Analysis of the study design and manuscript deficiencies in research articles submitted to Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Objective: To describe and analyse the study design and manuscript deficiencies in original research articles submitted to Emergency Medicine. Methods: This was a retrospective, analytical study. Articles were enrolled if the reports of the Section Editor and two reviewers were available. Data were extracted from these reports only. Outcome measures were the mean number and nature of the deficiencies and the mean reviewers’ assessment score. Results: Fifty‐seven articles were evaluated (28 accepted for publication, 19 rejected, 10 pending revision). The mean (± SD) number of deficiencies was 18.1 ± 6.9, 16.4 ± 6.5 and 18.4 ± 6.7 for all articles, articles accepted for publication and articles rejected, respectively (P = 0.31 between accepted and rejected articles). The mean assessment scores (0–10) were 5.5 ± 1.5, 5.9 ± 1.5 and 4.7 ± 1.4 for all articles, articles accepted for publication and articles rejected, respectively. Accepted articles had a significantly higher assessment score than rejected articles (P = 0.006). For each group, there was a negative correlation between the number of deficiencies and the mean assessment score (P > 0.05). Significantly more rejected articles ‘… did not further our knowledge’ (P = 0.0014) and ‘… did not describe background information adequately’ (P = 0.049). Many rejected articles had ‘… findings that were not clinically or socially significant’ (P = 0.07). Common deficiencies among all articles included ambiguity of the methods (77%) and results (68%), conclusions not warranted by the data (72%), poor referencing (56%), inadequate study design description (51%), unclear tables (49%), an overly long discussion (49%), limitations of the study not described (51%), inadequate definition of terms (49%) and subject selection bias (40%). Conclusions: Researchers should undertake studies that are likely to further our knowledge and be clinically or socially significant. Deficiencies in manuscript preparation are more frequent than mistakes in study design and execution. Specific training or assistance in manuscript preparation is indicated. See Commentary, page 407.

Using of “pseudo-second-order model” in adsorption

“…One common mistake is to cite papers that are devoid of the original information, but have used the original information of others to develop their own arguments (Taylor and Brown, 2001). A number of researchers pointed out that the rates of citation and quotation errors are unacceptably high in journals, which significantly diminishes the value of the reference list (Roach et al 1997;Siebers 2000).…”

The road less traveled: An Editor's journey

“…As I look back at my 20 years with EMA where I progressed from copy‐editor, when paper versions of articles covered in red biro corrections were posted off to the College, via various section editor roles to Editor and then finally Editor‐in‐Chief, I seek to understand in particular just why papers were rejected by the Journal. In 2001 Taylor found that deficiencies in manuscript preparation were more frequent than mistakes in study design and execution in those manuscripts rejected . This is still largely true today, particularly when statistical significance does not equate with clinical significance or medical relevance, and where an article ultimately does not further our knowledge, and fails the Gestalt ‘so what?’ test.…”

The appropriate use of references in a scientific research paper

“…This support may come from the authors’ own results, the results of others, or an authoritative statement based on the results of others 7 . Unfortunately, many authors fail to adequately reference such statements or facts, a mistake which is frequently detected during the peer review process and usually results in revision of the manuscript 6 …”

“…Unfortunately, the referencing of scientific papers is often poorly done 2–6 . Many authors regard the references as something relatively unimportant to the main text, yet inaccuracy may ruin its validity 7 .…”