共享 |

 

 

 

ScienceDocs, Inc. 有限公司

 

The Research Document Specialists 研究文件专家

 

 

 

 

 

English

 
Spacer TopNav_T_F Spacer
TopNav_L_F
主页  关于我们 书面感谢 联系我们
TopNav_R_F
Spacer TopNav_B_F Spacer

 

 

ScienceDocs由……推荐: 

 

 

Elsevier

 

Taylor Francis

 

ACS

 

全世界3000多家科学和医疗杂志推荐ScienceDocs

作为其作者可信的资源。

我们也都期望有幸为您服务。

 

 

 

 

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

 

 

欢迎光临……为什么选择 ScienceDocs?

 

…质量…绝对专长…客户奉献

 

 

选择ScienceDocs的7个原因

 

请查看我们的演示

 

*点击这里看来自我们总裁的祝词

 

我们赞美您的工作,我们100%地投入您的成功

 

 

 

1.我们是世界上仅有的一家全面的科学和医疗研究辅助服务公司. 我们的团队由 300 多名科 学编辑和翻译、博士水平的生物统计学家及流行病学家组成 ——来自30个国家50多所大学各个 领域的一些最优者从临床研究到技术专利到专题论文到杂志提交,我们都可以为您提供服务

 

2.有了ScienceDocs,您确切地知道您在同谁共事以及为什么共事。所有专家已经列出了各自的履

历供您审阅。您也将能够在同我们合作项目的期间及之后与您的专家免费交流

 

3.所有为我们客户进行的工作由专家在各自领域内进行。光学工程稿件将由光学工程编辑进行编辑。

艺类翻译将由园艺翻译者来做,在DNA甲基化和癌症发生率领域内的统计项目将由….您猜….

同一领域专家进行。

 

 

4.ScienceDocs是一家Elsevier认证的公司,并且是ACS的合作伙伴——

当今世界上为数不多的几家之一。我们的编辑、作者和译者的确是各自领域内最优秀的,

且我们的生物统计学家和流行病学家在他们的专业领域内均是知名度广且倍受尊重的专家。

 

 

5.我们在ScienceDocs(如名称暗示)的人员只提供与科学或医疗有关的服务。

我们不是一家包罗万象的公司。

际上,我们同其它研究者及机构一起从事我们自己的协作性学术研究及SBIR/STTR拨款资助的研究。

 

6.ScienceDocs的魅力在于我们各位不同专家的共同努力。例如,当一名客户要求我们援助拨款方案

的研究设计时,们的编辑能够额外提供后备服务。当我们翻译或编辑到敏感性稿件时,

以让一名ScienceDocs的生物统计学家复核统计数据。您在其它地方将无法得到此服务。

 

7.我们一贯以颇具竞争力的价格提供优质服务。我们“不会”提供让您惊愕到跌破底限的价格,

提供给您不知名的实体来处理您的文件。您研究的价值远远不止于此.我们通过在您的领域内您可以信任的知名专家提供可靠、一致的质量。

我们的主要目标是挽留客户,我们通过真正关注您和您的工作来达到此目的。

 

 

请浏览我们的报价单

 

 

 

HomeImage_R_F
BelowTop_B_F
Spacer Resources_T_F Spacer
Resources_L_F

全面的科学医疗研究支持及

协作……

专利

制药写作

医药写作文件 / 网站翻译

杂志文章 / 文摘

医学研究论文

专题论文 / 学位论文

科学教材

政府协议

私人研究

国际会议

展示会

讲座和报告

MIN拨款方案

医学写作

资料分析

临床试验

电话阐释

研究协作

 

 

请填好一份我们的报价单

 

 

 

Resources_R_F
Spacer Resources_B_F Spacer
Spacer Resources_T_F Spacer
Resources_L_F
在您研究的任何阶段均可提供以下四项服务……

 

 

科学编辑及写作

 


我们给英语为母语或非母语的使用者提供专署而有价值的编辑服务。

我们所有有才干的编辑具备多年处理科学及医学文件的经验,

且在杂志出版方面是专家。

我们的修改编辑包括我们的杂志匹配服务™,

且由于有了我们其它的服务,客户可以选择同他或她共事的编辑。

 

 

 

 

 

 

研究设计咨询


 

ScienceDocs的核心是资深流行病学家及生物统计学家,

在调查研究设计方面绝对是专家。

从研究构想到成品文件,

我们借电子邮件及电话提供许多定制的咨询套装服务。

您的顾问在您的研究主题以及设计方面知识渊博。

研究设计咨询在拨款方案阶段期间得到最佳利用,

并由我们的统计设计服务补充完美。

 

 

语言翻译

 

 

把您的研究带到全世界社区。ScienceDocs是一家多元族的公司,

专长是超过50种语言的高度技术性翻译。

所有的英文翻译经我们熟练的编辑校对,

没有附加费用。(要提交文章,我们推荐您选择附加编辑)。

和大多数翻译服务不一样,您将知道您的翻译是哪一位,

并可了解他们对他们的工作特别能干。

 

 

 

 

 

统计设计及资料分析


 

为大学实地调研工作的生物统计学家是ScienceDocs

团队的一个组成部份,是SAS®、SPSS®、

数据库设计以及更多方面的专家。

我们拥有三层次服务来满足您的需求,

从数据挖掘及描述分析到高级的推理统计设计及GIS运用。

随着需求的增长,这些服务以小时为单位是外包的有效方法。

在我们统计分支的范围内我们拥有更加广泛的学科分支,

即便在许多一流的研究型大学里也难以找到。

 

 

Resources_R_F
Spacer Resources_B_F Spacer

 

 

 

Spacer Resources_T_F Spacer
Resources_L_F
中国作家出版

 

 

A Checklist for Chinese Authors Publishing
Clinical Research in Scientific Journals

 

Tom Lang, MA, Principal
Tom Lang Communications and Training International
Kirkland, Washington, USA

 

 

Published in the September 2010 issue of

Acta Academiae Medicinae Militaris Tertiae

Di-San Junyi Daxue Xuebao

(The Journal of The Third Military Medical University http://aammt.tmmu.com.cn/)

 

 

 


The final stage of research is to publish the results in a scientific journal.  If the results are not published, from a scientific standpoint, the research was never done.  Publication is also the beginning of the formal discussion of the research and is usually the most lasting, if not the only, record of the research.[1]  And, as most authors in all countries are aware, publication is also required for professional advancement. 
Despite the importance of scientific publications, however, few authors have been formally trained in how to prepare them.  The purpose of this article is to identify the most important characteristics of a scientific article reporting clinical research and to provide Chinese authors with the information and advice they need to prepare their manuscripts for publication.

 

General Comments about Your Research


The most important part in getting your research published is doing important research.  Before you start your study, ask yourself “How will medicine be different if I can answer my research question?”  If you can’t answer this question, you may spend a lot of time and money doing research that will not be of interest to journal editors or their readers. 
The biggest problem most researchers in all countries have is that they study something that can be studied, not something that needs to be studied.  Be sure you read the literature in your field so that you know what is known about your topic and what needs to be known.  If possible, work with colleagues: you can ask more important questions, do larger studies, and probably get more money and resources if you work with a group.  In most fields of medicine, it is hard to do important research on your own.  In any event, you need to make sure in your article that you tell readers what you did and why it needed to be done.  This information is among the most important you need to include in your article.
Be sure you ask for help in designing and interpreting your research if you need it.  If possible, talk with a statistician before you start collecting data.  Statisticians will help you identify possible sources of error, confounding, and bias that can greatly reduce the quality of your research.  A trained medical librarian can also be useful in helping you find articles on your topic that you can include in your literature review.  Colleagues can be of great help if they will tell you honestly what they think about your research and your article and how to improve both.  

 

General Comments about Your Writing


In the past few years, Western journals have begun to receive large numbers of manuscripts from researchers in developing countries where English is not the native language.  Although most journals would like to consider all manuscripts they receive, their resources are limited, so they cannot send every manuscript for review.  So, if a manuscript cannot be easily understood by a native English-speaker, it may be rejected immediately, before it is sent for review. 
To get manuscripts reviewed under these circumstances, many authors have their manuscripts edited by “language polishing companies,” which guarantee that your manuscript will not be rejected immediately because of poor English.  (These companies do NOT guarantee that your manuscript will be published!)  Most companies say they edit thousands of manuscripts a year and that their manuscript editors are native English speakers who have advanced degrees and sometimes several publications in the same field as the author.  These qualifications may be helpful, but they do not always mean that the editing will be of high quality.  Also, although the editing will be done in a few days, it can be expensive.  Be sure to ask your colleagues about any company you might use; quality, costs, and honesty differ greatly among these companies.
“Language polishing” is not the same as copyediting or the more extensive “substantive” editing.[1]  Manuscripts that have been well copyedited should have no errors in English, no inconsistencies in terms or numbers, and will meet all the formatting requirements of the journal.  Copyediting takes more time than language polishing and fixes more problems; it is also more expensive.  Many skilled native English speakers can help you copyedit your manuscript, but a trained editor may provide better service.  
The purpose of substantive editing is to make sure that your writing is logical, complete, and consistent.[1]  Research designs and activities will be described completely, tables and figures will clearly present the data, and all conclusions will be supported by the results.  Most substantive editors will call to your attention problems with meaning, consistency, or with the research and may provide comments like those you might get from a peer reviewer at a journal.  Substantive editing, which usually includes copyediting, can be done by experienced authors, but again, a professional medical editor may provide better service.  Substantive editing is sometimes offered as a “premium” service by language editing companies.  It will be more expensive, but I recommend that you use this service if possible; it is a better value for your money than language polishing, which will not uncover or correct the more important problems in your manuscript.
Another important issue for nonnative English speakers is plagiarism, which means using the ideas or words of another person without giving them credit, so that readers will think the idea or words are yours.[1]  Science requires that you build on the work of others, so the problem is not using the ideas and words of another person, it is not giving credit to the people whose ideas and words you are using. Many nonnative English speakers will copy parts of someone else’s article because the English in the article is better than their own, and they just want to make their article read better (this practice is sometimes called “patch writing”).[1]  However, it is best to rewrite the same information in your own words.  If you can’t, put the information in quotation marks and reference the article where you got it.  Many journals now use special computer programs to compare your manuscript with thousands of other manuscripts.[2]  If your words are too much like those of another article, the journal may accuse you of plagiarism, reject article, and tell your university that you may be guilty of scientific misconduct.

 

The General Form of the Scientific Article


The general form of a scientific article consists of four headings: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion.  This form is often referred to as the “IMRAD” format (pronounced “ihm raad”), and it is an international standard for reporting research.  The text under of these headings should answer a specific question:
Introduction: Why did you start?
Methods: What did you do?
Results:  What did you find?
Discussion:  What does it mean?
If you can answer these four questions well, you will be well on your way to preparing your article.


Questions to Consider when Writing Your article
Below, I have listed several questions you can ask yourself when preparing your article.  If you cannot answer these questions, stop writing until you can answer them.  

 

1. Did you follow the journal’s instructions for authors? 
Most journal editors will tell you that the single best action you can do to get published is to read their journal’s Instructions for Authors.  The Instructions will tell you what type of articles the journal wants to publish, who reads the journal, how to prepare your manuscript, what reference style to use, what forms you need to complete, how to submit your manuscript, and several other important pieces of information.  Articles that do not follow the Instructions may be rejected simply for this reason.  For direct links to the Instructions for Authors for most biomedical journals, see the website of the Raymon H. Mulford Health Science Library at the University of Toledo (formerly the Medical College of Ohio): http://mulford.meduohio.edu/instr/

2. Did you follow the reporting guidelines for the type of research you conducted?
The evidence-based medicine movement has led to the development of dozens of reporting guidelines for various types of research.  The first and best known are the CONSORT guidelines for reporting randomized controlled trials, but there are many more.  Even if the journal does not require that your article meet these guidelines, they are useful checklists for reporting your research.  Visit the Equator Network at www.equator-network.org to find reporting guidelines for the major types of research designs (cohort studies, surveys, and so on) used in clinical investigations and for several specific medical procedures (such as vision screening studies and intravascular ultrasound studies).

 

3. Do all people listed as authors meet the criteria for authorship?
Did each author make important contributions to 1) the design or conduct of the research AND 2) to the writing or revision of the article AND 3) agree to take responsibility for their part of the research by signing the journal’s statement of authorship?  Getting the funding, collecting data, providing patients or samples, or supervising the research group alone are not enough to qualify for authorship. For more information on authorship, see the Uniform Requirements of Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.[3] 
People named as authors who do not meet these qualifications are called “guest authors,” and journals do not want them to be included as authors, although you can list them in the acknowledgments.  Some journals will also ask you to tell the contribution of each author to prevent guest authorship, a practice called “contributorship.”

 

4. Are the authors listed in order of their contributions, from most to least? 
The order of authorship should not be determined by academic rank or seniority but generally by how much each author contributed to the research, although some journals may ask for a different order.[4-6]  Do not list the senior author last just because he or she is the senior author.  Ideally, who will be authors and in what order their names will appear will be determined before the article is written, if not before the research is conducted. Deciding the order of authors in advance is the easiest way to avoid problems with authorship.

 

5. Does the title describe the research accurately enough that readers will know whether or not they might be interested in reading the article?
The title is the most important part of the article because it is the link between your research and readers’ interests.  You don’t have to trick readers into reading your article by writing an interesting title.  In fact, most readers will be happy if you give them enough information to decide that they don’t need to read the article.  Nobody likes to waste time reading something that will not be helpful.

 

6. Does the title include at least the most important explanatory and response variables? 
Determining the relationship between explanatory and response variables is generally the purpose of the study, so including these variables in the title will usually  indicate what the article is about.  The titles of articles reporting clinical research should identify, if possible, the information in “SPICED”: the Setting (the place where the study was performed, Patients (the diagnosis studied), Intervention (the treatment), Control condition (the comparison group), Endpoints (the outcomes of interest), and Design of the study (for example, case series, cohort).
Many journals limit the length of the titles they publish.  You may need to spend some time shortening your title to meet these limits without losing important information.

 

7. Does the abstract describe the research accurately enough that readers will know whether or not they might be interested in reading the article?
The abstract is the second most important part of the article.  Like the title, it is often separated from the full article and so needs to be understandable without reading the article.  Most journals limit the number of words in the abstract, and many will specify the type of abstract they want.  A descriptive abstract may be limited to 150 words and tells readers only what topics the article will include.  An informative abstract may have up to 300 words and summarizes specific information in the article with four unlabeled sections: introduction, methods, results, and conclusions.  A structured abstract usually accompanies reports of randomized trials.  It consists of 250 to 300 words and a series of headings that identify the major parts of the study.

 

8. Is the information in the abstract consistent with that in the article?
One of the most common errors in a scientific article is that the abstract contains information that is missing or that differs from the information in the article, especially the conclusions.[1]

 

9. Does the introduction describe the research accurately enough that readers will know whether or not they might be interested in reading the article?
Few people are aware how useful a good introduction can be in understanding the article.  I recommend that you write a four-part introduction.  Part 1 is a background statement that prepares readers to understand the problem you studied.  Part 2 is a problem statement that defines the nature, extent, and importance of the problem you studied.  Be sure you tell readers why you studied what you studied and why your work is important. Part 3 is an activity statement that tells in general what you did in your research, and Part 4 is a forecasting statement that tells readers what to expect if they continue to read the article (Figure 1).

 

10. Does the methods section provide enough information for readers to determine whether your research design and activities were appropriate and valid?
            Authors are often told that a good methods section should allow others to repeat their research.  Although this advice is good, most biomedical research is too complicated, and articles are too short, to give all the details necessary to repeat the research.  Instead, you need to persuade readers that your methods were the right ones to use for the problem you studied and that you applied these methods well.  Below are the important questions to address in the Methods:
• Did you confirm that an Institutional Review Board (or IRB) approved the study before you started?
• Did you confirm that patients gave informed consent or that animals were treated and cared for appropriately throughout the research?  (See Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (the ARRIVE Guidelines[7])
• Did you describe the research design adequately?
• Did you identify the explanatory and response variables and tell how they were measured?
• Did you tell how you controlled for error, confounding, and bias?
• Did you identify the primary and secondary relationships you studied?
• Did you tell how the sample was collected and how the sample size was determined?
• Did you identify the statistical tests used to analyze your data and confirm that the data met the assumptions of the tests used to analyze them?
• Did you identify the alpha level that defines statistical significance (often 0.05) and the statistical software program you used to analyze your data?

 

11. Does the results section tell what you found in your research?
• Did you tell readers about important but unplanned events that occurred during the research?
• Did you report the data for each of the variables studied?
• Did you identify the relationships among the variables you studied?
• Did you present your data in figures and tables when appropriate?  (Use figures to show overall patterns in the data and tables to show exact values.)
• Are your statistical analyses reported correctly?[8]
• Did you report 95% confidence intervals instead of, or in addition to, P values?[8]

 

12. Does the discussion section explain the importance and implications of your research?
• Did you summarize the problem and results in the first paragraph or two?
• Did you attempt to explain why you got the results that you got?
• Did you compare your results with those of similar studies in the literature?  (When describing other studies in the literature review, did you remember to give the sample size and the results in addition to the conclusions?)
• Did you tell how your results might be generalized to other places or patients?
• Did you discuss the implications of your results? (That is, did you discuss how science or medicine might be different as a result of your research?)
• Did you discuss the limitations of your study?  (All studies have limitations, even yours!)
• Did you list your conclusions? (Figure 2)[1]
• Did you distinguish between biological importance and statistical significance when you interpreted your findings? (P values have no clinical meaning; were the differences you found large enough to be clinically important?)
• Did you distinguish between supported conclusions and speculation when talking about your research? 

 

13. Did you acknowledge the people who helped you but who did not qualify for authorship?
• Did you get written permission from each of these people to include their names in the article?

 

Other Questions to Consider
14. Is the literature review current and comprehensive?
• Check the dates of your references and make sure they are as current as possible.
• Did you make sure the references are complete and accurate by checking them at the US government’s PubMed website? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed)
• Have you cited original references that you have read in full yourself?  (Try not to cite abstracts as references; use full articles.)
• Are the references listed and formatted as required by the journal’s Instructions for Authors?

 

15. If you use tables, are they constructed specifically to communicate your data?
• Does the title identify the data in the table?
• Have you put the data or the row or column headings in a sensible order?
• Have you put ellipses (…) in empty cells to show that data were not left out by mistake?

16. If you use graphs, are they constructed specifically to communicate your data?
• Does the caption identify the data in the graph?
• Have you labeled the axes and provided the units of measurement?
• Will the graph be readable if the journal has to reduce it to fit on a page?
• Are all lines, words, labels, and plotting points necessary to communicate the data?

 

17. If you use photographs or drawings, do they clearly show the information?
            • Is there good contrast between the subject and the background of the image?
• Are all important structures and regions labeled correctly?
• Does the image have the right resolution (the number of dots per inch) required by the journal and is it in an acceptable file format (such as .jpg or .pdf)?

 

18. If you use diagnostic or analytical images (radiographs, Western blots), are they presented specifically to communicate your data?
• Does the caption identify and describe the patient or substance shown in the image?
• Did you give the technical details of how the image was taken?
• Did you indicate on the image (with arrows or circles) those features of interest to readers?
• If applicable, did you include a measurement scale or give the magnification of the image?
• Did you explain what the image means?
• Does the image have the right resolution (the number of dots per inch) required by the journal and is it in an acceptable file format (such as .jpg or .pdf)?

 

19.  Did you write a cover letter to the journal editor when you submitted your manuscript?
• Did you tell the editor that you are submitting a new manuscript (as opposed to a revised manuscript) and, if necessary, the section of the journal where your manuscript belongs (original research, review, and so on)?
• Did you tell the editor briefly what you did and why you think readers will be interested in your research?
• Did you tell the editor that your manuscript has not been published before and is not currently being considered by another journal?  (You do not need to say if your article was rejected by another journal.)
• Did you tell the editor that all of the authors have approved the manuscript as submitted?
• Did you tell the editor if the research has been presented at a conference or as a meeting abstract?
• Did you list as the corresponding author the author who is best able to communicate with the editor?  (In Western journals, no importance is attached to being the corresponding author.  The corresponding author is just the person who communicates with the journal, such as the author who understands English the best.)
• Did you keep the letter less than one page long?

 

Conclusions
Publishing the results of your study is a long and difficult process, even if everything goes well.  You will get better with practice.  The questions listed here are not the only ones that journal editors will ask, but they are the most important.  If you remember before you start that publishing your research is as important as conducting it and that it requires as much patience and skill, you will be better prepared for the process.


Disclosures
Tom Lang provides medical writing and editing services to many nonnative English-speaking authors—the intended audience of this article—and wrote two of the books cited in the references.


References
1. Lang T. How to Write, Publish, and Present in the Health Sciences: A Guide for Clinicians and Laboratory Researchers. American College of Physicians, 2010.
2. Butler D. Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature. 2010;466, 167. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100705/full/466167a.html.  Accessed July 13, 2010.
3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. http://www.icmje.org/index.html#top. Accessed July 13, 2010.
4. Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L. When authorship fails: a proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA. 1997;278:579–85.
5. Davidoff F and the Task Force on Authorship. Who's the Author? Problems with Biomedical Authorship, and Some Possible Solutions. Report to the Council of Biology Editors (now Council of Science Editors), February 2000.  Available at http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/files/public/v23n4p111-119.pdf.  Accessed July 14, 2010.
6. World Association of Medical Editors.  Policy statement on authorship. http://www.wame.org/resources/policies#authorship. Accessed July 14, 2010.
7. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000412.  Accessed July 13, 2010.
8. Lang T, Secic M.  How to Report Statistics in Medicine: Annotated Guidelines for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers, Second Edition.  Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 2010.  First edition (1997) reprinted in English for distribution within China in 1998 and translated into Chinese in 2001.  


Figure 1.  An example of a four-part introduction
[Background Statement] In patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, aspirin is recommended to prevent myocardial infarction and graft occlusion.  [Problem Statement] However, aspirin is also associated with bleeding.  Patients are often asked to stop taking aspirin before bronchoscopy, to reduce the risk of bleeding. The effectiveness of this practice has never been tested. [Activity Statement]  Thus, we sought to determine whether aspirin really does increase the risk of bleeding after bronchoscopy.  [Forecasting Statement]  Here, we report our randomized trial in which we compared the number and severity of bleeding events in those taking aspirin with those who were not and determined that aspirin does not increase the risk of bleeding.


Figure 2.  Listing your conclusions is more effective than presenting them in a paragraph.


Conclusions
We conclude that Tamoxifen reduced the incidence of DMH-induced colon cancer in rats.  We also showed that DMH induced the expression of estrogen receptors in colonic mucosa, but that the number of estrogen receptors in the colonic mucosa was not correlated with blood levels of estradiol, polyamine, or ornithine decarboxylase.  Finally, we found no relationship between blood levels of estradiol and tumor incidence.

 

Conclusions
In conclusion, our data support the following conclusions:
•  Tamoxifen reduced the incidence of DMH-induced colon cancer in rats.
•  DMH stimulated the expression of estrogen receptors in colonic mucosa.
•  Blood levels of estradiol, polyamine, or ornithine decarboxylase were not correlated with the number of estrogen receptors in the mucosa.
•  Tumor incidence was not related to blood levels of estradiol.

 

Resources_R_F
Spacer Resources_B_F Spacer