Publish or Perish: Philosophy and Practice - Aristea · Publish or Perish: Philosophy and Practice Dennis M. Bier, M.D. Editor-in-Chief The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Publish or Perish: Philosophy and Practice

Dennis M. Bier, M.D.

Editor-in-Chief

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Disclosures • In my youth, I was guilty of essentially every indiscretion

that I will discuss.

• I have consulted for, and received payment from, several

governments, various NGOs, academic societies,

disease-oriented associations & wide variety of food and

drug companies. I am completely conflicted.

• I won’t mention any Industry products. Academic

products are more than sufficient to make my case.

Don’t worry. Your paper will be published.

Any study can get published.

> 8,700 journals; ~5,000 with Impact Factor >1

The issue is not getting published, but getting

published where you want your work to appear.

Little evidence-based data on how to achieve this

Lots of eminence-based data, like mine.

>15,000 manuscripts as editor of The AJCN.

Remember, expert opinion is at the bottom of the

evidence-based hierarchy.

Bier’s Publication Principles

A publication is only as good as the

study it reports.

The quality of a study is proportional to

the quality of the question.

“Often, the approximate answer to the right question is preferable to the

precise answer to the wrong question.” (John Tukey)

Bier’s Publication Principles

Frame the question as an hypothesis.

This will simplify writing the paper.

Hypothesis = simple declarative sentence.

“Yes” or “No” answer

“No” answer is as important as “yes” answer

All the easy questions have been answered

Hypothesis-Driven Manuscript Architecture

Introduction

States hypothesis; explains how you derived it.

Methods

Details how you tested your hypothesis

Results

Provides the raw, un-interpreted data

Discussion

Explains whether the data answer the question

Discusses limitations and implications of findings

How To Write Science [Fiction] Stories

There is only one editorial dictum – scientific

accuracy.

[The story] must be an exposition of a scientific

theme and it must be also a story. As a story, it

must be interesting.

Don’t fall into the misapprehension that, because

your story has plenty of science in it, a plot is

therefore unnecessary.

Hugo Gernsback Writers Digest 10:27-29, 1930

Selecting The Journal

Define audience you want to reach.

Choose the best journal in the field.

Your work should always be highest quality.

You generally get the most rigorous review

Reach most discerning & influential readers

Paper will have the highest visibility

Best support for grants and promotion

Most satisfying, personally & professionally

Journal Impact Factor

Measures frequency that an average article is cited.

A running two-year average

All 2015 citations of articles published in 2013 & 2014

divided by sum of all papers published in 2013 + 2014

Reflects currently perceived scientific “value” of a

journal’s articles and, indirectly, of the journal itself.

It does not measure the “value” of your paper.

Selected 2015 Impact Factors NEJM (59.6)

Nature (38.1)

Lancet (44.0)

Science (34.7)

JAMA (37.7)

BMJ (19.7)

Lancet Diabetes/Endo (16.3)

J Clin Invest (12.6)

Diabetes Care (8.9)

Diabetes (8.8)

J Clin Endocrinol Metab (6.2)

Annu Rev Nutr (6.8)

Am J Clin Nutr (6.7)

Nutrition Rev (5.6)

Adv Nutr (5.4)

Internat J Obesity (5.3)

Proc. Nutr. Soc (4.7)

J Nutr (3.9)

Obesity (3.6)

Eur J Nutr (3.5)

J Parenteral Enteral Nutr (3.5)

Brit J Nutr (3.3)

2015 Journal Citation Reports

Relative Ranks of 8,757 Journals Impact Factor

15.0

9.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

2.0

1.0

Percentile

1.0

2.5

5.0

7.0

11.0

36.7

66.6

How Are You Doing?

Science Citation Index

Other indices H-Index, G-Index, Age-Weighted Citation Rate, etc.

Publish or Perish Software and Book

www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or perish

New Tracking Software

HighWire Press Impact Vizor Citation tracker & distribution surveyor, rejected article & hot article trackers, etc.

Altmetric, Mendeley, CiteULike, etc.

Authorship Criteria

Substantial Contributions to all of the following:

Study conception & design, or acquisition of data, or analysis & interpretation

Drafting & critical revision of the article for important intellectual content

Final approval of the version to be published

Authorship is not justified by:

Participation solely in the collection of data

Acquisition of funding

General supervision of the research group

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take

public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

International Council of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org/)

Advice

Get statistical help.

Get statistical help before you start study!

Get statistical help as you:

Design the study!

Write the paper!

Respond to the reviewers!

Reviewers

It may help to suggest qualified reviewers

Shows desire to compete at the highest level

Don’t suggest your friends or those with few credentials.

A Pub-Med search of their expertise is only a mouse click away.

Your friends may not be as friendly as you think.

It doesn’t hurt to suggest excluding reviewers with

potential biases or conflicts

But editors may consider these to be precisely the

opinions they want to hear for a fully-informed judgment.

Reviewers’ Common Manuscript Criticisms

Fundamental Problem with the Question

No clear question or explicit hypothesis

Insignificant or irrelevant question

Little or nothing new

Incremental permutation of what’s already known

Poor experimental design & inadequate statistics

Erroneous or unsupported conclusions

Over-interpretation of data

Failure to acknowledge flaws

How To Annoy The Editor Prior or duplicate publications

Non-declaration of work published in languages other than English

Multiple publications from same study

Related data should be reported in one comprehensive manuscript

Several poor publications often replace one good paper

Primary & secondary endpoints are often confused or inflated

Inconsistencies in results are difficult to uncover

Editor’s perspective: another journal gets some, maybe more, credit

Undeclared Conflicts of Interest

Authorship conflicts

Plagiarism

How To Avoid Annoying The Editor

Don’t waste the editor’s time

Follow the Journal’s Instructions To Authors.

Proofread the manuscript before submission

Clear & consistent text & figure legends; data agree with text

Don’t waste journal pages. They cost money. Limit figures, tables, references.

Don’t duplicate data presentation.

Keep the discussion short, focused, balanced Keep interpretations consistent with the data.

Describe how you did or did not answer the question.

Don’t inflate the importance of the findings.

It’s Not Accepted Until It’s Accepted

Letter 1: Accepted

Letter 2: Rejected with minor revisions Generally given opportunity to send in a revision

Letter 3: Rejected with major revisions My be given opportunity to resubmit

Letter 4: Rejected Encouragement to look elsewhere – i.e. really rejected

Letter 5: Rejected “Low priority” – i.e. really rejected, generally for “non scientific”

reasons, inappropriate for journal, etc.

Dealing With Rejection: No, It’s Not Personal.

Almost every published manuscript has been

revised at least once.

Revise before you submit to another journal.

Follow suggestions of reviewers and editors

and try to make most of the changes.

Detail each change & key to original critiques

If you disagree with referee, explain and

support the reasons for disagreement.

AJCN Disclosure Policies

Author Disclosures Signed COI Statement

Almost never disclose non-financial conflicts

Reviewer Disclosures Requested, but voluntary

Trial registration All studies for transparency reasons

Reporting Requirements CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, etc.

Disclosure Does Not Correct

Observational Bias Selection and Control Biases Randomization Bias & Concealment Analytical Bias Data Integrity Reporting Bias Publication Bias Allegiance and “White Hat” Biases Fabrication & Falsification

Registration Practices Are Imperfect

Observational studies avoid registration 1° & 2° endpoints rarely specified

Data analysis scheme is rarely presented a priori

Total number of observations are almost never specified

Corrections for testing multiple hypotheses are rarely applied

“p hacking” Investigator Degrees of Freedom are innumerable

RCTs change registration endpoints 5 major journals; 158 RCTs Ewart Ann Fam Med 7:542, 2009

37% changed one or more 1° endpoints

70% changed one or more 2° endpoints

Data are rarely made available for independent analysis & are often not replicable when they are

Research Misconduct

Discriminating unintentional errors from deliberate, intentional fraud can be difficult

From 1977 – 2011:

2047 papers were retracted in the biomedical and life sciences Higher Impact Factor journals were affected most often.

21% claimed unintentional errors

43% were fraud or suspected fraud

The rest were plagiarism & duplication

Müller et al European J Clin Nutr 2014;68:411-415

What is Considered Fraud?

Data Misuse Manipulation of results and/or their presentation

Deliberate concealment of undesired results

Invention and/or submission of false data Disposal of original data

Disturbing or interfering with the research of others

Deception in any form

Participation in the Misconduct of Others Joint knowledge of forgeries of others

Co-authorship of forged publication

Gross neglect of ethical & other responsibilities

Müller et al European J Clin Nutr 2014;68:411-415

Investigation & Consequences

Investigation

Primarily the responsibility of the university

Independent committee or Individual

Report to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity

Or to other appropriate private funding agencies

Consequences

Retraction of paper(s)

Prohibition from submitting grants and papers

Possible dismissal from faculty position

Possible criminal prosecution and prison