of the published literature, with referees also weighing in on this aspect during the peer-review process. However, before publication, it is journal policy to advise against using words that denote primacy, such as first, new and novel, in descriptions of the scientific findings, and tempering claims of extraordinary significance.

Credit: Eoneren / iStock / Getty Images Plus

Why is the language we use in formal publication stricter than the manner in which we informally discuss submitted work? The answer is that although perceived novelty or priority may well be among the aspects debated by authors, editors and referees, explicit claims of novelty or priority can be difficult to establish and justify, given the vast scientific literature, the complexity of research manuscripts and the fact that in science, all work builds on prior knowledge to some degree. Whether a study is truly the first to report a specific finding and the level of novelty that finding represents can be subject to argument, and such overt declarations can lead to errors in the published literature that may require further assessment and correction after publication. As a safeguard, before publication, the editor goes over the manuscript and makes appropriate recommendations to authors about the removal of primacy words and, where relevant, the rewording of over-reaching statements and tempering of interpretations by also outlining the study’s limitations.

There are of course exceptions for which the literature record can be used to ascertain first and novel efforts with precision, such as describing a first-in-class compound, presenting a newly conceived methodological approach or reporting a first clinical trial in a specific setting. When vetted through the editorial and peer-review process, well-justified novelty assertions of this type would stand in the published manuscript as well.

Statements of extraordinary importance should also be tempered, with the aim instead of providing a well-considered discussion of the findings. This does not mean that authors should not highlight their work’s importance, its most interesting aspects and potential implications for the field. These are all points that should be briefly stated in the Abstract and expanded on in a thoughtful Discussion section. Instead, it is exaggerated or unfounded pronouncements of significance that should be avoided. It is helpful to remember that overpromising on a study’s implications can have negative effects. Rather than persuading editors and referees to champion the paper, unfounded claims can delay or deny publication, and instead of enticing readers to engage with the published study, unwarranted hype can turn them away.

Ultimately, balance is key — a well-justified and precise description of the scientific findings and their broader implications should be combined with acknowledgement of the study’s caveats. This is a standard requirement for clinical research papers and should be the approach taken for preclinical and translational work as well. After all, the data are the data, and whether a study truly is paradigm-shifting is for the field as a whole to decide.