And what to do after rejection?

Rejection means that the author's formal contribution to the editorial department of sci-tech periodicals has not been accepted by the editorial department. The method of manuscript rejection is stipulated in the contract of periodical manuscripts, which generally includes full-text rejection, partial rejection (no rejection of drawings), no rejection of manuscripts, etc., and rejection by post office or e-mail. Any form shall be subject to the official rejection letter or explanation of the editorial department. From the editor's point of view, the amount of manuscript rejection is one of the important objective indicators to measure the quality of periodicals. The high rejection rate shows that the journal is rich in manuscript sources and has a large choice of manuscripts. Usually, the rejection rate of high-quality and high-level journals is 70% ~ 90%; The rejection rate of medium-level journals is 40% ~ 70%; The quality of periodicals with rejection rate of 20% ~ 40% is difficult to guarantee; However, the rejection rate of periodicals is less than 20%, suggesting that the sources of periodicals are exhausted. The rejection rate of well-known medical sci-tech journals is about 50% ~ 80%. Before submitting a manuscript, the author can roughly guess the source of the manuscript from the publication cycle of the manuscript. Generally, in the journals with rich manuscripts, the probability of winning a manuscript is relatively low. The author should have an objective and correct evaluation of his manuscript, and then choose a suitable journal to contribute. ?

What are the main reasons for rejection and improvement measures?

There are many reasons for rejection. According to the analysis of the reasons for rejection in editing work, it is found that there are scientific, practical and novel problems in the design topic selection. Inconsistent with the magazine report; Lack of important information and data, which cannot be supplemented after withdrawal; The written expression is too poor to meet the basic requirements of publication; Conflict with the recent report plan of this magazine; There is a backlog of manuscripts in the editorial department and it will not be published in a short time. However, from the point of view of medical paper writing, some problems in scientific research design and writing can be improved through revision. Other reasons for rejection can be avoided or compensated by improving submission skills. ?

1. Problems and improvement measures in scientific research and design?

The problems existing in topic selection or scientific research design are interrelated, and a few of them can be explained or improved when revised, but more problems should be paid enough attention at the beginning of research work, otherwise the result will be "congenital defects" that cannot be made up after the article comes out. 1. The design scheme is not clear. Whether using randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials (clinical controlled trials), cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, general retrospective studies or general prospective studies, the design scheme is not explained at all in the article, which shows that the author is not clear about the difference in the demonstration intensity between the design scheme and different schemes, which affects the persuasiveness of the article. The correct way is to choose the best scheme to complete and implement the project after determining the project, and conduct research according to the requirements of the selected design scheme. When writing, explain clearly the basis of the research in the method part of the article and make it suitable for the selection of statistical methods and the expression of results. ?

2. There is no standard for the selection, diagnosis, inclusion and exclusion of research objects, and the credibility of observation objects is poor; Some animals are not properly selected, and their own organizational structure is quite different from the organizational basis of the diseases studied, so there is no similarity and comparability. The observed objects are unreliable, and the credibility of the intervention results is naturally affected. In fact, according to the article, many authors have certain basis for choosing observation objects, but they have not clearly stated them. The correct way is that all the observed objects, including experimental group, negative control group and positive control group, should clearly state their inclusion and exclusion criteria in the method, and it is best to quote authoritative literature or "gold standard" recognized by academic circles. If there is no existing "gold standard", it is the observation standard determined by the researcher himself, and the specific basis for the inclusion and exclusion of its observation results should also be explained, so as to show the rationality of the selection of observation objects or facilitate other readers to repeat. ?

3. I don't know how to determine the sample size, the sample size is too small; I don't know what random grouping really means. Different research designs have different requirements for sample size, which should be considered in the research design, and the basis for determining sample size should be clearly stated in the paper. Some articles have "random" grouping, but no random method is specified; The analysis of some unrepeatable retrospective materials, that is, random grouping, shows that the author is not clear about the concept of randomness. The correct way is to define the design scheme, calculate the sample size requirements according to different design schemes, and then group them according to the standard random method. The research design itself cannot be "random", so don't use the word "random" under any circumstances, otherwise it will affect the credibility of the article. ?

4. After grouping, the two groups did not do the balance test. Whether it is experimental research on patients or animals, the balance test between groups is not done or rarely done, or the two groups are only comparable in words, but the distribution of non-processing factors between the two groups is unbalanced, which has a great influence on the reliability of the results, and the value and evaluation of their papers are naturally affected. A good paper should have a balance test after random grouping, that is, two' or more' data lists of non-processing factors should be statistically tested, requiring P & gt0.05, and the two groups (or groups) should be comparable. ?

5. It is also a very common phenomenon that the research results have not been statistically processed or the statistical processing is incorrect. Statistical method is not introduced into the material method in this paper, but P value appears in the results. Improper selection of statistical methods or analysis errors are more common, because this problem is more complicated. When designing a research plan or processing research results, it is best to seek help from statistical professionals. If there are many statistical problems involved, it is best to ask a statistical professional to help you review after writing the paper. ?

6. The design of the control group is unreasonable or there is no control group. What contrast method is used in the paper must be clear. The choice of contrast must play a role in the comparison with the experimental group. The research papers without contrast can only be regarded as narrative research, and their demonstration intensity is very low. ?

7. Blind method is rarely used. The study of subjective factors that may affect the observation indexes of subjects or observers does not adopt blind design, which makes the results of the study, such as curative effect, unreliable and unscientific, which is also a problem that should be paid attention to in scientific research design. ?

8. Few papers deal with the mistakes that are easy to occur in research and their control. In a study, all kinds of biases often appear, so it is necessary to estimate in advance in the design and consider how to control biases, such as pollution and interference in preventive research and confusion and bias in pathogenic research, which will affect the credibility of the research results. ?

9. Insufficient research on long-term efficacy. The observation time in the curative effect study is too short to explain the therapeutic effect or fully reflect its exact and reliable curative effect.