helping researchers create scholarly content
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Helping Researchers Create Scholarly Content
Martin Fenner
Department of Hematology, Hemostaseology, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation
Not by starting from scratch …
… but by adding a few missing pieces
Scholarly research is content creation
Reading is often an intermediary step in content creation
Reading is often an intermediary step in content creation
Except …
Education
Health Care
Curiosity
Science blogsReview journals
Science blogs
Textbooks
These uses are often covered by secondary literature
Reading for content creation
Fulltext search of methods section
Fulltext search of methods section
Why only Elsevier?
An alternative fulltext search
Table!3.!Olaparib-Related!Adverse!Events!Found!in!at!Least!5%!of!the!Safety!Population,!According!to!Olaparib!Dose.*
Adverse!Event
<100!mg,!Daily!!or!Twice!Daily,!2!of!Every!3!Wk!
(N!=!18)
100!mg,!Twice!Daily,!!
2!of!Every!3!Wk!(N!=!4)
100!mg,!Twice!Daily,!Continuously!
(N!=!5)
200!mg!Twice!Daily,!Continuously!
(N!=!20)
400!mg!Twice!Daily,!Continuously!
(N!=!8)
600!mg!Twice!Daily,!Continuously!
(N!=!5)Total!
(N!=!60)
number of patients/total number (percent)
Anemia
Grade 1!2 1 (6) 0 0 0 0 1 (20) 2 (3)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 1 (5) 0 0 1 (2)
Lymphopenia
Grade 1!2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 2 (10) 1 (12) 0 3 (5)
Diarrhea
Grade 1!2 0 0 0 2 (10) 1 (12) 0 3 (5)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dyspepsia
Grade 1!2 0 0 0 1 (5) 1 (12) 2 (40) 4 (7)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nausea
Grade 1!2 6 (33) 1 (25) 0 7 (35) 0 3 (60) 17 (28)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 0 1 (12) 1 (20) 2 (3)
Stomatitis
Grade 1!2 0 0 0 3 (15) 0 0 3 (5)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vomiting
Grade 1!2 2 (11) 1 (25) 0 5 (25) 0 3 (60) 11 (18)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 0 1 (12) 0 1 (2)
Anorexia
Grade 1!2 3 (17) 0 0 2 (10) 0 2 (40) 7 (12)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dysgeusia
Grade 1!2 0 2 (50) 0 2 (10) 1 (12) 3 (60) 8 (13)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fatigue
Grade 1!2 3 (17) 0 1 (20) 4 (20) 5 (62) 4 (80) 17 (28)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 1 (5) 0 0 1 (2)
Dizziness
Grade 1!2 0 0 0 1 (5) 0 1 (20) 2 (3)
Grade 3!4 0 0 0 0 1 (12) 0 1 (2)
* The listed adverse events were classified as being possibly, probably, or definitely related to olaparib in the safety population. No grade 5
Figures and tables
Fong et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med 2009;361:123-34
Content licensing can be automated …
… but is confusing and too restrictive for many researchers
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
U.S. Copyright Law
How many researchers ask for permissions?
Attribution
Share Alike
No derivative works
Non-commercial
CC license for tables and figures better solution for reuse
Table 2: Univariate associations between cancer and other patient characteristics
Characteristic Cancer patients Non-cancer patients Odds ratio P% or mean (sd) n % or mean (sd) n
Number of subjects 126 877TZD therapy 32.5% 126 25.3% 877 1.42 0.09
Pioglitazone 13.5% 126 13.6% 877 0.99 0.98Rosiglitazone 19.1% 126 11.9% 877 1.75 0.03
Sulfonylurea therapy 34.9% 126 38.2% 877 0.87 0.48Biguanide therapy 39.7% 126 40.0% 877 0.99 0.94Nateglinide therapy 0.8% 126 0.5% 877 1.75 0.62Men 42.1% 126 46.1% 877 0.85 0.40Age, years 69.1 (10.2) 126 64.2 (12.1) 877 1.04 <0.001White ethnicity 97.6% 125 97.3% 875 1.15 0.83A1C, mean % 7.0 (1.3) 126 7.2 (1.3) 871 0.88 0.12Insulin therapy 15.9% 126 18.8% 877 0.81 0.43Body mass index, kg/m2 32.7 (6.8) 125 34.0 (7.5) 865 0.97 0.06Alcohol drinking 25.4% 126 27.6% 876 0.89 0.60Cigarette smoking 11.1% 126 17.8% 876 0.58 0.06Median annual income, $ 15000–29999 114 15000–29999 813 1.02 0.75Duration of diabetes, years 10.2 (9.7) 124 10.2 (10.4) 829 1.00 0.98High comorbidity 71.4% 126 46.2% 877 2.91 <0.001Number of prescription medications 7.3 (4.3) 126 6.6 (3.7) 877 1.05 0.05Number of anti-diabetic drugs 1.2 (1.0) 126 1.2(0.9) 877 1.01 0.92Physical functional status 40.9 (13.7) 125 42.3 (12.7) 871 0.99 0.27Mental functional status 50.5 (10.5) 126 49.4 (10.9) 875 1.01 0.30
sd, standard deviation; n, number of patients for which data were available; TZD, thiazolidinedione.
BioMed Central
!"#$%&%'(%)!"#$%&'()*%+&',-&.,+&/0-#-0,'&"(+",1%12
BMC Medicine
Open AccessResearch articleAssociation between cancer prevalence and use of thiazolidinediones: results from the Vermont Diabetes Information SystemMaria E Ramos-Nino*†1, Charles D MacLean†2 and Benjamin Littenberg†2,3
Address: 1University of Vermont, Department of Pathology, Vermont 05405, USA, 2University of Vermont, Department of Medicine, Vermont 05401, USA and 3University of Vermont, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Burlington, Vermont 05401, USA
Email: Maria E Ramos-Nino* - [email protected]; Charles D MacLean - [email protected]; Benjamin Littenberg - [email protected]* Corresponding author †Equal contributors
AbstractBackground: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) have emerged as importantdrug targets for diabetes. Drugs that activate PPAR , such as the thiazolidinediones (TZDs), arewidely used for treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. PPAR signaling could also play an anti-neoplastic role in several in vitro models, although conflicting results are reported from in vivomodels. The effects of TZDs on cancer risk in humans needs to be resolved as these drugs areprescribed for long periods of time in patients with diabetes.
Methods: A total of 1003 subjects in community practice settings were interviewed at home atthe time of enrolment into the Vermont Diabetes Information System, a clinical decision supportprogram. Patients self-reported their personal and clinical characteristics, including any history ofmalignancy. Laboratory data were obtained directly from the clinical laboratory and currentmedications were obtained by direct observation of medication containers. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the interviewed subjects to assess a possible association between cancerdiagnosis and the use of TZDs.
Results: In a multivariate logistic regression model, a diagnosis of cancer was significantlyassociated with TZD use, even after correcting for potential confounders including other oral anti-diabetic agents (sulfonylureas and biguanides), age, glycosylated hemoglobin A1C, body mass index,cigarette smoking, high comorbidity, and number of prescription medications (odds ratio = 1.59, P= 0.04). This association was particularly strong among patients using rosiglitazone (OR = 1.89, P= 0.02), and among women (OR = 2.07, P = 0.01).
Conclusion: These data suggest an association between TZD use and cancer in patients withdiabetes. Further studies are required to determine if this association is causal.
BackgroundFactors affecting cancer incidence in the diabetic popula-tion are diverse and complex. Diabetes is a risk factor for
colon, pancreas, breast, endometrium and liver cancer inwomen. In men, although diabetes it is a risk factor forbladder cancer [1,2], it is a protective factor for prostate
Published: 21 June 2007
BMC Medicine 2007, 5:17 doi:10.1186/1741-7015-5-17
Received: 4 November 2006Accepted: 21 June 2007
This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/5/17
© 2007 Ramos-Nino et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Tables from papers don‘t display well in presentations
Provide table and figure data …
28%
Anorexia
28%
Nausea
18%
Vomiting
13%
Dysgeusia
… and visualize them as needed
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710/DC1
Supporting Online Material for
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
Richard E. Green,* Johannes Krause, Adrian W. Briggs, Tomislav Maricic, Udo Stenzel, Martin Kircher, Nick Patterson, Heng Li, Weiwei Zhai,
Markus Hsi-Yang Fritz, Nancy F. Hansen, Eric Y. Durand, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, Jeffrey D. Jensen, Tomas Marques-Bonet, Can Alkan, Kay Prüfer, Matthias Meyer,
Hernán A. Burbano, Jeffrey M. Good, Rigo Schultz, Ayinuer Aximu-Petri, Anne Butthof, Barbara Höber, Barbara Höffner, Madlen Siegemund, Antje Weihmann, Chad Nusbaum,
Eric S. Lander, Carsten Russ, Nathaniel Novod, Jason Affourtit, Michael Egholm, Christine Verna, Pavao Rudan, Dejana Brajkovic, !eljko Kucan, Ivan Gu"ic,
Vladimir B. Doronichev, Liubov V. Golovanova, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Marco de la Rasilla, Javier Fortea, Antonio Rosas, Ralf W. Schmitz, Philip L. F. Johnson, Evan E. Eichler, Daniel Falush, Ewan Birney, James C. Mullikin, Montgomery Slatkin,
Rasmus Nielsen, Janet Kelso, Michael Lachmann, David Reich,* Svante Pääbo*
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] (R.E.G.); [email protected] (D.R.); [email protected] (S.P.)
Published 7 May 2010, Science 328, 710 (2010) DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021
This PDF file includes:
Materials and Methods SOM Text Figs. S1 to S51 Tables S1 to S58 References
Access to research data
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710/DC1
Supporting Online Material for
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
Richard E. Green,* Johannes Krause, Adrian W. Briggs, Tomislav Maricic, Udo Stenzel, Martin Kircher, Nick Patterson, Heng Li, Weiwei Zhai,
Markus Hsi-Yang Fritz, Nancy F. Hansen, Eric Y. Durand, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, Jeffrey D. Jensen, Tomas Marques-Bonet, Can Alkan, Kay Prüfer, Matthias Meyer,
Hernán A. Burbano, Jeffrey M. Good, Rigo Schultz, Ayinuer Aximu-Petri, Anne Butthof, Barbara Höber, Barbara Höffner, Madlen Siegemund, Antje Weihmann, Chad Nusbaum,
Eric S. Lander, Carsten Russ, Nathaniel Novod, Jason Affourtit, Michael Egholm, Christine Verna, Pavao Rudan, Dejana Brajkovic, !eljko Kucan, Ivan Gu"ic,
Vladimir B. Doronichev, Liubov V. Golovanova, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Marco de la Rasilla, Javier Fortea, Antonio Rosas, Ralf W. Schmitz, Philip L. F. Johnson, Evan E. Eichler, Daniel Falush, Ewan Birney, James C. Mullikin, Montgomery Slatkin,
Rasmus Nielsen, Janet Kelso, Michael Lachmann, David Reich,* Svante Pääbo*
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] (R.E.G.); [email protected] (D.R.); [email protected] (S.P.)
Published 7 May 2010, Science 328, 710 (2010) DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021
This PDF file includes:
Materials and Methods SOM Text Figs. S1 to S51 Tables S1 to S58 References
Access to research data
PDF with 175 pages?
Video and other multimedia content
Is supplementary information the right format?
Or shouldn‘t research data rather be stored in a repository?
Or shouldn‘t research data rather be stored in a repository?
DataCite
Why only Connotea?
7880 papers?
Unique author identifiers help find research by same author
RESEARCH
Adequacy of authors’ replies to criticism raised in electronicletters to the editor: cohort study
Peter C Gøtzsche, director,1 Tony Delamothe, editor,2 Fiona Godlee, editor,2 Andreas Lundh, PhD student1
ABSTRACTObjective To investigate whether substantive criticism in
electronic letters to the editor, defined as a problem that
could invalidate the research or reduce its reliability, is
adequately addressed by the authors.
Design Cohort study.
SettingBMJ between October 2005 and September 2007.
Inclusion criteriaResearchpapers generating substantivecriticism in the rapid responses section on bmj.com.
Main outcome measures Severity of criticism (minor,
moderate, or major) as judged by two editors and extent
to which the criticism was addressed by authors (fully,
partly, or not) as judged by two editors and the critics.
Results A substantive criticism was raised against 105 of
350 (30%, 95% confidence interval 25% to 35%)
included research papers, and of these the authors had
responded to 47 (45%, 35% to 54%). The severity of the
criticism was the same in those papers as in the 58
without author replies (mean score 2.2 in both groups,
P=0.72). For the 47 criticisms with replies, there was no
relation between the severity of the criticism and the
adequacy of the reply, neither as judged by the editors
(P=0.88 and P=0.95, respectively) nor by the critics(P=0.83; response rate 85%). However, the critics were
muchmore critical of the replies than the editors (average
score 2.3 v 1.4, P<0.001).
ConclusionsAuthors are reluctant to respond to criticisms
of their work, although they are not less likely to respond
when criticisms are severe. Editors should ensure that
authors take relevant criticism seriously and respond
adequately to it.
INTRODUCTION
Letters to the editor are essential for the scientificdebate. Most importantly, they may alert readers tolimitations in research papers that have been over-looked by the authors, peer reviewers, and editors.1 2
However, little research has been done to elucidatewhether letters fulfil this role and whether the authorsrespond adequately to criticism.We could not find anysystematic research in this area.Information in instructions to authors about the pur-
pose, content, and structure of letters, and how authorsshould respond to criticism, is generally lacking. Mostinformation specifies limits—on number of words,authors, references, tables, figures, and time since
publication of the research report. Guidelines for edi-tors are also sparse.3-5
We have noticed that when the criticism is serious,such as suggesting a fatal flaw, authors sometimesavoid addressing it in their reply and instead discussminor issues, or they misrepresent their research orthe criticism. It is not known how common evasivereplies are or how often editors assess whether authorshave addressed criticisms appropriately and honestlyand ask for changeswhen this is not the case.We inves-tigated whether authors responded adequately to sub-stantive criticism after publication and whether thecritics and the editors were satisfied with the replies.
METHODS
Our objectives were to study whether substantive criti-cism in letters to the editor was adequately addressedby authors, and whether the replies were less adequatewhen the criticismwas serious.We defined substantivecriticism as a problem that could invalidate theresearch or reduce its reliability.
Selection of research papers
We sampled consecutive research papers in the BMJ,defined as those published in the section entitled“Research” (from January 2006) and in the sectionentitled “Papers” (in earlier issues).We did not includepapers in the primary care section, as some of these arenot research reports. We excluded narrative reviews,commentaries, case reports, and papers that were notreports of research; the Christmas issues, as theserarely contain traditional research papers; and a sup-plement issue in January 2007.Our target sample size was 50 research papers with a
substantive criticism published in the web based rapidresponses section of the BMJwithin three months afterpublication of the research in the print issue of the jour-nal, andwith a reply from the authors.Wehave experi-ence from previous studies that sample sizes of thismagnitude are sufficient for pilot studies, the aims ofwhich are to describemajor issues that canbe subjectedto future, more focused studies. Based on a pilot studyof five issues of the BMJ, we estimated that we wouldneed to include 375 papers, or about 125weekly issues.One observer (AL) screened the electronic version
of the BMJ fromOctober 2005 to September 2007. For
1Nordic Cochrane Centre,Rigshospitalet and University ofCopenhagen, Dept 3343,Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100Copenhagen, Denmark2BMJ, BMA House, TavistockSquare, London
Correspondence to: P C Gø[email protected]
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;341:c3926doi:10.1136/bmj.c3926
BMJ | ONLINE FIRST | bmj.com page 1 of 5
Encourage electronic letters
Manuscript writing
Writing is collaborative
References should be shared during writing
Current writing tools are not ideal for scholarly papers
Why fonts, font sizes?
Why margins, line heights?
Why no document structure?
Remember Publicon?
Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A. & Chute, R. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PloS ONE 4, e6022+ (2009).
J. Bollen, H. Van de Sompel, A. Hagberg, R. Chute, PloS ONE 4, e6022+ (2009).
Bollen Johan, Sompel Herbert, Hagberg Aric, Chute Ryan. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PloS ONE. 2009;4:e6022+.
J. Bollen, et al. (2009). `A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures.'. PloS ONE 4(6):e6022+.This important paper provides evidence that scientific impact can not be adequately measured by any single indicator.
Facilitate reference creation
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) Studies: Authors should deposit data with the SumsDB (www.sumsdb.wustl.edu/sums/index.jsp), XNAT Central (central.xnat.org), or other suit-able public repositories.
Genomic and Proteomic Studies: Authors of papers that include gen- omic, proteomic, or other high-throughput data are required
-tion array data repository (GEO, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo) or equivalent publicly accessible database and must provide the ac-cession number. Access to the information in the database must be available at the time of publication. Submitted data should follow the MIAME checklist (for more information, see www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/miame_checklist.html).
(ix) Figure Preparation. No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. The grouping or consolidation of images from multiple sources must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure and in the figure legend. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if they are applied to the whole image and if they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any informa-tion present in the original, including backgrounds. Questions about images raised during image screening will be referred to the editors, who may request the original data from the authors for comparison with the prepared figures. If the original data cannot be produced, the manuscript may be rejected. Cases of deliberate misrepresentation of data will result in rejection of the paper and will be reported to the corresponding author’s home institution or funding agency.
(x) Supporting Information (SI). SI enhances papers in PNAS by providing additional substantive material, but the print ver-sion of the paper must stand on its own merits. SI is reviewed along with the paper and must be approved by the editors and referees. Instead of appearing in the printed version of the journal, SI is posted on the PNAS Web site at the time of pub-lication. SI is referred to in the text and cannot be altered by authors after acceptance. Data not shown and personal com-munications cannot be used to support claims in the work. Authors are encouraged to use SI to show all necessary data.
SI may take the form of supplemental figures, tables, data sets, derivations, and videos. Authors should express in their cover let-ter their intention to include SI with their paper. In addition, edi-tors may suggest that part of the submitted data could be more suitably presented online only to save journal space and to focus the article.
(xi) PNAS Early Edition. PNAS articles are published daily on-line before print at www.pnas.org in PNAS Early Edition. Papers may be published online 1 to 4 weeks before they appear in print. Authors who return proofs quickly and keep changes to a mini-mum get maximum publication speed. The EE publication date is the official date of record.
(xii) Errata. PNAS publishes corrections for errors, made by the journal or authors, of a scientific nature that do not alter the overall basic results or conclusions of a published article. PNAS publishes retractions for major errors that may call into question the source of the data or the validity of the results and conclu-sions of an article. Errata are published at the discretion of the editors and appear as formal printed and online notices in the journal.
PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING MANUSCRIPTSContact Information. PNAS, 700 11th Street, Suite 450, Wash-ington, DC 20001 USA. Phone 1-202-334-2679, fax 1-202-334-2739, e-mail [email protected].
Publication Charges. Page charges. PNAS depends, in part, on the payment of page charges for its operation. Payment of the page charge of $70 per printed page will be assessed from all au-thors who have funds available for that purpose. Authors will be charged for extensive alterations on proofs and for submission of revised files after the article is transmitted to the printer. Pay-ment of $250 per article for up to five pages of SI and $500 per article for six or more pages of SI will be assessed. Authors of research articles may pay a surcharge of $1,275 to make their pa-per freely available through the PNAS open access option. If your institution has a Site License, the open access surcharge is $950. All articles are free online after 6 months. Articles are accepted or rejected for publication and published solely on the basis of merit.
Color charges. Payment by authors of the following additional costs is expected: $325 for each color figure or table; an addition-al $150 for each replacement or deletion of a color figure or table. A single figure is defined as original art that can be processed as a unit and printed on 1 page without intervening type. Requests for waiver of charges should be submitted to [email protected].
Manuscript Preparation
Language-Editing Services. Prior to submission, authors who be-lieve their manuscripts would benefit from professional editing are encouraged to use a language-editing service (see list at www.pnas. org/site/misc/language-editing.shtml). PNAS does not take responsibility for or endorse these services, and their use has no bearing on acceptance of a manuscript for publication.
Submitting Manuscripts. Authors must submit their articles at www.PNAScentral.org. A surcharge of $50 will be assessed for all hardcopy submissions. Source files are required for all sub-missions, including revisions. Members communicating or con-tributing papers should also submit via the Web. Corresponding authors of communicated and contributed papers will be pro-vided a URL for file submission after the member has initiated the process by providing his or her endorsement and copies of the reviews received. SI must also be submitted online.
Digital Figures. Only TIFF, EPS, and high-resolution PDF for Mac or PC are allowed for figures that will appear in the print journal. (See Supporting Information below for online-only ma-terial.) Color images must be in RGB (red, green, blue) mode.
-erably 1 column width (8.7 cm). Figures wider than 1 column should be between 10.5 and 18.0 cm wide. Numbers, letters, and symbols should be no smaller than 6 points (2 mm) and no larger than 12 points (6 mm) after reduction and must be con-sistent. Composite figures must be preassembled. Figures must be submitted as separate files, not embedded in manuscript text. See www.pnas.org/site/misc/digitalart.pdf or contact [email protected].
Tables. Each table should have a brief title, be on a separate page, and be double-spaced. Tables must be submitted as sepa-rate files, not embedded in the manuscript text.
Supporting Information (SI). The print version of the paper must stand on its own without the SI. Refer to SI in the manuscript at an appropriate point in the text. Number supporting figures and tables starting with S1, S2, etc. Authors are limited to no more than 10 SI files, not including movie files.
Authors who place detailed materials and methods in SI must provide sufficient detail in the print edition methods to enable a reader to follow the logic of the procedures and results and also must reference the online methods. If a paper is fundamentally a study of a new method or technique, then the methods must be described completely in the print edition.
PNAS November 2009 vol. 106 iii
PNAS Information for AuthorsREVISED November 2009
PURPOSE AND SCOPEThe Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (PNAS) publishes research reports, commentaries, perspectives, and colloquium papers. In accordance with the guiding princi-ples established by George Ellery Hale in 1914, PNAS publishes brief first announcements of Academy members’ and foreign as-sociates’ (hereafter referred to as members) more important con-tributions to research and of work that appears to a member to be of particular importance. PNAS is a general science journal with a broad scientific audience. All papers should be intelligible to this audience.
Research Reports describe the results of original research of ex-ceptional importance.
Feature Articles are in-depth research reports with exceptional breadth. Features may be slightly longer than a regular research article to fully develop and present the findings.
Commentaries call attention to papers of particular note and are written at the invitation of the Editorial Board.
Perspectives present a viewpoint on an important area of research and are written only at the invitation of the Editorial Board. Perspectives focus on a specific field or subfield within a larger discipline and discuss current advances and future di-rections. Perspectives are of broad interest for nonspecialists and may add personal insight to a field.
Colloquium Papers are reports of scientific colloquia held under Academy auspices.
Letters are brief online-only comments that contribute to the discussion of a PNAS research article published within the last 3 months. Letters may not include requests to cite the letter writ-er’s work, accusations of misconduct, or personal comments to an author. As of April 2009, letters are limited to 500 words and no more than 5 references. Letters must be submitted within 3 months of the online publication date of the subject article.
EDITORIAL POLICIESPNAS Submission Guidelines
The standard mode of transmitting manuscripts is for authors to submit them directly to PNAS. Authors must recommend 3 appropriate Editorial Board members, 3 NAS members who are expert in the paper’s scientific area, and 5 qualified referees. The Board may choose someone who is or is not on that list or may reject the paper without further review. A directory of PNAS member editors and their research interests is available at http://nrc88.nas.edu/pnas_search. The editor may obtain reviews of the paper from at least 2 qualified referees, each from a different institution and not from the authors’ institutions. For direct sub-mission papers, the PNAS Office will invite the referees, secure the reviews, and forward them to the editor. The PNAS Office will also secure any revisions and subsequent reviews. The name of the editor, who may remain anonymous to the author until the paper is accepted, will be published in PNAS as editor of the article. Papers submitted directly are published as ‘‘Edited by’’ the responsible editor and have an additional identifying footnote.
Academy members who have told authors they are willing to oversee the review process have 48 hours from the time of sub-
mission to alert the PNAS Office to their request. During this period the PNAS Office will contact the member to confirm. Authors should coordinate submission to ensure the member is available. The Board cannot guarantee that the member will be assigned the manuscript or that it will be sent for review.
An Academy member may ‘‘communicate’’ for others up to 2 manuscripts per year that are within the member’s area of exper-tise. Before submission to PNAS, the member obtains reviews of the paper from at least 2 qualified referees, each from a different institution and not from the authors’ or member’s institutions. Referees should be asked to evaluate revised manuscripts to en-sure that their concerns have been adequately addressed. The names and contact information, including e-mails, of referees who reviewed the paper, along with the reviews and the authors’ response, must be included. Reviews must be submitted on the PNAS review form, and the identity of the referees must not be revealed to the authors. The member must include a brief state-ment endorsing publication in PNAS along with all of the referee reports received for each round of review. Members must select referees who have not collaborated with the authors in the past 48 months. See Section iii for the full conflict of interest policy. Members must verify that referees are free of conflicts of interest, or must disclose any conflicts and explain their choice of referees. These papers are published as ‘‘Communicated by’’ the respon-sible editor.
An Academy member may submit up to 4 of his or her own manuscripts for publication per year. A special obligation ap-plies to a Contributed paper for which the member or coauthors disclose a significant financial or other competing interest in the work. As of January 1, 2009, we will no longer consider such sub-missions using the contributed route. Members who disclose a significant conflict of interest must submit their manuscripts us-ing standard direct submission. When submitting using the con-tributed process, members must secure the comments of at least 2 qualified referees. Referees should be asked to evaluate revised manuscripts to ensure that their concerns have been adequately addressed. Members’ submissions must be accompanied by the names and contact information, including e-mails, of knowl-edgeable colleagues who reviewed the paper, along with all of the reviews received and the authors’ response for each round of review, and a brief statement endorsing publication in PNAS. Re-views must be on the PNAS review form and should not be from the authors’ own institution. Members must select referees who have not collaborated with the authors in the past 48 months. See Section iii for the full conflict of interest policy. Members must verify that referees are free of conflicts of interest, or must disclose any conflicts and explain their choice of referees. The Academy member must be a corresponding author on the paper. These papers are published as ‘‘Contributed by’’ the responsible editor.
All manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board. The Board may reject manuscripts without further review or may subject manuscripts to review and reject those that do not meet PNAS standards. Manuscripts rejected by one member cannot be resubmitted through another member or as a direct submis-sion. When revisions are requested prior to final decision, revised papers must be received within 2 months or they will be treated
PNAS November 2009 vol. 106 i-v
Facilitate figure creation
The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from www.nejm.org on September 18, 2010. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
From the NEJM Archive Copyright © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Facilitate discussion prior to publication
Facilitate peer review
Facilitate peer review
CSL
DOI
ORCID
NLM DTD
DataCite
Creative Commons
By connecting the missing pieces using open standards …
…
…
… more authors will be happy
http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dhammza/91435718/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gb_fotos/250133728/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/historyinphotos/2473688448/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whatsthatpicture/4872953249/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nucho/3340151745/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/olivander/999389454/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photonquantique/1751839932/
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~5~5~24355~127738:Original-Members-of-GIRD
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kkanouse/2827557438/
Credits
http://www.flickr.com/photos/horiavarlan/4273913228/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmcnab/4153178921/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bishi/2852863455/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeljy/3682379207/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the-g-uk/3709881283/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/iisg/4699046845/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flyzipper/342012313/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwerfeldein/3037976252/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/msiebuhr/987572658/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wwworks/4759535950/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redstamp/4222841910/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM194806032382301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09442
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0900212
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-5-17
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/30/32/10599
http://dx.doi.org/10.3791/2059
This presentation can be copied and distributed provided that proper
credit is given.