Mohammad Bin Rashid Academy Medical Center, DHCC, UAE was the venue of this academic activity. Prof. Yousef Al Bastaki Director of Medical Education Dept. in Dubai Health Authority was the moving spirit behind this while others who played a vital role in its organizations included Mr. Ahmad Mandil from WHO EMRO, Dr. Hamid Yahya Hussain Prof. of Community and Family Medicine in DHA, Dr. Waleed Al-Faisal, Prof. Farhad Handjani and Mr. Shuakat Ali Jawaid President and Secretary of EMAME respectively. Other members of the Guest faculty included M. Phillip Dingwall Managing Editor EMHJ from WHO EMRO, Ms. Karen Shashok from Author AID (EMAME) and Phillip Purnell from Knowledge E.DUBAI: Eastern Mediterranean Association of Medical Editors (EMAME) in collaboration with Dubai Health Authority, Government of Dubai organized a three day Workshop on Scientific Writing and Publishing here from June 22-24Prof. Yousef Al Bastaki introduced the faculty members besides highlighting the aims and objectives stating that it will promote scientific writing skills among young academics and researchers. It will also familiarize the participants with authorship criteria, publication ethics besides submission guidelines. It will also introduce the Journal office set up, rights and responsibilities of Editors. He also gave details of the scientific programme spread over next two and a half days. The expected outcome of this workshop, he stated was to improve the quality of scientific writing by young health professionals which could result in good quality scientific manuscripts being published from the region. It will also increase the understanding of participants of the process involved in submission and publication of manuscripts. They will also gain practical experience in writing scientific articles and have better understanding of ethics of conduct and publishing health research so that they restrain from practices which later on lead to retraction of manuscripts. He also highlighted the importance of indigenous research. English language, he opined, was one of the main problems for the writers and they were also not aware of publication ethics including plagiarism.Speaking in the inaugural session Dr. Ahmad Mandil from WHO EMRO gave an overview of Scientific Writing and Publishing. A scientific publication, he stated, is a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal, peer reviewed book/book chapter. Non-traditional peer reviewed manuscripts include full paper published in proceedings book of a conference or symposium Master or Doctoral Thesis, dissertation, Reports of National Health related agencies like Ministry of Health, Documents or Monographs of health related agencies and NGOs. Structure of a scientific paper consists of Title, Authors, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Acknowledgement and References. The Title, he opined, must be simple, concise, informative, innovative, interesting. It should be considerate of target readership, avoid excessive adjectives, person, place and time of the study.Title must be simple, concise, informative, innovative, interesting- Ahmed MandilMethods should give complete details of the experiment while results should provide answers to questions raised in the introduction. The author should allow different level of readership appreciate and understand important outcome of the study. It should include description of the subjects, response rate, highlight important findings in tables, illustrations. The Discussion should answer research questions. It should also include supportive and non-supportive findings and draw conclusions. It should also state challenges, main findings, highlight shortcomings, compare results with published literature, discuss implications of the findings including possible recommendations. It is important to acknowledge contribution of funding agencies, persons not included in list of authors and contribution of those who helped in collection of data, facilitating of field work etc. He also offered some useful advice to the participants on how to make a presentation, contents of presentation, poster presentation and writing of references.Methods should cover how the study was designed, how, when and where it was carried out? How data was analyzed?-Shaukat Ali JawaidProf. Farhad Handjani talked about Types of scientific articles and mentioned Original articles, Review articles, Case Reports/Case series, and Brief or Short communications, Editorial, Correspondence. Original article produces new knowledge which can include randomized trials, intervention studies, cohort studies, epidemiological assessments, surveys and studies on screening and diagnostic tests. Data should be original and timely and current. Review article is an attempt by researchers to sum-up the current state of research on a particular topic. It usually focuses on advances and discoveries, indicates significant gaps in research in that particular field besides current debates. It can consist of literature reviews or systematic reviews. Review articles usually used to be written by those who are an authority on that subject but these days even the Postgraduates also write reviews. Sometimes it is written by invitation only with special format and set rules. Case reports and Case Series is a description of clinical condition which is not described before. It can be an unusual and reported presentation of some known clinical condition. It can describe unexpected beneficial response to a treatment, description of previously un-reported adverse reactions to treatment. Its format usually requires an abstract or summary and it has a specific writing format. Minoxidil for example was introduced as a drug for hypertension but when it resulted in hair growth, it was used as treatment for hair loss. This finding came from a case report. Brief or Short communication also usually has a structured abstract with limited word count, tables and figures. Correspondence or Letters to the Editor provide supporting information, clarification, criticism, correction or alternative explanations to the results in a previously published article in the journal. It may convey a political, psychosocial message which is related to the practice of medicine and research. Such communications are usually peer reviewed before publication and has a word limitation. Editorial, Prof. Farhad Handjani stated can be a short and pertinent review about a topic which is selected by an Editor. It can be commissioned to an external peer reviewer or expert who can focus commenting on a paper which is being published in the same issue. In Editorial, it is possible to include one’s personal beliefs about that particular topic. It usually has a deadline and it has to be ensured that the author does not have any financial ties to the companies. Other scientific write-ups include Photo Quiz, Medical Hypothesis, Viewpoints, Opinion Corner, Book Reviews, Diagnostic dilemmas, conference reports, poetry, Art of Medicine and obituary notes etc. Details of Tumor Board, Grand Round can also be included in scientific write-ups. He concluded his presentation by quoting Samuel Johnson that “What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure”.Dr. Ahmed Mandil who talked about Web Medical Search Engines. It is used for literature search while writing papers to find out what has already been done and what information is already available on that particular topic locally, nationally, in the region and internationally. Some of the important Web based search engines, databases include PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane, Science Citations, scientific journals. National databases will include DHS, ENSTINET, IranMedex, SaudiMedLit, Islamic Science Citation Index (ISC), and CAPMAS. Etc. Cochrane is the single most reliable source for evidence on effects of healthcare. It brings together in one place research on effectiveness of different healthcare treatments, interventions and is considered as a gold standard in evidence based medicine. TRIPS is a clinical search engine designed to allow users to quickly and easily find and use high-quality research evidence to support their practice. He then showed different Web Based Medical Search Engines and Data Bases, explained how they work. He also referred to different databases, resources put up by WHO, age details about Global Observatory for eHealth, IRIS-WHO Digital Repository, WHO IMEMR one of the regional databases which has included 26% of the six hundred journals published from the EMRO Region. Various countries in the region has also established Natonal Databases while WHO website also contains country specific information related to health. For registration of clinical trials, there is website CliicalTrials.gov. Where one can search the desired information is based on the research question, he remarkedLast presentation in this session was by Dr. Ahmed Mandil was the first speaker in the next session who talked about writing Introduction. Some of the questions which one should ask oneself before writing this section in a scientific paper, he said, are what do I have to say? Is it worth saying? What is the right format of the message? Who is my audience? Which is the right Journal to convey this message? It is important to ensure that the introduction is interesting from the first sentence. Introduction, Dr. Ahmad Mandil stated must be concise yet informative. It includes what is already known in this field, reflects the importance of carrying out this study and its rationale, what is known and what is not known. At the end the objective of the study must be restated.Mr. Shaukat Ali Jawaid discussed how to write Methods. This section, it was pointed out must answer the important questions i.e. how the study was designed? How it was carried out? How the data was analyzed? When and where the study was conducted? In case one wants to find an answer to a question, one must sate what hypothesis was being tested? An intervention should result in a particular effect i.e increase in survival or improvement in outcome. For example the study of two antibiotics might compare the cure rates. The null hypothesis in this situation will be that there is no difference with cure as the outcome variable. It is important to give exact test used to analyze the data statistically. If the test is standard include a reference otherwise give complete minute details including the computer software and version used. Keep description brief, show how randomization was done, how participants were recruited chosen, reasons for excluding participants, mention ethical features, Ethics Committee/IRB approval, actual details of materials used, exact drug dosage and exact form of treatment. If the study is complex a diagram may be helpful. Give details of what disease states have been excluded, how these were defined and diagnosed, what medication lead to exclusion from the study, alcohol and tobacco alter drug response. Exact form of treatment used should be described in a way which allows replication. Describe strain of animals in lab study, describe how solutions were prepared, methods which are uncommon must be described fully. Apparatus used must be described in sufficient detail to allow the reader to be confident of the results reported and ensure calibration of the instruments used. A good methods, he stated, should answer some questions. Text should describe the question being asked, what was being tested, how trustworthy are measurements. Were these measurements recorded, analyzed and interpreted correctly? Finally would a qualified reader be able to repeat the experiment in the same way, he added.Results is about reporting of what did you find - Karen ShashokMs. Karen Shashok discussed presentation of Results. It should focus on questions asked in the introduciton. Figures and tables, she said, should focus on the question asked and the data should help the readers answer it for themselves. Make sure that there is no repetition of data in text, tables or figures. She laid emphasis that one should use simple language, introduce abbreviations correctly and then use them consistently. Tables and figures should have headings and footnotes respectively. Results is about reporting of what did you find? If need be one can take the help of graphic designers for drawing tables and figures.Dr. Hamid Yahya Hussain described how to write Discussion in a scientific paper. One can start with major findings of the study, explain meaning of the findings and why the findings are important. Relate the findings to the similar studies. State clinical relevance of these findings, acknowledge the study limitations. Discussion is all about what the results mean and implications of the findings. Discussion, he further stated should include summary of major findings, what do the findings mean, are they consistent with previous studies and if not why, try to find out the reasons for that. Interprete findings, their implications, limitations. Summary of the discussion section is usually conclusions which should succinctly summarize implications of findings. Refrain from making sweeping statements or conclusions which are not supported by the study findings. It should have a take home message for the readers. Some journals have specific instructions how to write Discussion, hence in that case follow those instructions. Do not over inflate the importance of the findings. While comparing your results compare it with the studies done in the last five years. Use of too old references is considered a weakness of the study and the paper may be rejected. It is also extremely important to highlight the limitations of the study. This can be addressed by the investigators in future studies. Clinical relevance, importance and strength of the study should be highlighted. It should also be clear to whom your recommendations are directed and what should be done in future to change their practice. One cane come up with new policy or new interventions. It is also important not to criticize other people’s work but discuss it in a scientific way as to why there are differences. There can be differences in selection of patients or there could be cultural differences or difference in dietary patterns.Conclusions should have a take home message for the readers - Dr. Hamid Yahya HussainHis next presentation was on citing references. While citing references, the objective. Dr. Hamid Hussain said is to give credit to others work. One should identify the gap and fill that gaps. Websites of important institutions, technical reports by working groups are also important source of references apart from scientific journals and books. Follow the instructions of the journal to which you wish to submit your manuscript while writing references.Ms. Karen Shashok described how to write an abstract and select a title. She laid emphasis that one should avoid using abbreviations in abstract and title unless it is essential. Structured abstract will vary depending on the type of the article. In original research it is usually in four sub-headings i.e objective, methods, results and conclusions with key words. Case reports may have a one paragraph summary, short communication and clinical case series can have structured abstract just like an original article. The title, she stated, should contain key information. A title reflects the contents i.e. participants, population, conditions where what setting, experimental or observational. Follow the word limit for abstracts set by the journal. One has to avoid abbreviations because all readers may not be specialist in your area hence they will not read it. In abstract one is just reporting and not trying to convince the readers. One may have to revise the abstract once the final manuscript has been prepared. There should be no discrepancy in figures in text and tables. Read the paper carefully, proof read before final submission. In short title Ms. Karen Shashok stated should be brief, informative, interesting and give main idea of the work performed.Highly specialized manuscript should focus on small but specific audience-Phillip DingwallDr. Phillip Dingwall discussed how to select a suitable journal. Some of the points which must be remembered, he said, include that it should be read by the peers, should ensure more citations while academic credibility of a good journal is also very important. Publication in a good journal will disseminate it to peers and support your academic career. Make sure that your paper matches the aim of the journal. If your paper is general and could also be read by non-technical audience, then consider submitting to a multidisciplinary journal. However, if your manuscript is highly specialized, then one should focus on small but specific audience. Reaching the right audience is more important than just any audience, he remarked. While selecting the journal other things which one should consider include is the journal easy to find by other researchers, does it has good visibility and readership, is it listed in important electronic databases, is the journal indexed and covered by important indexes, is it available online as well as in print. Does the journal has an Impact Factor and are the articles in the journal assigned Digital Object Identifier (DOI). One can also search that journal online to see if it does come among the top research results. Good journals have well represented established editorial boards membership which includes eminent medical personalities. Is the journal sponsored by an important institution or organization? Well regarded journals attract a large number of submissions and many such journals have an acceptance rate of just about 10-15%. Look at the journal’s peer review process, avoid and do not get trapped by Predatory Journals. Some journals have processing fee as well as publication charges. Open access journals, Dr. Phillip Dingwall stated operate under a number of financial models for authors.Electronic Manuscript Management systems have been designed to make the publishing process more efficient, readily accessible to authors and reviewers from all over the worldThis was followed an open house discussion wherein components of a scientific paper, important information which different sections of the paper i.e. Structured Abstract, Introduciton, Methods, Results, Discussion should include. In fact it was total revision of the day’s presentationsMr. Shaukat Ali Jawaid discussed the authorship criteria by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), highlighted the background to the formation of ICMJE. Last time it was revised in 2015 when the fourth criteria was added which is as under:On Day-2 of the workshop Many publishers now use electronic manuscript submission and peer review systems to manage their publications hence authors must familiarize them with theseSubstantial contribution to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of dataDrafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.Final approval of version to be published.Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.There is no limit to the number of authors and all those who have made significant contributions to the study and deserve authorship can be listed. However, authorship is a constant problem faced by the editors, remains under discussion and no perfect solution has been found so far. It all depends on the Trust between the authors and the Editors. He also gave some examples wherein those who agreed to add their name as authors without knowing anything about the study, had to face serious repercussions in their professional career. Decision about authorship and the order of listing of authors should be decided before the start of the study to avoid any dispute later. Those who cannot be listed as authors but have helped in the study through different ways should be included in acknowledgment. Since acknowledgment also means endorsement, there is a debate to get a written consent from those who are being acknowledged by the authors.Most journals send detailed guidelines to the reviewers with manuscript & this Performa also states what is expected from the Reviewers - Farhad HandjaniThese, he said, are defined as “Someone who secretly does artistic or literary work for another person, the later taking the credit”. They are considered paid literary workers. Sometimes they are considered as a necessary help for busy physicians in preparing the manuscript, literary materials. Some feel that instead of condemning them, they should be encouraged but the Authors must acknowledge the assistance rendered by themIt is a menace and considered scientific misconduct. Most often it is the junior faculty members, postgraduates who add the name of their Head of the Dept., institution head just to please them. Gift authorship is an academic misconduct which promotes intellectual corruptionICMJE authorship criteria, he said, is a recommendation, suggestion which is not mandatory. Even otherwise in the real world, most often those listed as authors cannot fully meet the above mentioned four criteria. Hence a new concept of contributor ship was coined in which the job done by each individual author in the study is mentioned separately. This is now being practiced by a large number of journals.In case of a study by a Group, the main authors should be identified alongwith the name of the group and all others can be added as co-investigators at the end of the manuscript.Dr. PhillipDingwall then discussed the online submission and how it works. This presentation was prepared by Prof. Waleed Al-Faisal who unfortunately could not participate due to an accident. It was pointed out that many publishers now use electronic manuscript submission and peer review systems to manage their publications. Hence, it is important for the authors to get familiar with these as it could save valuable time and help them communicate better with the Editors. Most of the available programmes i.e. Scholar-One, Editorial Manager, and Open Journal System works the similar way. All these systems have been designed to make the publishing process more efficient, readily accessible to authors and reviewers from all over the world. He then discussed in detail the whole process on Scholar-One how it works. While submitting academic affiliations should be preferred by the authors.Editors should become familiar with best practice in editing, peer review, research ethics and establish programme to monitor journal performanceProf. Farhad Handjani made a presentation on Peer Review process and pointed out that it helps the editors to judge the suitability of the manuscript for publication. They also help improve the manuscript. Peer Review must be unbiased and a critical review. Feed back is important as it helps improve the manuscript. Reviewers learn all this by attending training courses, workshops while some learn it on the job. Most journals usually send the Reviewers Performa alongwith the manuscript to the reviewer which has detailed guidelines and what is expected from the Reviewers. One does not need to accept every invitation to review, if the manuscript is out of your area of expertise, one should decline and inform the editor. At times the reviewers might have to take help from other colleagues as well. To be a Reviewer for a good quality standard journal is an honour and privilege. Some journals give CME Credit points for promotion. He also referred to post publication reviews, wherein articles are published and authors can make changes in the paper later on in the light of the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. Single blind, double blind and open peer review system all have their advantages and disadvantages.Ms. Karen Shashok stated that peer review is partly objective and partly subjective. It is a method to improve published articles. Major publishers, she pointed out, are enemy of Open Access Journals. Predatory journals do not use peer review. They are more interested in making money. Negative comments in peer review could be due to actual errors in research, manuscript. At times wrong files are submitted. Journal instruction for authors are not followed carefully. Open Peer Review system does improve the quality of review. Authors are supposed to give point wise response to the comments and suggestions while responding and all the changes made in the revised manuscript should be highlighted for easy identification which saves lot of time and the Editors can make a quick decision. The authors should not make the changes if they do not agree with the reviewer’s comments but they can challenge it with evidence. Reviewers are not always right. Peer Reviewers might provide some input but basically it is the job of the authors to do a good job, she remarked.Editors must enjoy Editorial Freedom to determine editorial policy, choose reviewers, hire & dismiss the editorial staff, choose editorial writersMr. Shaukat Ali Jawaid talked about Rights and Responsibilities of the Editors. He pointed out that there is a delicate balance and connection between rights and responsibilities. Rights must be used responsibly particularly while dealing with others. Editors have responsibilities to readers to educate them by communicating clear and relevant information, explain the editorial policy, provide accurate information, encourage comments, discussion, provide clear instructions, explain editorial and peer review policy, ensure authors are treated respectfully, promptly respond to queries, ensure quick publication of manuscripts and sympathetic consideration of appeals.In the next session Almost 80% research is supported by Pharma industry hence it is important that we work with them in close collaboration but uphold professional ethics-Yousef Al-BastakiEditor’s responsibilities to Reviewers include explaining the review process clearly, giving them sufficient time to review, provide them feedback. Editors have to respect not only authors, readers and reviews but human subjects as well. They must make the whole process transparent, protect confidentiality of human subjects and promote self correction by publishing retractions. They should also take responsibility for improving level of scientific investigations, ensure honesty and integrity, and manage conflict of interest and separate editorial and business functions of the journal. Editors should become familiar with best practice in editing, peer review, research ethics and establish programme to monitor journal performance. They also have responsibilities to public, science and advertisers i.e. providing clear health information, quick reporting of significant public health issues, promoting high quality science and educate the scientists. Advertising policy should be clear and ensure equal treatment to all advertisers.Editors have some rights as well which include Editorial Freedom which is extremely important so that they can determine editorial policy, choose reviews, hire and dismiss the editorial staff, choose editorial writers and solicit manuscripts on controversial topics.Predatory Journals mostly trap postgraduates, junior faculty members who are eager to get their manuscripts published immediately-Farhad Handjani“Show Pieces” in the Editorial Board which should consist of those who are keen, have time and are prepared to work. Categorization of submitted manuscripts, Indexation of the Journal in various databases, how to generate resources, academic misconduct, ethical issues and editorial issues all have to be dealt with, hence the Editor must be competent, intelligent and experienced to handle all these issues satisfactorily with the help of his team.His next presentation was on How the Medial Editor office works. Editor, Mr. Shaukat Ali Jawaid stated is the Capitan of the Ship who should learn how to manage the challenges. He has to act as Gate Keeper, Manager, Leader, and Teacher. Editors must know the journal staff and how to make best use of their expertise. Editors do lot of teaching and training as well. Open Access is the way forward in scientific publishing but there is resistance to it in North America particularly from big publishes. At present there are different business models and the Editor has to select any one of them which ensures sustainability in the long run. Editorial staff and working of Medical Journal office will depend on the specialty, frequency of publication. It is important to acquire good Manuscript Management System, train authors and reviewers how to use it. Editorial Board should be broad-based, ensure to have atleast 25% of the members from overseas. Ownership of the journal also determines how it will function as sometime institutions and specialty organizations which own the journal interfere too much and seldom give editorial freedom to the editors. However it is important to avoid This was followed by Hands on Exercises in small groups with facilitators. Mr. Shaukat Ali Jawaid had prepared two case scenarios regarding authorship which was discussed in detail and the participant were made aware of problems encountered and how they are resolved at times not to the entire satisfaction as junior researchers, postgraduates often have to work under very difficult circumstances and they cannot afford to annoy their seniors. Karen Shashok had prepared some Reviews and the comments were also discussed by the participants and the facilitators. The quality of the Reviews, the competence of the reviewers also came under discussion. Qualities of a good review were highlighted by the facilitators.Mr. Phillip Purnell from Knowledge-E talked about Scientometrics which means qualitative evaluation of impact based on citations, Impact Factor and rankings, Indexing. He also talked about the White Lists and Black Lists of Journals. It was Eugene Garfield who gave the concept of Impact Factor. He then described how IF is calculated. Drawbacks and limitations of IF and how some journals manipulate it also figured during the discussion. He also referred to the DORA Declaration which was highly critical of IF. He then briefly talked about H-index and how it is calculated. The impact of Negative Citations and Self Citations by the authors and Journal level besides limitations of using bibliometircs were also highlighted.On last day of the conference Scientometrics means qualitative evaluation of impact based on Citations, Impact Factor, rankings and Indexing - Phillip PurnellDr. Ahmad Mandil discussed Research Ethics and highlighted the importance of Informed Consent for conducting the study. Ethics, he opined, must be observed at all stages of research. Each medical institution should have a Research Ethics Committee. He also referred to publication ethics, authorship issues, conflict of interest, editorial freedom, redundant publications and simultaneous submission of manuscripts to different journals by the authors which is highly unethical. Prof. Yousef Al-Bastaki briefly talked about Ghost Authors. He was of the view that assistance in writing must be acknowledged. He then shared a few examples how pharma industry manipulates the results in clinical trials which they sponsor and they also retain the data in their control. However, 80% of research is supported by Pharma industry hence it is important that we work with them in close collaboration but uphold professional ethics, he remarked.Prof. Farhad Handjani talking about Open Access Publishing gave details of different business models i.e. author pay model, readers pay model. Open Access varies in different countries. Production, Archiving, Website maintenance all cost money and journals have to generate funds for all this. He also referred to self-archives, institution repositories. Predatory journals have a very high acceptance rate and offer fast publication but they conceal their publication location, mostly operate on the net, hence it is important that one should not get trapped. They mostly trap the postgraduates and junior faculty members who are eager to get their manuscripts published immediately. He also highlighted reasons for rejection of manuscripts and mentioned that Journal Editors usually prefer to publish ground breaking new research. Some time the editors reject the manuscript through in-house initial screening and review and sometimes it is rejected after peer review. In some Journals it is the Editor and in some it is the Editorial Board which makes the final decision of rejecting a manuscript. Most common reason for rejection is poor quality of the research, Lack or originality and significance, mismatch with the journal. Space constraints, high volume of submissions, more submissions on a particular topic or discipline, inadequately prepared manuscript with poor presentation. Author’s failure to follow instruction, poor English and Grammar, flaws in study design, small sample size, poor literature search, and too old references, poorly designed tables, illustrations are some other reasons for rejection, he added.Prof. Yousef Al-Bastaki said that he was impressed with the level of participation and the excellent contributions made by the faculty. We will be too glad to assist in collaborating in such academic activities in future as well to promote the art of medical writing and scientific publishing which will promote research culture and also improve the quality of manuscripts being published from the Region. He also thanked the University for their Support and hosting the workshop.In his concluding remarks


To analyze the contents and format of peer review proforma of Medical journals of Pakistan.rd August 2018 to 9th February 2019.An email was sent to the chief editors of all the medical journals listed on the official website (www.pmdc.org.pk) of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC).They were requested to send peer review proformas of their journals. The received proformas were analyzed for major contents and format or style. The proforma had a structured format when each portion of the manuscript i.e, title, abstract, key words, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion and references were individually sectioned for evaluation. Whereas in the unstructured proformas the reviewer was asked to assess the manuscript as a whole.This descriptive study was conducted in the Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Lady reading Hospital Peshawar Pakistan from 3We received 41 proformas via emails. Majority (82.9%) of the proformas were structured while 17% were unstructured. A scoring or rating system for the manuscript was present in 31.7% of the proformas while 43.9% of the proformas were without any scoring system. Guidelines for the peer reviewers were given in 58.5% of the proformas. The peer review policy (closed or open) was mentioned in only 7.3%.About 9.7% of the proformas asked the reviewers to disclose conflict of interests.A spectrum of contents and format of peer review proformas of medical journals were observed. We found structured peer review proforma with a scoring scale comprehensive and more appropriate for peer review. ISI).13The process of analyzing a research manuscript or a project by third party experts or peers for publication or allocation of grant is called peer review.Since there is a growing need for systemic studies on peer review,This descriptive study was conducted in the Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar Pakistan from August 2018 to February 2019. All the medical journals listed on the official website (www.pmdc.org.pk) of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) were included in the study. An email was sent to the chief editors of these medical journals requesting them to send their peer review proforma for study purpose. They were assured that the names of their journals will be kept strictly confidential and the individual proformas will not be made public. After the receipt of peer review proformas, each proforma was analyzed for major contents and format or style. By format (style) of the proforma we mean structured and unstructured. The proforma was considered structured if each portion of the manuscript i.e, title, abstract, key words, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion and references were individually mentioned for evaluation in the proforma. In the unstructured proformas the reviewer was required to assess the manuscript as a whole.P values of the important variables were calculated. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Data presented in table where necessary.All the data variables of the proforma were analyzed with SPSS (version 20). Frequency, Percentages and P value 0.00001) Most of the proformas were without any proper scoring or rating system. The scoring system and scoring scale was variable. The scoring system for individual components of the manuscript  was found in 9(69.2%) proformas while scoring for overall manuscript was noted in only 4(30.7%). Scoring scale of 4(30.7%)proformas were 1 to 4 while a soring scale of 1 to 5 was found in 3(23%), 0 to 5 in 2(15.3%) 0 to 10 in 2(15.3%) and 1 to 10 in 2(15.3%) proformas. Manuscript evaluation by only ticking Yes or No and without any scoring was noted in 7(38.8%) proformas while a combination of ticking Yes or No and overall scoring was observed in two proformas. Global rating  of the manuscript varied from journal to journal but included in the majority  of proformas.There were 72 medical journals listed on the official website of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC). We sent an email to the chief editors of all journals for peer review proforma.We received 41 proformas .The salient features of the proformas are summarized in P value 0.053).Open peer review was mentioned in 2 (66.6%) proformas and single blind peer review in 1 (33.3%) while majority  of the journals did not mention peer review type in their proformas .Only two (4.8%) journals had asked from the reviewers the priority(immediate/routine) of manuscript for publication if accepted by the editor for publication.Peer review proformas of two medical journals were exactly the same in contents and format. A small percentage (17%) of proformas had instructions for the peer reviewers regarding the method of sending back the filled proformas to the editor. The proformas of 5(71.1%) journals directed the peer reviewers to send back the proforma via email while only 2(28.5%) journals demanded paper filled proforma via postage.Only 1(2.4%) proforma had asked the reviewers to comment on Hypothesis statement and Research question. Majority  of the journals had not mentioned the type of the manuscript they want to review nor did they asked the reviewers to classify the manuscript  In Pakistan there are no proper training or published guidelines and protocols on how to perform a good peer review and reviewers usually learnt peer review skills by themselves. Therefore we strongly recommend inclusion of guidelines for reviewers in every journal’s proforma to ensure compliance and consistency in peer review. The global situation is not much different than our country as WarneP value < 0.05).The policy of disclose of conflict of interests by the journals are variable. A study of 37 ophthalmology journals noted that 100 percent of the journals required the authors to declare conflict of interest,30% demanded the editors to declare conflict of interests and 60% asked the reviewers to disclose conflict of interests.In our study we found that majority(41.4%) of the peer review proformas had no instructions or guidelines for peer reviewer to review the manuscript..Research has shown that peer reviewers have a very low level of inter rated reliability and different reviewers concentrate on diverse issues while assessing a manuscript.18,19 It is also true that peer review is actually a judgment and judgment of different peer reviewers about the same manuscript can be different.7 In our opinion the evaluation of a manuscript with unstructured proforma is more subjective and inconsistent in nature. The subjective review can be enhanced with more objective criteria. We proposed that with a structured proforma and scoring system these deficiencies can be minimized as the reviewer will have to concentrate equally on all aspects of manuscript and weightage given to each component individually. The unstructured proforma may be more suitable to assess qualitative research and the opponents can argue that with a unstructured proformas the peer reviewers are more free to judge and comment but the possibility of harsh or aggressive comments by some of the reviewers can not be avoided.We observed that majority(82.9%) of the proformas were structured while 17% were un structured(We noted that most (43.9%) of proformas had no scoring or rating system of the manuscript while it was mentioned only in 31.7% of proformas . Moreover the scoring scale was different in different proformas. A peer review report is considered low quality report if it lacks a rating or scoring system.P value < 0.05). Open peer review policy was mentioned in two proformas and single blind in one proforma. There are two essential types of peer review:The peer review type was not mentioned in majority (92.6%) of the proformas  do not know each other. Double blinded peer review is followed by most of the nursing journals. In open peer review the identity of reviewer and author is known to each other. Many reputable medical journals like British Medical Journal (BMJ) follow open peer review policy. Each review type has advantages and disadvantages.24P value < 0.05).Five journals directed the peer reviewers to send back the filled proforma via email and two journals demanded paper filled proforma via postage. About 30% of peer reviewers of one Pakistani impact factor medical journal submit their reports on line.In our study we documented that majority(82.9%) of the proformas had no instructions for the reviewers for sending back the proformas . Furthermore, from proformas we could not assessed whether it is used for evaluating pure quantitative or qualitative research or both. We therefore, recommend well designed studies with a larger sample size on this topic to clearly answer these questions.A spectrum of contents and format of peer review proformas of medical journals were observed. We found structured peer review proforma with a scoring scale comprehensive and more appropriate for peer review.FAH: Conceived, designed, manuscript writing, statistical analysis.MAA, ZN: Did review and final approval of manuscript.HUR: Did data collection.


Since 2000 there have been further significant developments in primary health care and in the history of the Journal. In celebration of the 20th anniversary of PHCR&D the Editors in Chief would like to record, through this Editorial, some of these developments that track a journal from small beginnings to one that now has international standing in the primary health care academic and practice communities.The publication of the first edition of Primary Health Care Research & Development (PHCR&D) in January 2000 was planned to coincide with the launch of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) , This fledgling interest in discovering what works at a local level in primary care stimulated the emergence of a new international, academic journal that would focus not only on research but also on development (the application of research to practice). The aim was that the Journal would be attractive not only to academics in primary care but also to practitioners, GPs, nurses, midwives, dieticians, pharmacists – indeed all those engaged in research and development work that impacts on individuals, families and communities before or after they require hospital care. This unique combination of research and development enabled the launch of PHCR&D in 2000 at a moment when there was an appetite for dissemination of both of these types of studies. We published Editorials at that time both to define primary health care  and help to provide a framework for research and development activity in primary health care. Then in 2018 came another important endorsement of the role of high quality primary health care with the WHO launch of the Declaration of Astana  is the most inclusive, effective and efficient approach to enhance people’s physical and mental health, as well as social well-being, and that PHC is a cornerstone of a sustainable health system for universal health coverage (UHC) and health-related Sustainable Development Goals.In 2008 the WHO published the report: ‘Primary Health Care Now More than Ever’ WHO,  SustainaWHO, et al., Primary health care is thus central to achieving the SDGs globally and providing Universal Health Coverage (UHC), all of which requires strong evidence from research and practice. In support of this PHCR&D is delighted to be publishing a special collection in 2019 that celebrates 40 years since Alma Ata and the future contribution of PHC. The Editorial authored by colleagues from WHO in September 2018 . The SAPC provided us with an engaging community and many members submitted papers to PHCR&D. The support of key leaders in SAPC including Professor Helen Lester, Professor Debbie Sharp and Professor Amanda Howe was enormously valuable to the development of the Journal and work towards achieving an initial Impact Factor.The Journal has been fortunate in these 20 years to have had two partnerships with academic membership organisations. The first was with the UK Society for Academic Primary Care , thereby reinforcing our position as an internationally relevant journal. It has been widely promoted at the EFPC conferences and other events and the Editors have held workshops at EFPC conferences to stimulate writing and reviewing for the Journal.More recently in 2016, we became the official journal of the European Forum for Primary Care  will be made freely available in perpetuity to all. Articles will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY), which allows the use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation of an article in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited. It also permits anyone, regardless of where they are in the world, to read, distribute and cite papers published in PHCR&D, helping to increase visibility, dissemination and usage of key research published in the field.This move comes in response to a growing global need driven by authors, institutions and funders to move towards a more open future in the world of scholarly publishing. There have been a diverse range of reactions from academic publishers in response to this need, and a continued discussion at every level of the publishing infrastructure regarding how best to ensure that our publishing is both sustainable and accessible.These developments are not exclusive to Europe alone: in June of this year, the University of California’s Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC) issued a Call to Action : ‘We believe the time has come to address these issues head-on through a combined strategy that places the need to reduce the University’s expenditures for academic journal subscriptions in the service of the larger goal of transforming journal publishing to open access. Through our renewal negotiations with publishers, we will pursue this goal along two complementary paths: by reducing our subscription expenditures, and investing in open access support’.Funding bodies are also playing an increasingly important role in the Open Access movement. In September of this year a group of 11 organisations (including the European Commission) formed a group known as cOAlition S, which has since grown to (at the time of writing) 14 members and now includes the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation amongst its members. Together, cOAlition S has unveiled Plan S – a 10-point policy which aims to accelerate the transition to a fully Open Access publishing landscape  development, it is clear to see that it, in addition to a general increase in the amount of Open Access articles published in some Cambridge titles, is part of a broader move towards a more open world in the field of scholarly publishing, as institutions move away from paying for subscriptions and towards supporting Open Access publication Piwowar, .As a result of these recent developments and the growth of Gold Open Access content in PHCR&D, we decided to ‘flip’ the Journal from a subscription model to a wholly Open Access one. Our primary focus is to support our community by continuing to provide the highest quality research and to support our authors, allowing them to comply with mandates from their university and their funders, and also increasing the dissemination of their research for the benefit of all.While there are many exciting benefits to this move to full Open Access, we do recognise that it does not come without challenges. We are fully aware that there are a range of differing levels of funding available in each sub-discipline, and that some among our PHCR&D authors may at present have limited access to funding for Open Access publishing. We want PHCR&D to remain an inclusive environment for the whole community and to that end we offer a generous waiver policy, with some article types exempt from an Open Access article processing charge entirely. Please see our Instructions for Contributors for details of this policy.We hope you are as excited by this change as we are. We have some fantastic content coming up for PHCR&D in 2019, including the special collection on ‘40 years since the Alma Ata declaration’. Under the new wholly Gold Open Access model, we are pleased to be able to share this to the benefit of all, ensuring that the Journal has both an exciting and sustainable future ahead.


After publication of the article, concerns were raised regarding The authors have acknowledged accidental errors in the preparation of this figure. When originally submitting this manuscript, the non-significant outflow tract data were included as supplemental figures. When constructing the original The authors are glad for this opportunity to correct panel 3I in https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BMPER_EMT.The authors have also provided the raw data underlying their figures and results presented in the article. The data can be accessed in the Harvard Dataverse at the following URL:


Journal of Hygiene was founded in 1901, and changed its name to Epidemiology & Infection in January 1987. The change occurred when the resident Editor, J.R. Pattison, was invited to the launch of a toothpaste at the Ritz Hotel in London [and infection’) [Epidemiology & Infection thrived under the changes, as global and national outbreaks, new microbes, techniques and methodology emerged.The Since the 1980s, scholarly publishing itself has continued to evolve; the most important changes occurred after the dawn of the internet, which has resulted in multiple exciting innovations and changes to the journal publishing ecosystem. One of these is the emergence of open access (OA) (see Peter Suber's comprehensive overview ), and thEpidemiology & Infection will convert to the OA model of publication starting from 1st January 2019. From that date, Epidemiology & Infection will publish all articles under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY), which permits use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The decision to flip Epidemiology & Infection from the subscription business model to the OA model was taken under the recognition that authors in this discipline are increasingly choosing to make their work available OA through a CC-BY license. A CC-BY license allows anyone anywhere in the world to read, use and cite the research, encouraging wider impact, collaboration and visibility. As a University Press, our priority is to focus on our authors and to provide the best quality journal to serve the community, regardless of the business model; however, it has become clear to us through recent analysis of papers published in Epidemiology & Infection that OA papers (published through the hybrid model) achieve greater downloads and become more highly cited. There is increasing evidence of this in other journals [It is with these changes in mind that we are thrilled to announce that journals . In tandjournals , which ijournals .Furthermore, there has been an increasing prevalence of ‘offsetting’ agreements. National consortia of libraries in Europe have been negotiating agreements with publishers that combine subscription and OA payments in a single deal, allowing their researchers to publish on a gold OA basis at no additional cost; everything is paid upfront as a lump sum. On 21 June 2018, the University of California's Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC) issued a Call to Action  ‘We beliCambridge University Press (CUP), as a not-for-profit publisher and a department of a major research-intensive university, occupies a unique niche in the publishing ecosystem. CUP publishes a range of journals in a variety of subject areas. Some of these titles have high OA uptake, reflecting the push towards publishing OA publication by certain communities; however, other journals have very low uptake of OA, reflecting the slowness and challenges found by their communities to support the OA model of publication. It is understood that the passage towards OA will take different directions in different disciplines, and will also depend on geographical location of authors.Epidemiology & Infection however we believe that publishing content OA is fundamentally important to our core mission of enabling the research that we publish be reused and disseminated widely. We know that we currently publish work that would be of substantial benefit to those not able to access the journal under the current subscription model, and so we are delighted to make the decision to unlock the potential of our high quality research papers, benefitting our discipline and enabling the journal to flourish. The core mission of CUP is to work towards a more impactful, community led and diverse open future. Flipping journals to OA in specific disciplines is a key part of that goal.At Epidemiology & Infection will also be published under a continuous publication model, which means articles will be published as soon as they are ready, without the requirement to await composition in an issue, with issue numbers. This moves the journal away from the hangover of a print publication model to an online approach.As a result of this change, an article processing charge will be payable by authors or their funder on acceptance of their primary research article. In the majority of cases, these costs are paid by the author, his or her institution, or a funder. We hope you are as excited by this change as we are, as we continue to bring high quality and relevant content to our readers, providing a journal that is authoritative resource of global research in the occurrence and spread of microbial disease in humans and animals.Epidemiology & Infection will continue to concentrate on its main themes of the epidemiology of infectious diseases in humans. It is one of the few journals which primarily straddle both these subjects of epidemiology and infection, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. In a world in which new infections and microbes seem to be reappearing, where new infections emerge and old ones resurge, and in which microbes become increasingly resistant to the agents we have to combat them, a journal such as this is needed even more than ever before.


Nucleic Acids Research are committed to the accurate and efficient dissemination of scientific research to the widest possible audience. To achieve these goals, we employ an editorship that is entirely comprised of active researchers, strive to conduct fair and rigorous peer review in a timely manner and operate as a completely open-access journal.The Editors of bioRxiv  has always supported the use of preprint servers as part of the overall process of disseminating and publishing results. We do not place any restrictions on the posting of manuscripts on such platforms before submission to our journal, and do not treat such postings as prior publications. We do not prohibit or discourage public discussion of preprints with the research community or with the press, prior to publication of the same study within our own pages. In cases where potential reviewers indicate that they have previously seen a submission via a preprint server and ask if they should be disqualified from review, we only ask if they are still able to conduct a fair, rigorous and timely evaluation of the study as submitted to NAR.Until now, NAR has prohibited the formal citation of preprints within the reference list of published articles. Authors have been encouraged, however, to describe and discuss posted preprints (including links to their DOIs) in the main text of the paper, in the same manner that authors are allowed to mention personal communications and/or describe unpublished results and other informal online content that is pertinent to the subject of their study. The reason for this editorial policy has been our belief that formal citations should be reserved for publications that have been subjected to editor-supervised peer review. We also allow citation of textbooks, chapters, databases and on-line web servers that research communities broadly agree provide authoritative information and data within a relevant subject area.However, other journals in the biological sciences are now beginning to allow citation of preprints within the main reference list. Given that the academic publishing community appears to be moving towards a policy of allowing formal citation of preprints, the Executive Editors of NAR have decided to follow this shift in policy, and to allow their citation. Such references will be required to be presented with the disclaimer ‘PREPRINT: NOT PEER REVIEWED’ as an obvious part of the citation. This change in our policy will be accompanied by very clear instructions to both authors and reviewers that over-reliance on unreviewed material can result in negative evaluation of the manuscript under consideration at NAR.Some proponents of preprints may argue against this policy, pointing out that the process of peer review does not absolutely guarantee a manuscript’s accuracy. They argue that, since perfection isn’t possible, there is no need to enforce an arbitrary line in the sand regarding citable scientific findings. Some proponents of preprint citations describe prominent examples of failed peer review, contrasted with examples of obviously successful preprint examinations by the public.The editors at NAR disagree with these arguments. The process of formal, editorially supervised peer review, while clearly not infallible, obviously elevates the overall quality of the published research literature. Missing controls, over-interpreted results and incorrect or flawed studies are often flagged, and the studies are corrected or abandoned. A properly conducted peer review, involving multiple experts who have been specifically commissioned to examine a submission in depth  is more systematic and rigorous than a less formal system of public commentary, which generally does not enforce a requirement for authors to address readers’ concerns and queries.The formal citation of any research is a serious responsibility for any author and has the effect of validating that article’s contents and conclusions. More than ever, the publishing community is expected to be extremely vigilant with regard to weaknesses in submitted manuscripts ,4. As a Formal citation of a preprint elevates that work to a position that appears equivalent to a peer-reviewed published article. This could place scientific journals and editors at cross-purposes with the type of efforts to improve the reproducibility and quality of the published literature that are described above. If we are expected to reduce the amount of irreproducible and flawed science in the literature, then allowing the formal citation of online postings will require that their quality should also be carefully assessed during the peer review process.Finally, we offer (and/or reiterate) several recommendations to preprint servers and the research community for the future use and curation of preprints. All preprints should be date- and time-stamped and provided with corresponding version numbers, that would all be included in any formal citations. All versions of any preprint should be maintained in perpetuity at the relevant server and URL, along with a clear description of any ‘subsequent versions’ that indicates the exact nature of any changes to the content and conclusions relative to its predecessor. Any and all online versions of any preprint that eventually lead to a peer-reviewed publication should provide an automated link directly to the actual peer-reviewed publication. Finally, any preprint that has not found its way into the peer-reviewed published literature after a certain period of time (we recommend 18 months) should be amended with an explanation of the circumstances that have precluded its review and publication. Given that the overwhelming majority of preprints in the biological sciences do eventually find their way into the peer-reviewed published literature, this should not impose a significant or frequent burden on researchers and authors.Nucleic Acids Research. We employ an editorial staff of active researchers, achieve extremely fast and efficient peer review, and fully support publication of research studies that refute or modify conclusions that were previously presented within our pages. We believe that there is no obvious reason why a high quality-journal cannot employ all the forms of quality-control that accompany rigorous peer review, without sacrificing expeditious and fully open access publication of our content to the community of scientists who depend on both factors in their daily work lives.The current mechanism of posting preprints online, and now allowing their formal citation, is driven by the well-intended desire to accelerate and democratize the dissemination of scientific results—a goal that is shared by


Erratum to: Indian J Pediatr 81(11):1237–1239DOI 10.1007/s12098–014–1487-3The original published online version's copyright line has to be corrected as Open Access (see updated copyright line shown above). Open access statement is also included below.


PLOS ONE’s Human Research Advisory Group.After publication of , concernPLOS ONE Editors considered the review board’s exemption decision as sufficient to address the journal’s ethics requirement, even though our policy states that the review board should have been consulted prior to the study.During the pre-publication review process, when queried about ethics oversight, the authors said that this study was exempt from ethics review because it involved a retrospective review of anonymized medical records and no treatment was prospectively administered for the sake of this research. Prior to publication and in response to journal queries, the authors provided a document dated after completion of the study confirming that an independent ethics review board had reviewed the study and deemed it exempt from the requirement for ethics review according to U.S. regulation 45 CFR §46.104 Category #4. Based on the information provided prior to publication, the PLOS ONE standards an IRB needs to be consulted before conducting any study in which identifiable patient records are accessed for the purpose of research. An Academic Editor and a member of PLOS ONE’s Human Research Advisory Group consulted post-publication both advised that in their assessment, an institutional review board or equivalent ethics committee ought to have been consulted prior to the retrospective study given the authors’ ability to access patient-identifying information. Based on our further editorial assessment of this matter, the information that came to light about the study post-publication, and advice received in our external consultations, the PLOS ONE Editors have determined that the study did not meet the journal’s requirements, although per the independent review board’s decision the study may have met local requirements.In our post-publication discussions with the authors it came to light that one or more author(s) in principle had access to identifying participant information and that the study involved patients from the authors’ clinical practice. The authors believed that permission to access patient records was covered by the established patient-doctor relationship. Per The Academic Editor consulted in the post-publication assessment also raised concerns that the study did not include appropriate controls. HbA1c values in study participants were compared to mean HbA1c values in published datasets, and the Academic Editor advised that the study ought to have included age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched controls from the same clinic population as those who received metformin. This information was not requested during the pre-publication review process, and the authors commented that this could in principle have been addressed prior to publication or post-publication through inclusion of additional data and revision of the article.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article. We regret that these issues were not identified and fully addressed during the article’s pre-publication review.Owing to these concerns, the MAP, CRA, NHG, FA, XF, MAS, AMT did not agree with retraction. LM did not respond or could not be reached.