Medical Writing - Science topic

Hello,

This may be a helpful source of e-learning

Regards,

Alphonce Nsabi Simbila

Thank you very much, Gaurav H Tandon and Bulcsu Szekely for your replies and recommendations to read!

Unless you plan to perform heavy computations, Python will probably be the best choice for you. And I say that as a C++ developper.

interested

If it has passed editorial assessment than the research article has some scope which is required by the journal. After review you may get two options major or minor revision. But here the chances are 50:50 depending on the reviewers comments.

You can use grammarly

I think it helps, but it would not be "the substitute"

you must publish your findings

In my opinion; it would be better to present them in one paper.

Emotion detection using Audio-Visual data with Deep Learning. Mokhaled N. A. Al-Hamadani

A free online resource for finding abbreviations for journal names is

https://cassi.cas.org/search.jsp

Some journals have changed their names over time. This tool also allows you to trace these name changes.

Please see the following discussions

Best Regards Muhammad Adnan

Since the copyright of an article has to be transferred to the publisher by the author(s) before publication, permission to use a table or a figure has to be requested from the publisher. It must be cited in the legend of the table or figure with reference and "with permission of ...". There is an exception only with public sources, whereby the source must be specified however also exactly.

yes i mostly used for more information you can see

BioRender might be a good option (https://biorender.io/)

It's an online app that contains a library of pre-made cells, proteins, membrane shapes, organs, lab equipment, etc. that you can drag-and-drop so you don't have to spend time drawing each element of the figure yourself. Saves a LOT of time and the final figures you create are professional-looking. Plus, it's free for educational use.

Yes, such as periodic modulation of excitability, shifts in spike timing, modulation of firing rate, and shifts in the balance of excitation and inhibition.

A good observation respected Azzawi Hadi, as this phenomenon is already happening every where; who are non natives English speakers.

Hi Abdallah,

I think it will be very useful. Much of my manuscript writing activities and corresponding literature searches are performed away from my office. So, for me, the ability to peruse muliple collections through one access point would be convenient.

Have a great day!

-Adrian

For Europe you might find the Q&A on post-authorisation procedures helpful: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000166.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580023399

Hi Amin. Your request is not clear. To collaborate in the preparation of any publication it implies a commitment which can be at several levels. To assess the level of commitment of the collaborator it is important to know first which is your role, what are your expectation, what is the aim of the publication, language of publication,expertise of each of the contributors, number of persons involved, order of authors in the publication, who will be responsible for the cost of the publication, publications with images are usually more expensive, what is the material to be used, what type of review article do you expect to write, systematic review need to have a protocol before you start doing it and it is a lot of work, it also requires experienced librarians. For any publication it requires direct access to science information. Will you be doing the literature search and analysis of the literature?. Hope these questions will help you to frame your request which likely will need to be focus on one subject at the time.

The other highly valuable way to collaborate is being a reviewer. Please indicate if it is that what you are looking for.

These sorts of questions are often used in epidemiological studies outside of psychiatry and by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System at the CDC. Whereas people tend to accept the validity of some categories, there is a tendency to reject self-reported, professionally diagnosed mental disorders. Some national surveys in Canada used this approach, and the epidemiological picture was actually quite reasonable (as it is also for conditions such as diabetes and asthma) - see attached. 

There are similar regulations about publication in indexed journals in the other country too and there are rules for promotion based on the publication but many other rules exist to adjust the effect of publication.

If I got for a summary:

1. PubMed is good for making a paper "Visible"

2. Impact Factor (ISI/Thomson Reuters) is good to show the formal "Usage" of a "Journal" in the literature (not necessarily the IMPACT and not necessarily one paper)

None of these shows the quality or real contribution to science because:

PubMed is mainly consists of MEDLINE and PubMed Central (PMC) and the criteria that any of these two resources use for inclusion of a journal have nothing to do with quality of the published work or the quality of the researcher. For example if you start publishing a journal in biomedical fields and could provide PDF and PMC-XML for your papers, the journal could be indexed in PMC and as the result it will be visible in PubMed. It is similar for MEDLINE, if you could consider some criteria that MEDLINE asks, the journal get indexed in MEDLINE too. I know MEDLINE- or ISI- or PMC-indexed journals that publish any paper after receiving a little money. So, it might be a promotion by payment!

Also it is the 'journal' that gets indexed and indexing the journal does not mean that my 'paper' had good quality.

I think the decision for promotion of a researcher should be based on a multi-factorial evaluation considering contribution of researcher to science or technology or practice (a change even small one), feedback from students, patents, knowledge translation, popularization of science, linking the academia and industry, getting grants from outside the university, continuous education, collaboration with other institutes and research team outside the university, region or even country, etc.

Check also the EMWA Professional Development Programme (EPDP) in http://www.emwa.org/training.html

Yes in this case you could name "Case series" ( instead of "case report") your article. Actually, what Nathan said is true, but there are a lot of journals, although with no or low impact factor, accepting case reports or in your case "case series".

Thanks

It does not work that way. You do not plan for numbers. You just make as many good papers as you can and aim them for publication in the best journals that will accept them. One paper will turn out to be brilliant, and everyone will call it the "Francis paper". Two will turn out to be good. Three will turn out to be mediocre. Two will be rejected outright. You will be so ashamed of the remaining two, that you never, never let them move off your hard drive.

Now, stop wondering and wander back to your Gastroenterology paper :-)

Yes, I agree with Dean. Many times I have felt that the effort done by non-Enlish Speakers when working in the medical writing field is not so much valorated by English speaking people. But anyway is part of the job.

Thanks to all.

As Dean has mentioned that IF is popular, despite the fact that it doesn't reveal actual impact of authors. If we talk about practical scenario, in India most of the funding agencies, high profile interview bodies, academic institutes and etc consider the IF as an important criteria to evaluate one's research potential (Plz note that I don't have idea about international status). Now if authors wants to improve their IF then they may have to bear loss on citations because most of the restricted access journals have high IFs. On the other hand, open access journals may help get more citations

but what about IFs then? There may be a few classic exceptions to the point, I have discussed here.

Springer has a interesting tool to help authors to find a suitable journal for their research among more than 2,600 publications. Perhaps, it might help you. See - http://www.springer.com/authors/journal+authors/journal+authors+academy?SGWID=0-1726414-12-837833-0

For journals that consider health equity as central to their mission, current impact factor indicators are sorely inadequate. We need to develop new instruments to measure impact of our publishing--both articles and journals--on health and social outcomes. That is, we need to go beyond the research community itself to find out how research is actually influencing policy and practice. MEDICC Review is working with a group of other publishers to explore how such instruments might be developed.

Since I am an evidence-based medical researcher (in advanced oncology), systematic reviews (SRs) (along with meta-analyses and critical appraisals) are my regular tools (including in preclinical research). So let me start by noting that there are two aspects to acquiring the skill set for conducting high-quality systematic reviews: (1) by following the internal guidelines of the EBM authorities, and (2) by detailed study of high quality examples.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROCEDURES: IN DEPTH

You are right to request detailed, practical real-time step-by-step guidelines rather than the loose outer framework of what known as the PRISMA approach. The best of these are:

(1) CDR's Systematic Reviews: CDR's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care (3rd Edition)

This excellent detailed handbook of the methods and steps necessary to conduct a systematic review

is from the authoritative Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York who publish the DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) Database of SRs.

At: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/SysRev3.htm

(2) The Joanna Brigg's Institute Reviewer's Manual

Detailed step-by-step procedures, from The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) at the University of Adelaide, a

Cochrane Collaboration and the Campbell Collaboration partner.

At: http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/Documents/JBIReviewManual_CiP11449.pdf

(3) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

From the renown Cochrane Collaboration, this is the most detailed but you may find the first two somewhat easier to commence with, then graduate to this handbook for all the advanced refinements, should that prove necessary, as a reference work although it has exceptional riches.

At: http://handbook.cochrane.org/

LEARNING BY ARCHETYPE / EXAMPLE

An excellent example of a systematic review of preclinical research is:

Do in vivo experimental models reflect human cerebral small vessel disease? A systematic review.

Written and conducted by Atticus Hainsworth and Hugh Markus at St. George's University of London, this represents a systematic review of in vivo models of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD), and provides in depth information on the the literature search used, the precise search terms, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, explicitly following the protocol of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

[J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2008; 28(12):1877-91]

At: http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v28/n12/full/jcbfm200891a.html

OTHER EXAMPLES

The University of Edinburgh operates the excellent in-progress CAMARADES collaboration that Alison Booth above shrewdly recommended, with which I would wholeheartedly agree. Their Protocols for Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies page includes several fine examples:

At: http://www.camarades.info/index_files/Protocols.html

plus some detailed monographs:

At: http://www.camarades.info/index_files/CMs.htm

PRESENTSATIONS AND MODEL PAPERS

In addition Malcolm Macleod, mentioned by Alison above, has done pioneer work in SRs in animal models of stroke, and he was the keynote speaker at an International Symposium on Systematic Reviews in Laboratory Animal Science sponsored by SYRCLE (SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation) at Radboud Univeristy Nijmegen Medical Centre in The Netherlands. The presentation is available

At: http://www.umcn.nl/Research/Departments/cdl/SYRCLE/Documents/RAD121249%20NCEBP%20progrboekje%20symposium.pdf

and I think must reading is the SYRCLE authors' paper on:

A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies

which provides exceptional and detailed step-by-step guidance and examples on the search / identification phase of preclinical systematic reviews:

At: http://la.rsmjournals.com/content/early/2011/09/15/la.2011.011087.full.pdf

Constantine Kaniklidis

Director of Medical Research,

No Surrender Breast Cancer Foundation (NSBCF)

European Association for Cancer Research (EACR)

Okay. Thank you for the explanation. :)

It all depends on the problem of research and to some extent the branch of knowledge in which the research is being carried out. Even in some disciplines like mathematics, sometimes even this limit of words is also not applicable.

From my own little experience: a discussion is powerful when it achieves the following:

1. Focusing on your results and comparing your work with the most updated previous studies --- comparing with relatively old references will weaken the work --- I saw some historical references and obsolete opinions.

2. Targeting to the aim of the work and presenting new explanation to a specific (subject) based o your own experience --- this will be more beneficial for any researcher or specialist --- your personal experience.

3. An excellent discussion is the result of an excellent choice of the subject and its success will validate your whole work and will promote others to continue in the same aim after you .... specially when the results are of value.