The 6Ps of Preparing a Manuscript: Prior Preparation Prevents Potentially Poor Performance.

The process of writing a scientific document, whether it be a PhD thesis, a paper, review, chapter, book or even a book series, always begins with only one word. Why can writing a manuscript be so difficult to start? If there are sufficient data for the task, there is only one reason; vacillation. To address this serious and psychologically debilitating issue, this perspective will discuss the ethos of publishing and provide a solution for vacillation. The concept of sufficient novel data will be examined along with the criteria for identifying an appropriate home for a manuscript. The bare process of preparation will be described, which ultimately relies on discipline, routine, formatting and further discipline, with the ultimate goal being the production and quality control of a manuscript of the highest quality that you can achieve. The value of the secondary literature, namely reviews, chapters and books will be highlighted, specifically with regard to the building of a reputation and leaving a lasting legacy. The psychology of publishing, particularly dealing with success and failure will be covered, as this topic is often overlooked, and can have serious and deleterious mental health consequences. A balanced view of publication metrics will be given, showing that such factors are in some cases, purely a business strategy for publishing houses. Ideas to build one's career through networking, reviewing and being an ambassador for one's discipline are also given. As a former member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of Natural Products (2018-2022), an overview of the manuscript writing process from a personal and professional perspective is emphasized to encourage all to avoid the trials and tribulations of procrastination.

Analysis of Top 100 Articles Cited in Top Pain Journals: A Comprehensive Two Decade Bibliometric Analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A bibliometric analysis was performed to analyze and compare the top 100 articles from the most well-known five pain journals: Pain, Pain Physician, Pain Medicine, Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, and Journal of Pain. A query of the Scopus database was performed to filter the top 200 most cited articles from each journal. CY score was calculated for the top 200 articles from each journal by dividing the total number of citations by the number of years the article has been published. RECENT FINDINGS: All articles had a collective analysis of the top CY scores, the top 100 of which were further analyzed. The pain subtype, type of publication, country of origin, and senior author were extrapolated from these top 100 articles. Frequency tables were organized, revealing Pain Journal as the highest publishing journal out of the top 100 articles. Chronic pain was the most studied subtype of pain and narrative reviews were the most common type of evidence. Studies were also organized in five-year epochs to analyze the frequency of publications in these intervals. Results show that 2010-2014 had the highest frequency of articles published overall. Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is also an objective indicator of the average number of citations per published article from each journal. The journal with the highest JIF was Pain with an impact factor of 7.926. (6).

Writing manuscripts for peer review.

Little instruction in writing manuscripts for peer review is provided in nursing school or medical school. To relatively inexperienced would-be authors, including junior physicians and allied health professionals, this avenue of professional communication may sometimes seem to be unattainable. Yet many of them are energetic and insightful, and have the potential to make contributions to the literature. This article aims to provide an explanation of the components of the peer review manuscript and advice regarding how to go about writing one so as to overcome the writer's block that inexperienced authors may frequently experience.

Letters generated by ChatGPT: Author who?

AIM: ChatGPT's role in medical writing is a topic of discussion. I experimented whether ChatGPT almost automatically generates Correspondence or Letter addressed to a "translated" article, and thereby wish to arouse discussion regarding ChatGPT use in medical writing. METHODS: I input an English article of mine into ChatGPT, tasking it with generating an English Disagreement Letter (Letter 1). Next, I tasked ChatGPT with translating the manuscript addressed to from English-French-Spanish-German. Then, I once again tasked ChatGPT with generating an English Disagreement Letter addressed to a German manuscript (triplicate translated manuscript) (Letter 2). RESULTS: Letters 1 and 2 are readable and reasonable, shooting the point that the author (myself) felt as the weakness of the article. Letters addressed to French (single translation) and to Spanish (double translation) and longer Letters (corresponding to Letters 1 and 2) are also readable, and thus stand. CONCLUSIONS: Solely based on this experiment, one may be able to write a letter even without understanding the meaning of the paper being addressed, let alone the language of the paper. Although this humble experiment does not conclude anything, I plea for a comprehensive discussion on the implications of these findings.

AI-generated text in otolaryngology publications: a comparative analysis before and after the release of ChatGPT.

PURPOSE: This study delves into the broader implications of artificial intelligence (AI) text generation technologies, including large language models (LLMs) and chatbots, on the scientific literature of otolaryngology. By observing trends in AI-generated text within published otolaryngology studies, this investigation aims to contextualize the impact of AI-driven tools that are reshaping scientific writing and communication. METHODS: Text from 143 original articles published in JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery was collected, representing periods before and after ChatGPT's release in November 2022. The text from each article's abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion were entered into ZeroGPT.com to estimate the percentage of AI-generated content. Statistical analyses, including T-Tests and Fligner-Killeen's tests, were conducted using R. RESULTS: A significant increase was observed in the mean percentage of AI-generated text post-ChatGPT release, especially in the abstract (from 34.36 to 46.53%, p = 0.004), introduction (from 32.43 to 45.08%, p = 0.010), and discussion sections (from 15.73 to 25.03%, p = 0.015). Publications of authors from non-English speaking countries demonstrated a higher percentage of AI-generated text. CONCLUSION: This study found that the advent of ChatGPT has significantly impacted writing practices among researchers publishing in JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, raising concerns over the accuracy of AI-created content and potential misinformation risks. This manuscript highlights the evolving dynamics between AI technologies, scientific communication, and publication integrity, emphasizing the urgent need for continued research in this dynamic field. The findings also suggest an increasing reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT, raising questions about their broader implications for scientific publishing.

Publishing particulars: Part 3. General writing tips, editing, and responding to peer review.

In Part 3 of this Perspective on Publishing Particulars, I begin by providing several general writing tips to consider when developing a manuscript for publication. I then discuss the process involved in rigorously editing research papers and advance some important considerations for manuscript submission. I next share my thoughts and recommendations when attempting to interpret and respond to comments from the manuscript peer review process. Finally, I discuss author responsibilities after a manuscript is accepted for publication. Overall, this portion of the 3-part commentary seeks to complete a broader discussion on publishing in the biomedical sciences aimed at better informing early-stage investigators about many of the nuances of this critical area of professional development.

Publishing particulars: Part 2. Tips for effective manuscript development.

In Part 2 of this Perspective on Publishing Particulars, I share several recommendations with early-career stage investigators for how to successfully develop a competitive manuscript for publication. In the initial section, I first discuss how to organize content most effectively for an original research article by creating a "storyboard" of the key results, including the sequence in which they will be presented. I then emphasize the importance of rigorously outlining all the information to be presented in the manuscript before attempting to write the text. In the second section, I comprehensively discuss tactical approaches for developing the specific component parts of an original research paper, including the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results and illustrations, and Discussion, as well as strategies for referencing the text. In the final section, I provide suggestions for how to best develop a compelling review article. The topics discussed include how to view the opportunity; selecting authors and defining their respective roles; identifying the foundational components of the text; conducting a comprehensive review of the target published literature; and organizing, writing, and illustrating the article.

Publishing particulars: Part 1. The big picture.

In Part 1 of this Perspective on Publishing Particulars, I share my thoughts on several key issues related to publishing in academic biomedical research for early-career stage investigators. Among the topics discussed are the importance of publishing peer-reviewed manuscripts, considerations associated with different types of publications, how frequently you should publish, how to select a scientific journal for your manuscript, and navigating authorship questions, including who should be an author, authorship order, and who should write a manuscript. The goal of this first part of the Perspective is to lay a "foundation" of basic knowledge on the publication process from which to discuss more specific aspects of manuscript development in Parts 2 and 3.

Ponderings on peer review. Part 2. Manuscript critiques.

In part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed general principles of scientific peer review in the biomedical sciences aimed at early-stage investigators (i.e., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty). Here in part 2, I share my thoughts specifically on the topic of peer review of manuscripts. I begin by defining manuscript peer review and discussing the goals and importance of the concept. I then describe the organizational structure of the process, including the two distinct stages involved. Next, I emphasize several important considerations for manuscript reviewers, both general points and key considerations when evaluating specific types of papers, including original research manuscripts, reviews, methods articles, and opinion pieces. I then advance some practical suggestions for developing the written critique document, offer advice for making an overall recommendation to the editor (i.e., accept, revise, reject), and describe the unique issues involved when assessing a revised manuscript. Finally, I comment on how best to gain experience in the essential academic research skill of manuscript peer review. In part 3 of the series, I will discuss the topic of reviewing grant applications submitted to research funding agencies.

Peer review? No thanks!

The peer review process is an inalienable necessity in the modern scientific world. Published manuscripts are founded on feedback, a process in which reviewers evaluate the scientific values of the submitted paper and provide comments and criticisms. The aim of this process is to assist authors by improving their papers, to promote good science. The peer-review process can be represented as a hurdle race with the ultimate prize of innovative accurate scientific knowledge being published. In this process, we have on the one side the authors and originators of ideas and on the other editors and reviewers. In the process of publishing a scientific article, it is important to respect the time and efforts of both actors.

A Deep Learning Approach for Arabic Manuscripts Classification.

For centuries, libraries worldwide have preserved ancient manuscripts due to their immense historical and cultural value. However, over time, both natural and human-made factors have led to the degradation of many ancient Arabic manuscripts, causing the loss of significant information, such as authorship, titles, or subjects, rendering them as unknown manuscripts. Although catalog cards attached to these manuscripts might contain some of the missing details, these cards have degraded significantly in quality over the decades within libraries. This paper presents a framework for identifying these unknown ancient Arabic manuscripts by processing the catalog cards associated with them. Given the challenges posed by the degradation of these cards, simple optical character recognition (OCR) is often insufficient. The proposed framework uses deep learning architecture to identify unknown manuscripts within a collection of ancient Arabic documents. This involves locating, extracting, and classifying the text from these catalog cards, along with implementing processes for region-of-interest identification, rotation correction, feature extraction, and classification. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, achieving an accuracy rate of 92.5%, compared to 83.5% with classical image classification and 81.5% with OCR alone.

Peer review practices in academic medicine: how the example of orthopaedic surgery may help shift the paradigm?

PURPOSE: To establish the current peer-reviewed practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery and correlate these to the journal's impact factor. Unfortunately, this is not receiving much attention and a critical literature gap in various disciplines; thus, determining the current practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery could provide valid insight that may be potentially applicable to other academic medicine disciplines as well. METHODS: Orthopaedic surgery journals belonging to the Journal Citation Reports were queried, and the following was extracted: impact factor (IF) and blinding practices: single (SBPR), double (DBPR), triple (TBPR), quadruple (QBPR), and open (OPR) blinding review process and possibility of author-suggested reviewer (ASR) and non-preferred reviewer (NPR) options. RESULTS: Of the 82 journals, four were excluded as they allowed submission by invitation only. In the remaining, blinding was as follows: SBPR nine (11.5%), DBPR 52 (66.7%), TBPR two (2.6%), QBPR zero (0%), and OPR three (3.8%), and in 12 (15.4%), this was unclear. ASR and NPR options were offered by 34 (43.6%) and 27 (34.6%) journals respectively, whereas ASR was mandatory in eight (10.2%). No correlation between IF and any other parameter was found. CONCLUSION: The rules of the "game" are unclear/not disclosed in a significant number of cases, and the SBPR system, along with the ASR (mandatory sometimes) and NPR, is still extensively used with questionable integrity and fairness. Several recommendations are provided to mitigate potentially compromising practices, along with future directions to address the scarcity of research in this critical aspect of science.

The Use of Crystal Violet Degradation Products for Ballpoint Pen Ink Manuscript Dating.

Determining the approximate dates that written documents were drawn up based on the chemical composition of the ink is not a simple process. It is very demanding in terms of legal requirements. Various studies have succeeded in dating manuscripts by analyzing the temporal evolutions of the concentrations of dyes and solvents in documents based on the original formulations of the ink pens. These analyses were carried out simultaneously by HPLC-DAD for dyes and by GC-MS for solvents. This study aims, for the first time, to evaluate novel ink compounds and the temporal evolution of the concentrations of the degradation products of the dyes used by most suppliers and which are present in almost all types of ballpoint inks, i.e., Crystal Violet (CV). CV degrades through two parallel pathways: on the one hand, it undergoes progressive demethylation until it becomes pararosaniline, and on the other, it undergoes a breakdown of the molecule obtaining, among other by-products, the compound N,N'-Dimethyl-4-aminophenol (NNAPH), that was experimentally verified using four different inks (e.g., Inoxcrom® and Sigma® brands, in blue and black). For the NNAPH compound, we observed that four of the inks under analysis displayed the same temporary behavior despite having different initial chemical compositions. These initial results show the high potential for both CV and NNAPH, together with the rest of the pararosaniline family, as age tracers for dated/old documents. These techniques may potentially open up new avenues for universal dating tools, regardless of the brands of ink employed for use in different ballpoint pen types.

What does rejection look like? A photovoice study on emotions and coping regarding manuscript rejection.

The study aimed to illustrate the emotions related to manuscript rejection experiences and coping strategies. We conducted individual interviews and focus groups with academics receiving at least one rejection in the last year using the photovoice method. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis based on the pictures and interviews. The findings indicated that the participants had negative emotional responses to desk rejections and peer-review rejections. We observed that the participants resorted to three strategies; avoidant strategies, neutral (neither approach nor avoidant) strategies, and approach strategies to cope with manuscript rejection. Avoidant strategies consisted of denial, self-distraction, and venting, while approach strategies included acceptance, support, planning, and positive reframing. Our study revealed that neutral strategies had humor as the only dimension. It also highlighted the significance of addressing the emotions and opinions of academics with rejection experiences. The findings also guide the coping strategies. The implications include awareness-raising activities at both individual and institutional levels.

A Scoping Review on Medicinal Properties of Piper betle (Sirih) Based on Malay Medical Manuscripts and Scientific Literatures.

Background: Malay medical manuscripts have deciphered the medicinal value of Piper betle (sirih) enormously. In this review, an effort was made to explore the medicinal use of P. betle and correlate this information with the scientific evidence. Methods: The information regarding the use of P. betle was retrieved from the books consisting of a Malay medical manuscript with an identification number MSS 2219 from the National Library of Malaysia. PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus databases were used to collect information regarding the scientific evidence for the medicinal use of P. betle. This review was written following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The keywords used for searching the articles included P. betle, antimicrobial, analgaesic, haepatic and gastric. Results: MSS 2219 showed that P. betle has varied medicinal uses and based on that, it can be grouped into six categories. P. betle application method was different in different conditions. In terms of the literature search, 226 articles were found, 75 articles were extracted for detailed analysis and only 23 met the inclusion criteria. The information was related to the chemical assays, in vivo and in vitro studies. Conclusion: In summary, P. betle has the potential to treat medical conditions in various types of categories as recorded in the Malay medical manuscripts and also based on scientific publications. For clinical purposes, more information is required, such as the specific mechanism involved, the best extraction method and the best dosage for treatment.

Spectrum of germline pathogenic variants using a targeted next generation sequencing panel and genotype-phenotype correlations in patients with suspected hereditary breast cancer at an academic medical centre in Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, affecting over 1.5 million women every year, which accounts for the highest number of cancer-related deaths in women globally. Hereditary breast cancer (HBC), an important subset of breast cancer, accounts for 5-10% of total cases. However, in Low Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), the population-specific risk of HBC in different ethnicities and the correlation with certain clinical characteristics remain unexplored. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients who visited the HBC clinic and proceeded with multi-gene panel testing from May 2017 to April 2020. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze clinical characteristics of patients. Fisher's exact, Pearson's chi-squared tests and Logistic regression analysis were used for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used for quantitative variables. For comparison between two independent groups, Mann-Whitney test was performed. Results were considered significant at a p value of < 0.05. RESULTS: Out of 273 patients, 22% tested positive, 37% had a VUS and 41% had a negative genetic test result. Fifty-five percent of the positive patients had pathogenic variants in either BRCA1 or BRCA2, while the remaining positive results were attributed to other genes. Patients with a positive result had a younger age at diagnosis compared to those having a VUS and a negative result; median age 37.5 years, IQR (Interquartile range) (31.5-48). Additionally, patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) were almost 3 times more likely to have a positive result (OR = 2.79, CI = 1.42-5.48 p = 0.003). Of all patients with positive results, 25% of patients had a negative family history of breast and/or related cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In our HBC clinic, we observed that our rate of positive results is comparable, yet at the higher end of the range which is reported in other populations. The importance of expanded, multi-gene panel testing is highlighted by the fact that almost half of the patients had pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2, and that our test positivity rate would have only been 12.8% if only BRCA1/2 testing was done. As the database expands and protocol-driven referrals are made across the country, our insight about the genetic architecture of HBC in our population will continue to increase.

From Practice to Publication: The Promise of Writing Workshops.

Practitioners in health departments, university extension programs, and nonprofit organizations working in public health face varied challenges to publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. These practitioners may lack time, support, skills, and efficacy needed for manuscript submission, which keeps them from sharing their wisdom and experience-based evidence. This exclusion can contribute to literature gaps, a failure of evidence-based practice to inform future research, reduced ability to educate partners, and delays in advancing public health practice. Our article describes the writing workshops offered to Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded programs in 2021. This project consisted of three 60-minute introductory writing webinars open to all recipients, followed by a Writing for Publications workshop, an 8- to 9-week virtual learning/writing intensive for selected writing team applicants. The Society for Public Health Education staff, consultants, and CDC/DNPAO staff developed, refined, and presented the curriculum. The workshop for public health practitioner writing teams was offered to two cohorts and included extensive coaching and focused on potential submission to a Health Promotion Practice supplement, "Reducing Chronic Disease through Physical Activity and Nutrition: Public Health Practice in the Field" (see Supplemental Material), which was supported by CDC/DNPAO. We describe the webinars, the workshop design, modifications, evaluation methods and results.

Dissemination of doctor of nursing practice project findings: Benefits and challenges associated with publishing in healthcare journals.

BACKGROUND: Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs require a project to improve outcomes in a health care setting. However, dissemination methods vary. PURPOSE: This evaluation examined benefits and challenges associated with submitting project manuscripts to a peer-reviewed health care journal in a DNP program with this requirement. METHODS: Benefits and challenges were assessed with surveys completed by 85 DNP program alumni and 28 DNP mentors and by interviewing 5 faculty who teach in the DNP program and 5 editors of nursing journals. FINDINGS: Benefits of completing a manuscript included sharing knowledge to improve health care outcomes and enhancing nursing scholarship. Among alumni, 81% reported manuscript development was beneficial and 69% published their work. Most students, most faculty, and all editors endorsed the requirement with alternatives for projects lacking rigor or innovation. Challenges included need for faculty involvement and editorial/statistical resources. DISCUSSION: Despite challenges, there are benefits of publishing rigorous and innovative DNP work.

Incidence of Scholarly Publication by Selected Content Experts Presenting at National Society Foot and Ankle Meetings From 2016 to 2020.

Continuing medical education (CME) is an important element to maintain licensing requirements, enhance professional competence, and disseminate up to date, evidence-based, treatment recommendations. A key resource of CME are the 2 annual society meetings hosted by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). It is assumed that the selected speakers at these meetings are content experts, providing validated expertise on treatment recommendations, rather than anecdotal experience or opinion. Across all medical specialists, peer-reviewed publication(s) on a particular subject matter have long bestowed the ultimate validity of "expertise." The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of scholarly publication for invited speakers at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020, in relation to the topic they were selected to present. A review of invited lectures given at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020 was conducted, and lecturer demographics were categorized into predetermined content areas for assessment. Selected speakers were individually cross-referenced with content-specific peer-reviewed published literature, and overall h-index using Scopus. Topic and society specific comparisons were then made. Overall, 1028 lectures were identified during the temporal period. Only 300 (29.18%) presentations were given by a speaker with least one or more publication on the society specific lecture-topic presented. The greatest proportion of lecturers with content-specific publications was Charcot reconstruction (67.57%) followed by ankle fusion/replacement (55%). The average presenter h-index was greatest among total ankle replacement/ankle fusion (12.16 ± 6.90) and Charcot reconstruction (11.27 ± 7.10) content. The results of the present study illustrate a disparity of expertise among different content areas. While both meetings provide well-published lecturers, this study reveals areas for improvement.

One-year follow-up of chest CT findings in patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the 1-year outcome of COVID-19 is limited. The aim of this study was to follow-up and evaluate lung abnormalities on serial computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 from the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine was conducted, with assessments of chest CT during hospitalization and at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after hospital discharge. Risk factors of residual CT opacities and the influence of residual CT abnormalities on pulmonary functions at 1 year were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were followed in this study. Gradual recovery after hospital discharge was confirmed by the serial CT scores. Around 47% of the patients showed residual aberration on pulmonary CT with a median CT score of 0 (interquartile range (IQR) of 0-2) at 1 year after discharge, with ground-glass opacity (GGO) with reticular pattern as the major radiologic pattern. Patients with residual radiological abnormalities were older (p = 0.01), with higher rate in current smokers (p = 0.04), higher rate in hypertensives (p = 0.05), lower SaO2 (p = 0.004), and higher prevalence of secondary bacterial infections during acute phase (p = 0.02). Multiple logistic regression analyses indicated that age was a risk factor associated with residual radiological abnormalities (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15, p = 0.02). Pulmonary functions of total lung capacity (p = 0.008) and residual volume (p < 0.001) were reduced in patients with residual CT abnormalities and were negatively correlated with CT scores. CONCLUSION: During 1-year follow-up after discharge, COVID-19 survivors showed continuous improvement on chest CT. However, residual lesions could still be observed and correlated with lung volume parameters. The risk of developing residual CT opacities increases with age.