| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Editor's Notes |
rebeccacraik{at}apta.org
dlriddle{at}vcu.edu
How many times have you tried to assemble something, only to realize that, if you had read the instructions first, your job would have been so much easier? If you've ever tried to put together one of those furniture "kits" by gluing first and reading the instructions later, you know exactly what we mean. Assembling a manuscript for submission to a peer-reviewed scientific journal also requires a step-by-step process. And, like those furniture kits, if the instructions aren't followed, the final product might not turn out quite as expected.
All journals provide authors with guidance on expectations regarding the format and content of submissions, usually through explicit instructions to authors. Some journals provide extensive guidance; others provide instructions that are quite brief. In an ideal world of peer review, all journals would agree on the best way to present (and analyze) research, so that authors could use the same set of guidelines to submit to all journals. In reality, of course, there is no consensus on the "one best way." Each journal has to emphasize different criteria to meet its own unique mission.
Schriger and colleagues1 recently conducted a study to determine the extent of variation in the author instructions of highly ranked peer-reviewed health care journals. Because these researchers were interested in assessing the quality of instructions for the best journals in health care, they reviewed the instructions of 166 journals with impact factor ratings in the top 5 for 33 different clinical categories. Fewer than half of the 166 journals’ instructions provided information on statistical methods. Only 40% made reference to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals,2 and only 22% cited CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), the standard for reporting results of randomized clinical trials.
At first blush, the study by Schriger et al might seem rather dry. The extent of variation in author instructions is not the most alluring topic. The implications of these findings can be profound, however. Some of the best journals in health care do not require authors to include information that is critical for judging scientific credibility—a topic of utmost importance for physical therapists who want to apply evidence to practice.
We at PTJ have been working over the past year to improve our Information for Authors. After reviewing the instructions of the top journals, we chose those of the Annals of Internal Medicine as a template for revising our own policy for the submission of research-based papers. Our new guidelines (http://www.ptjournal.org/misc/ifora.dtl) are divided into 3 sections. Section 1 describes requirements for data presentation; section 2 summarizes suggested (not required) strategies for common analytic approaches; and section 3 outlines format requirements for specific manuscript types. Throughout the guidelines, links are provided to various resources within and beyond PTJ that shed light on various issues related to manuscript submission. Our intent was to develop guidelines that would be clear and specific without being burdensome for authors.
Who benefits? First and foremost, our readers, who will begin to see information presented in a consistent way. Manuscripts will have approximately the same length and will not be overly long, and the formats for tables and figures will be similar. And, for the first time, we will provide authors with suggestions for analytic approaches that should assist readers in better interpreting the research findings that are published in PTJ. We also will require the use of consensus-based standards like the CONSORT flow diagram in randomized trials. The format that authors will use for each type of research paper will be standardized, so the reader can expect to see the same layout when reading, for example, studies of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. The reader truly stands to gain from the standardization that this policy establishes—standardization that eventually will help researchers conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses that can provide the physical therapy profession with data to support clinical practice guidelines.
What's the benefit to authors? With a clear understanding of our criteria for content and layout, authors will be in a much better position to prepare a manuscript that meets or exceeds our expectations. Reviewers will benefit because they will use the guidelines as a template, in combination with their content expertise, for judging the credibility of papers submitted for review. In short, our submission policy will help keep the reader, the author, and the review team on the same page because expectations are spelled out up front for everyone!
Instructions to authors should work to optimize quality of content and to clarify the goals of peer review and the editorial process.1 Our new policy is similar to the policies of Annals of Internal Medicine and the Journal of the American Cancer Institute— which are judged to be among the highest level of peer-reviewed journals in health care.1 We want to emphasize, however, that our new policy is a work in progress and that we will continue to make improvements over time.
To give our authors an opportunity to become familiar with the policy, our start date for implementing the guidelines will be January 1, 2008. It is our hope that this policy will further enhance the quality and utility of the research we publish and that our readership will be the primary beneficiary of these changes.
What's next? New guidelines for case reports. More on that next month.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to the Editorial Board for helping to develop PTJ's new guidelines for research-based manuscripts, in particular, Diane Jette, PT, DSc, and Christopher Maher, PT, PhD.
References
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
