 |
Flaws in rejected manuscripts do not occur with random frequency. When a manuscript is evaluated for publication, inappropriate study design is the most common reason for rejection.
Authors should include complete and reproducible experimental details in the methods section.
|
|
Editors and peer reviewers ranked the most common deficiencies in the other three categories. The numbers represent the frequency of the observed deficiency.
|
| |
| Category |
Errors |
| Interpretation of Findings |
Conclusions not supported by data (61%)
Data not very conclusive (25%)
Data does not provide evidence of cause and effect (7%) |
| Importance of Research |
Results unoriginal, predictable, or trivial (79%)
Results have few or no clinical implications (13%)
Results of narrow interest, highly specialized (2%) |
| Presentation |
Inadequate or inappropriate presentation of data (32%)
Confused or contradictory rationale (25%)
No explanation of experimental design (25%) |
|
| |
paid to reporting the results and conclusion in a clear, concise, and interesting manner.
A possible explanation for a poorly written methods section is that researchers probably skip or skim the methods section when reading a medical journal; therefore, they give this section very little attention when they write their own papers.
|
|
Editors are more critical of language errors than peer reviewers.
Editors give more importance to the following:
|
| |
 |
Writing style |
|
Presentation |
|
Journal format and policy
|
|
|
The most common language-related errors observed are as follows |
| |
|
Wordiness (43%) |
|
Poor flow of ideas (21%)
|
|
| |
Authors should learn to write clear, concise, and logical sentences.
|
