How to submit your good manuscript into Scopus and PubMed indexed international scientific journals

1. Gede Pardianto, MD, PhD
 Editor and peer-reviewer for 44 published
Scopus and PubMed-indexed international
journal’s articels (until October 2017)

4.  Eventough this lecture has been boring
 Please try not getting bored
 So set back, stay calm, relax, and unwind
youself

5. The Legacy: Inscription: Index
 Scopus
 PubMed
 MEDLINE
 US National Library of Medicine (NLM)
 National Institute of Health (NIH)
 National Center for Biotechnology Information
(NCBI)
 Be sure to write your name and your work on
those long lasting “inscriptions”

6. Think like a stricker
 Think what the goal keeper thinks!

7. THE ORDER OF A SUBMISSION
 System
 Plagiarism Check
 Editor-in-chief
 Consulting Editor
 Peer-reviewers
 Editor-in-chief  Decision: Rejection or revision
 Authors  Revision
 Editors
 Editor-in-chief  Decision: Acceptance or further revision
 Authors, Editors, Linguist,Type-writer
 Authors  Final approval
 Type-writer, Editor-in-chief
 Publication

8. SYSTEM: SUBMISSION CHECKLIST
 Original manuscript
 Title page
 Structured abstract
 Synopsis of article*
 Illustrative materials
 Authors and their affiliations
 Assignment of Copyright Form, signed by all authors
 Conflicts of Interest information is sought for all authors
 Acknowledgement of financial and propietary interest
 Acknowledgement of public and propietary support
 Manuscripts will not be reviewed until all these items have
been submitted

9. SYSTEM: ANTI-PLAGIARISM
 Anti-plagiarism software is used to check for
re-use of materials
 Avoid plagiarism and inadvertent lack of
citations
 Use citations to your benefit
 Cite frequently in order to avoid any
plagiarism

10. SPECIAL ATTENTION
 Editor-in-chief, Consulting editor, Peer-
reviewers are very busy persons
 Attract their interest
 The Authors should provide the Editors to spot
easily the main findings by leafing through the
manuscript
 What was known What do we know prior to this
study?
 WHATTHIS PAPER ADDS

11. EDITOR IN CHIEF
 System-checked manuscript comes to Editor-
in-Chief
 Editor-in-Chief gives task to Consulting Editor
for further process

12. CONSULTING EDITOR
 Consulting Editor is required to check if the
manuscript meets the journals AIMs and
SCOPE
 If a paper does not meet the aims and scope,
Consulting Editor includes comments in the
‘Consulting Editor comments’ box to explain
why and then gives mark as ‘Does not meet
aims and scope, do not proceed’
 This will then send the paper back to our
editorial staff

13. CONSULTING EDITOR
 If a paper does meet the aims and scope of
the journal, Consulting Editor can continue on
to select the suggested reviewers
 In the details column there will either be a link
to the LIST of Peer-Reviewers CV or a link to
view their papers on PubMed

14. PEER-REVIEWERs
 Scopus-indexed authors
 Viewed-papers in PubMed
 Particular area experts
 External peer-review with a minimum of two
comprehensive sets of narrative comments
and two numerical scores are required

15. TITLE
 Clearly describes the article
 Some need a running header (shortened title)
 Is it original?

16. AUTHORS INFORMATION
 Name (First, Middle, Surname, Suffix)
 Designation
 Institution
 Address, City, Country
 Email for Corresponding Author

17. AUTHORS
 The number of authors is limited to 8 for a
single-center study and 12 for a multicenter
study
 If more authors are include, each must sign a
statement confirming that he or she fulfills
the authorship criteria

18. ABSTRACTS
 A good abstract will encourage selection and
reading of the full paper
 Editors and Peer-reviewers: Many editors
screen and reject articles by reading only the
abstract
 Peer-reviewers are often invited with a link
only to the abstract
 Authors: Because the abstract is so
important all authors must approve it

19. ABSTRACT
 Up to 250-300 words  STRUCTURED
Abstract
 Reflects the content of the article
 Allowing the readers to get a quick glance of
what the contents of the article include
 Is the content appropriate for the journal?

20. Abstract: Purpose
 Indicate the question that the study answers
 Or, indicate the hypothesis that it tests
 Is it the work important for general
readers?

21. Abstract: Setting
 Where the study took place
 Does this place enable the readers to assess
the study’s applicability to their practice?

22. Abstract: Methods
 Study design
 Randomization and masking
 Prospective or retrospective
 Patient identification
 Intervention procedure
 Measurements
 Is it appropriate and adequate to answer
the research question?

23. Abstract: Results
 Outcomes
 Measurements
 Data should include the level of statistical
significance
 Are they credible?

24. Abstract: Conclusions
 Do they answer the research question?
 Is the message clear?

25. Abstract: Beyond
 Review,Techniques and Case Reports
 Should be preface by a 150-word DESCRIPTIVE
Abstract
 Letter to the Editor
 Do not require an abstract
 Submitted within 6 weeks of publication
 Should not exceed 300 words, 1 figure or table, and 5
references
 It can not include more than 3 authors
 Correspondence
 Do not require an abstract
 Should not exceed 500 words, 2 figures or tables, and
8 references

26. KEYWORDS
 3–5 keywords
 For easier to find your article
 One of the most important elements in the
process of discovery

27. SYNOPSIS
 Describe the main finding of the paper
 Not duplicate the abstract conclusion
 Should be no more than 30 words

28. INTRODUCTION
 Rationale for study (need and significance)
 Summarizes relevant research to provide
context, and explains other authors' findings
 Describe the novelty of the study
 Objective of the study

29. INTRODUCTION
 Brief background for this audience
 3-4 paragraphs only
 What’s known/not known on research
question – citing systematic reviews where
possible
 Don’t bore readers, editors, reviewers
 The research question: State it clearly in last
paragraph of introduction  Say why the
question matters

30. METHODS
 The design is suitable for answering the
question
 Setting
 The sampling is appropriate
 Are inclusion and exclusion criteria described?
 How representative were they?
 Ethical clearance
 Meets Declaration of Helsinki
 Meets Hospital or Institution Ethical clearance

31. METHODS
 Data collection procedures
 Measurements have been described
 Data Analysis (Description of statistical test,
level of statistical significance and evaluation)
 Material and software information (Brand,
Manufacturers)

32. RESULTS
 Detail in narrative of the findings
 Descriptive quality of figures and tables (if
relevant)
 Clearly laid out and in a logical sequence
 The analysis has been conducted
appropriately
 Is it well presented?

33. DISCUSSION
 Findings compared and contrasted with
relevant literature
 The results support or contradict previous
theories
 Limitations of the study
 Clinical implications of the study
 Future directions of the study
 Recommended topics for further study

34. IMRaD structure for research papers
 Introduction: why ask this research question?
 Methods: what did I do?
 Results: what did I find?
 And
 Discussion: what might it mean?
 Hill AB.The reasons for writing. BMJ 1965;4: 870

35. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
 Describe clearly

36. PREVIOUS PRESENTATION
 Describe clearly

37. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 Describe clearly

38. TEXT
 Clear concise language
 American spelling (all components of a manuscript must be in
English)
 Ensure tables and figures are cited
 Do not punctuate abbreviations eg, et al, ie
 Spell out acronyms in the first instance in the abstract and paper
 Word counts are not specified
 Generic drug names are used in text, tables, and figures
 Suppliers of drugs, equipment, and other brand-name material
are credited in parentheses (company, name, city, state, country)
 If molecular sequences are used, provide a statement that the
data have been deposited in a publicly accessible database, eg,
GenBank, and indicate the database accession number

39. TEXT
 Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of
speech which you are used to seeing in print [a
cliché]
 Never use a long word where a short one will do
 If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out
 Never use the passive where you can use the
active
 Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a
jargon word if you can think of an everyday
English equivalent

40. FIGURE AND TABLE
 Submit as separate files and also as one combined file
 Submit figures as JPG files
 All figures and tables must be in English
 Number consecutively
 Provide a descriptive heading/legend
 Place abbreviations immediately below the table
 Use superscript a, b, c… as identifiers
 Graphics downloaded fromWeb pages are NOT acceptable
 Submit multi-panel figures, ie with parts labeled a,b,c,d, as
one file

41. CITATION
 Cite references sequentially in text, tables,
and legends by superscriptArabic numerals
with no parentheses, eg, 1 or 3,4 or 10–15
 Numbers should be placed after punctuation
marks, eg, .3,4
 Do not use MicrosoftWord’s
footnote/endnotes function to build the
reference list as this can introduce errors
during the typesetting process

42. REFERENCES
 Authors are responsible for the accuracy and
completeness of their references
 Compliance with journal format (Vancouver and
AMA style)
 The minimal number of references should be 10
 20 will be better
 Mostly Scopus-indexed journal
 85% of them should be recent (published during the
last 10 years, with the majority during the last 5
years)
 Abbreviate journal names according to the Index
Medicus system

43. REFERENCES
 Authors’ name
 Title
 Journal name (abbreviated according to the
Index Medicus system
 Years
 Volume
 Number
 Pages
 Use “et al.” only when a paper has more than 4
authors, and only after listing the first 3 authors

44. REFERENCES: Journal article
 Pardianto G. Recent awareness and consideration of
intraocular pressure fluctuation during eye surgery. J
Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(3):695. (D. Gologorsky and
HW. Flynn Jr. Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer
Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine,
Miami, FL, USA – Clin Ophthalmol DOI 10.2147/OPTH.S104475)
 Pardianto G, Moeloek N, Reveny J, Wage S, Satari I,
Sembiring R, Srisamran N (2013) Retinal thickness
changes after phacoemulsification. Clin Ophthalmol
7:2207–2214 (L. Pierro, L. Iuliano, M. Gagliardi, M. Codenotti ,
F. Bandello. Department of Ophthalmology,Vita-Salute
University, San Raffaele ScientificInstitute,Via Olgettina 60,
20132 Milan, Italy - Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol DOI
10.1007/s00417-014-2665-8)

45. REFERENCES
 Are they up to date and relevant?
 Are there any glaring omissions?

46. FIGURE LEGENDS
 Should be included in the manuscript file,
following the references

47. RECOMMENDATION
 Not appropriate
 Reject
 Accept after major revisions
 Accept after minor revisions
 Accept as it is
 Specific reasons for decision

48. EDITOR IN CHIEF
 The editorial decision-maker, often the Editor-in-
Chief, will review the submitted manuscript,
peer-reviewer comments and scores, and
conflict of interest declarations before making
their first editorial decision
 This may be to reject the paper, return it to peer-
reviewers for further consideration, or return it
to the author directly for further points to be
addressed.
 They may also make the decision of accept the
paper for publication.

49. NOTIFICATIONS
 We receive your paper
 Your paper is now being reviewed
 Your paper is rejected or accepted
 Your paper is now published

50. Reasons reviewers reject manuscripts
 Inappropriate or incomplete statistics
 Overinterpretation of results
 Inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation
 Sample too small or biased
 Text difficult to follow
 Insufficient problem statement [research question]
 Inaccurate or inconsistent data reported
 Incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the
literature
 Insufficient data presented
 Defective tables or figures

51. PROOF
 Authors will receive the typeset page proofs for
approval
 Check that the authors have answered all the
editor’s queries
 Further authors’ corrections should be minimal
and absolutely necessary
 The authors should mark the adjustments clearly
in the text and margins, and keep a copy of what
the authors send to the editor
 Ensure all authors sign and return the Approval
for Publication and final page of Publication
Agreement

52. AUTHORSHIP
 Authorship credit should be based on:
 Substantial contributions to conception and design,
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
 Drafting the article or revising it critically for important
intellectual content
 Final approval of the version to be published
 Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in
ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity
of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and
resolved.
 Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4
 Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general
supervision of the research group alone does not
constitute authorship

53. INDEXING
 Indexation of a journal is considered a
reflection of its quality
 Indexed journals are considered to be of
higher scientific quality as compared to non-
indexed journals

54. Indexing: Scopus
 Scopus is the largest abstract and citation
database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific
journals, books and conference proceedings
 Delivering a comprehensive overview of the
world's research output in the fields of science,
technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts
and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to
track, analyze and visualize research
 ELSEVIER

55. Indexing: MEDLINE
 MEDLINE is the U.S. National Library of Medicine® (NLM)
PREMIER bibliographic database that contains more than
24 million references to journal articles in life sciences with
a concentration on biomedicine
 A distinctive feature of MEDLINE is that the records are
indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®).
 MEDLINE is the online counterpart to MEDLARS® (MEDical
Literature Analysis and Retrieval System) that originated in
1964
 The great majority of journals are selected for MEDLINE
based on the recommendation of the Literature Selection
Technical Review Committee (LSTRC), an National
Institutes of Health (NIH)-chartered advisory committee of
external experts analogous to the committees that review
NIH grant applications

56. Indexing: PubMed
 PubMed comprises more than 27 million
citations for biomedical literature from
MEDLINE, life science journals, and online
books. Citations may include links to full-text
content from PubMed Central and publisher
web sites.
 National Center for Biotechnology
Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of
Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health
(NIH)

57. Indexing: Embase
 Embase is a highly versatile, multipurpose
and up-to-date biomedical database.
 It covers the most important international
biomedical literature from 1947 to the
present day and all articles are indexed in
depth using Elsevier's Life Science thesaurus
Embase Indexing and Emtree®.
 The entire database is also conveniently
available on multiple platforms.

58. ORCID
 ORCID provides researchers with a unique identifier
that can be kept throughout their career
 It can be used in publications and grant applications
 ORCID distinguishes between researchers with
similar names, and helps ensure that publications
are attributed and recorded correctly
 It also helps researchers to comply with funders’
open access requirements
 Having an ORCID iD will support the discovery of
your research and publications

59. Impact Factor
 The Impact Factor (IF) is calculated by
dividing the number of citations in the
Journal Citation Reports (JCR) year by the
total number of articles published in the two
previous years
 A Journal Impact Factor of 2.5 means that, on
average, the articles published one or two
years ago have been cited two and a half
times