Presentation on theme: "《肿瘤学家》期刊介绍 如何向国际一流学术期刊投稿"— Presentation transcript:
1 The Oncologist & How to Prepare Papers for Top-Tier International Journals 《肿瘤学家》期刊介绍 如何向国际一流学术期刊投稿Authors’ Toolkit: A Practical Guide（投稿者工具包：实用指南）
2 Objectives（目的） By the end of this session, you will be able to: 在此次讲座结束时，参加讲座者应掌握以下几点：Describe journals’ editorial policies 描述期刊的编辑方针Identify the most suitable audiences for your work 确定你的稿件最适合的读者群Select the right journal for your manuscript 为你的稿件选择正确的投稿期刊Demonstrate the best practices for preparing manuscripts and supplemental materials 使用最优方法来准备稿件和附加材料Develop skills for dialogue with editors 掌握一些与编辑对话的技巧Explain the review, revision, and resubmission procedures 解释审稿、修稿、再次投稿的过程
3 Journal Selection（选择投稿期刊） Whom do I want to reach (target audience)? 我想让谁阅读我的文章？ 目标读者How do I intend to reach the desired audience? 怎样使我的文章被目标读者读到？Is the journal open-access? 这部期刊是开放性的吗？How will readers access my article? 读者会怎样读到我的文章？What type of journal will best meet my needs (general or specific, local or international)? 哪种期刊最满足我的需求（综合性期刊还是专刊，国内还是国际期刊）？How soon do I need to publish the data? 我需要多快发表我的数据？Speed of review 审稿的速度Speed of publication 发表的速度
4 Journal Selection（选择投稿期刊） Research journal options 查找合适的期刊Request input from peers, mentors, librarians. 向同行、导师、图书馆相关人员寻求意见Research PubMed (MEDLINE) for similar topics. 从PubMed(MEDLINE)上查找相似议题Explore journal directories (e.g., Directory of Open Access Journals). 查找期刊目录（例如：开放性期刊目录）Identify your journal of choice 确定你所选择的期刊Determine the fit between your study and a target journal 确定你选择的期刊与你的研究的适合程度Research the journal thoroughly 对期刊进行全面的调查Consider the needs of co-authors and research sponsors 还需考虑其他作者和研究赞助者的需求
5 Journal Selection（选择投稿期刊） Considerations: 考虑因素scope and aims of the journal 期刊的宗旨和涉及范围- (e.g. narrow, broad, how well it matches your topic) (例如：范围、宽度、与你研究的 相关度)typical readership (e.g., researchers, clinicians…) 典型读者类型（例如：科研人员、临床医生….)methodology preferences, balance of reviews and original research 期刊刊登文章的研究类型，综述和原创研究的比例credibility and prestige of the journal, impact factor 期刊的可靠度和信誉，影响因子visibility, journal accessibility 期刊的可及度- Open access? Available on mobile? Indexed by PubMed 开放性期刊？在手机上是否可以阅览？ 是否由PubMed引录？
6 Journal Selection（选择投稿期刊） Review Author Instructions. 阅读投稿须知Ensure article falls within the mission of the Journal. 确定投稿文章内容在期刊发表范围之内Read the content of a few issues. 阅读期刊近几期的内容
7 Pre-submission Inquiries （投稿前询问信） Directed to the Editors to gauge their level of interest in the topic of a manuscript 与编辑通信来判断他们对你的文章议题的感兴趣程度Helps to determine whether the paper will likely be considered for peer review 帮助确定文章是否会被审稿
8 Pre-submission Inquiries（投稿前询问信） This under-utilized tool streamlines the manuscript submission and review process 这个不常用的方法常常会简化投稿与审稿的过程Facilitates the receipt of timely and useful feedback 帮助获取来自编辑及时、有用的反馈Helps clarify Instructions for Authors 帮助弄清投稿须知Reduces strain on journal resources (e.g., peer reviewers) 减轻期刊相关人员的负担（例如：审稿者）Enhances efficiency and speed of publication 提高文章发表的速度与效率Improves transparency in article selection process 改善文章选择的透明度
9 Pre-submission Inquiries（投稿前询问信） Best Practices（最优方法）Submit a pre-submission inquiry especially:在下述的情况下尤其需写投稿前询问信If you are unsure about your article’s suitability for a journal如果你不确定你的文章是否适合在该期刊上发表If you have questions about the submission or review process如果你不清楚投稿与审稿的程序Provide sufficient study information for decision-making为期刊最终决策提供充足的信息Abstract 摘要Perceived value to a journal’s audience 对该期刊读者的价值Relationship to an existing body of work for a specific topic 与相关研究领域内一项议题的联系Disclosure of prior submissions 公开先前投稿情况Description of unusual circumstances 说明特殊情况Be concise 简明Stay open-minded if your article is not accepted 保持开明的态度Request suggestions about more suitable journals (if not accepted)询问编辑其他适合投稿的期刊（如果没有被该期刊接受）Add pre submission inquiry examples
10 Pre-Submission Inquiry--Example Dear Editors:I plan to submit an unsolicited review manuscript entitled “Metformin is associated with survival benefit in cancer patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes: a systemic review and meta-analyses”, to Journal of The Oncologist.Patients with type 2 diabetes have increased cancer risk and cancer-related mortality, which can be reduced by metformin treatment. However, it is unclear if metformin can also modulate clinical outcomes in cancer patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes. Since 2009, a growing number of studies compared metformin versus non-metformin treatment on survival outcomes of diabetic patients in various types of malignancies, including breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, hepatic, and ovarian cancer, etc.Through a meta-analysis, consisting of 14 publications with 9,028 subjects, we found that there was a relative survival benefit associated with metformin treatment, compared with treatment with other glucose-lowering medications (HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49–0.74). These associations were also observed in subgroups by country (Asian or Western countries: HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.40–0.60, Asian countries; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52–0.85, Western countries).This is the first review article and meta-analysis on this topic. Publication of this article may have potential to impact treatment options in such patients.All the authors declared no conflict of interest. A title page in enclosed to identify all authors.Thank you for your time, attention, and consideration.DESCRIBE THE QUESTION（叙述研究问题）Patients with type 2 diabetes have increased cancer risk and cancer-related mortality, which can be reduced by metformin（二甲双胍） treatment. However, it is unclear if metformin can also modulate clinical outcomes in cancer patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes. Since 2009, a growing number of studies compared metformin versus non-metformin treatment on survival outcomes of diabetic patients in various types of malignancies, including breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, hepatic, and ovarian cancer, etc.SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS（总结结果）Through a meta-analysis（荟萃分析）, consisting of 14 publications with 9,028 subjects, we found that there was a relative survival benefit associated with metformin treatment, compared with treatment with other glucose-lowering medications (HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49–0.74). These associations were also observed in subgroups by country (Asian or Western countries: HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.40–0.60, Asian countries; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52–0.85, Western countries).HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS UNIQUE（突出文章的独特之处）This is the first review article and meta-analysis on this topic. Publication of this article may have potential to impact treatment options in such patients.This is an animated slide showing a successful presubmission inquiry. This article is now with authors for minor revisions.
11 Manuscript Preparation（稿件的准备） Compliance with journal guidelines makes it easier to evaluate your submission. 依从期刊要求使你的文章更容易评估Follow the journal’s instructions regarding: 在以下方面遵循期刊投稿须知上的要求Formats and lengths 形式与长度Graphic sizes 图表大小Types of supplemental data 补充数据的类型Use proper grammar, punctuation, and language 使用合适的语法、标点及语言Check that data and results within all text and accompanying materials are internally consistent 检查文章中的数据与结果，确定资料间的一致性Be as transparent as possible when disclosing the research question, how the study was conducted, and what findings are included. 在公布研究问题、研究实施方法及结果时做到尽可能透明化If your English skills are not proficient, you may consider the use of an editing service such as American Journal Experts or BioScience.Data and results should be internally consistent. Ensure that results noted in tables are the same results noted in the text.
12 Manuscript Preparation （稿件的准备） Major Challenges for Authors 对于作者要求Keeping up-to-date with original sources and reviewing the literature 不断更新原始资料和文献回顾Providing complete disclosure statements 提供完整的披露申明Addressing the utility and importance of drugs not currently available in authors’ home countries 说明在作者本国不通用药品的使用情况以及其重要性
13 Manuscript Preparation（稿件的准备） Mistakes to Avoid 可避免的一些错误Missing and/or illegible pages 缺页或者页面不清楚Visible comments by internal reviewers 内部审阅者的评论Poor grammar and typographical errors 语法、排字上的错误Failing to ensure that all authors have read and approved the submission 其他作者未阅读稿件及同意投稿Submitting to multiple journals at once and noting the wrong journal in the cover letter (Duplicate submission) 一次向多个期刊投稿而在投稿信中混淆期刊名称（重复投稿）Duplicate publication 重复发表Duplicate submission: submitting the same article to more than one journal at the same time.Duplicate publication: submitting a published article to a different journal.
14 Manuscript Preparation（稿件的准备） Mistakes to Avoid 可避免的错误Rambling text and formatting errors 杂乱无章的全文及格式错误Over-interpretation, uncritical discussion 过度解释、不重要的讨论Excessive length, references, and figures 篇幅过长，参考文献与图表过多Figure legends and text that do not match 图表解释部分与文章内容不一致Lack of senior authorship involvement in writing introduction and discussion 在写前言和讨论时，缺少年资较高的作者参与Lack of proper acknowledgment of authorship and other contributors (e.g., medical “ghost” writers) 缺少感谢作者及其他贡献者的参与（例如：医学“影子”作者）Delete ghost writer
15 Submission Types（投稿类型） Original Articles 原创研究Review Articles 综述文章Brief Reports 简短报告Letters to the Editor 给编辑的信Case Discussions 病例研讨Clinical Trial Results 临床试验结果What is the appropriate format for the data you have collected? Most articles are either Original Articles or Review Articles, but there are other options for reporting the findings of smaller studies, interesting observations, or results that may be negative or simply confirmatory.
16 CSCO Case DiscussionsCase Discussions are useful for reporting: 病例研讨可汇报以下内容Unreported or unusual side effects or adverse interactions involving medications 未报道过的、罕见的药物副作用或者药物间的不良相互作用Unexpected or unusual presentations of a disease 意外的或者罕见的疾病表现Presentations, diagnoses and/or management of rare diseases 罕见疾病的表现、诊断、处理An unexpected association between diseases or symptoms 疾病间或者症状间意外的相关性An unexpected event in the course of observing or treating a patient, including adverse events 在观察或者治疗病人过程中一些意外的事件，包括不良反应事件Case Discussions should have obvious educational merit 病例研讨应具有显著的教育意义
17 CSCO Case DiscussionsPartnered with Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Foundation and Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) 与北京市希思科临床肿瘤学研究基金会和中国抗癌协会临床肿瘤学 专业委员会合作Moderated by Professor LU Shun from Shanghai Chest Hospital, expert panel of oncologists discusses patient cases in a live Internet forum 由上海市胸科医院的陆舜教授指导，肿瘤专家组 以在线论坛的形式讨论疑难病例Enables other oncologists to participate in a virtual dialogue 促使其他肿瘤学家参与实质性的多方对话Available through the support of CSCO & STO 在CSCO与STO的支持下实现Milestone in cancer education by The Oncologist in China 《肿瘤学家》期刊在中国开展肿瘤教育的里程碑
18 Clinical Trial Results （临床试验结果） An article type designed to encourage the reporting of all clinical trial results 一种鼓励报告临床结果的文章形式Rapidly publish results that provide insight into pharmacology, drug interactions, and reason(s) for drug failure对提供具有深度的药理学、药物相互 作用及用药失败的结果给予快速发表Publishes positive and negative trials; encourages transparency of clinical trial results汇报阳性与阴性结果；鼓励临床试验 的透明度Fully indexed by PubMed, ensuring thorough access to results worldwide被PubMed收录，可供全球读者阅览Combination format 文章格式Author Summary: abstract + brief discussion + 1 or 2 salient graphics作者总结：摘要+简要讨论+1至2个 图表Full data set + extended discussion available online完整的数据集+扩展的在线讨论
20 Cover Letters （投稿信）This is the first summary of your article and first chance to convey its significance and relevance. 这是对你的文章的首次总结，也是展现文章重要性和相关性的首次机会Explain why the selected journal is the right place to publish your article解释你的论文为何适合发表在该期刊Describe how your article will advance the field 叙述你的论文如何推动相关研究领域的发展Continue journal-author dialogue继续期刊-作者间的对话Disclose any prior submissions公开先前投稿情况
21 Cover Letters (投稿信） Best Practices 最优方法 Clearly articulate the purpose of the article清晰地阐明文章目的Be open-minded and respectful 开明、尊重Remind editors of previous communications (e.g., pre- submission inquiries)提醒编辑先前的交流（例如：投稿前询问信）Show interest in issues of importance to the journal:关注对期刊重要的问题Regulatory requirements 药物监管要求Conflict of interest disclosures 利益冲突的公开Authorship and contributorship criteria 作者与贡献者的标准Mention prior submissions 提及先前的投稿情况Helps editors evaluate improvements made to a manuscript帮助编辑评估稿件的改正情况Utilize the cover letter template (please see handout)使用投稿信的模版
22 Cover Letter: Example #1 On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to submit to The Oncologist this manuscript of original research entitled “EGFR and KRAS Mutation Heterogeneity and the Mixed Response to EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer”. All authors of this research paper have directly participated in the planning, execution, or analysis of the study and met International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria.HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS UNIQUE （突出研究特点）Our study is, thus far, the largest reported study on heterogeneity.SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS （总结结果）In total, 239 paired samples from a database of 3071 tumors were identified for the assessment of EGFR/KRAS heterogeneity by direct sequencing. 201 cases were left after the elimination of patients receiving TKI which including 54 synchronous tumor and 147 metachronous tumor. EGFR/KRAS mutations heterogeneity is indeterminate in T, N, and M1b groups while significant in patients with multiple pulmonary nodule and metachronous tumor. The presence of multiple pulmonary tumors should not preclude the second surgical resection.Explain the Impact （解释其影响）In addition, our results provide a potential explanation for the mixed response and TKI resistance, which may give foundation for future diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.Our study is, thus far, the largest reported study on heterogeneity.In total, 239 paired samples from a database of 3071 tumors were identified for the assessment of EGFR/KRAS heterogeneity by direct sequencing. 201 cases were left after the elimination of patients receiving TKI which including 54 synchronous tumor and 147 metachronous tumor. EGFR/KRAS mutations heterogeneity is indeterminate in T, N, and M1b groups while significant in patients with multiple pulmonary nodule and metachronous tumor. The presence of multiple pulmonary tumors should not preclude the second surgical resection.Animated to show important aspects of the cover letterThe distinguishing factorBrief summaryImpact of the findingsIn addition, our results provide a potential explanation for the mixed response and TKI resistance, which may give foundation for future diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.
23 Cover Letter: Example #2 HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS UNIQUE （突出研究特点）This manuscript reports the first prospective study comparing surgical resection with best supportive care (BSC).SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS（总结结果）A consecutive of 126 patients were enrolled and assigned to receive surgical resection or BSC as treatments. The results showed that at an aggressive strategy based on surgical resection provided a 74.2% relative reduction in the risk of death compared with BSC, and provided a 13.7% 5-year survival rate. While there was no 3-year survivors in BSC arm.EXPLAIN THE IMPACT （解释其影响）These findings would be help for oncologists treating patients who have no access to sorafenib.Sorafenib is recommended as standard care for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). However, there is a need to develop alternative treatments in settings where sorafenib is not feasible at a population level, because developing countries accounted for 85% of all HCC occur globally. The long-term efficacy and safety of surgical resection in these patients is lacking in evidence.This manuscript reports the first prospective study comparing surgical resection with best supportive care (BSC).A consecutive of 126 patients were enrolled and assigned to receive surgical resection or BSC as treatments. The results showed that at an aggressive strategy based on surgical resection provided a 74.2% relative reduction in the risk of death compared with BSC, and provided a 13.7% 5-year survival rate. While there was no 3-year survivors in BSC arm.Cover letter defines an important question: developing alternative treatments for treating HCC where sorafenib is not feasible. Editors found the paper provocative and interesting upon initial review.These findings would be help for oncologists treating patients who have no access to sorafenib.
24 Cover Letter: Example #3 HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS UNIQUE （突出研究特点）In this work we highlight a case of coexistent Langherhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) and Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) which is a very rare condition in clinical practice. …This is the first systemic study in the field from China.SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS （总结结果）After the case report, we further analyzed all patients with LCH or ECD diagnosed in our hospital in the past 8 years. Eosinophilic granuloma, Hand-schuller-Christian disease (HSC) and ECD are compared.EXPLAIN THE IMPACT （解释其影响）A triad of diabetes insipitus, hyperprolactinemia and pituitary stalk thickening on MRI is considered to be helpful to diagnose HSC at onset of the disease. We believe the paper will be of interest to both oncologists and endocrinologists. This manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all authors who have contributed to the manuscript.In this work we highlight a case of coexistent Langherhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) and Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) which is a very rare condition in clinical practice. This is the first systemic study in the field from China.After the case report, we further analyzed all patients with LCH or ECD diagnosed in our hospital in the past 8 years. Eosinophilic granuloma, Hand-schuller-Christian disease (HSC) and ECD are compared.A triad of diabetes insipitus, hyperprolactinemia and pituitary stalk thickening on MRI is considered to be helpful to diagnose HSC at onset of the disease. We believe the paper will be of interest to both oncologists and endocrinologists.
25 Learning Objectives/Gap Analysis （学习目标/缺口分析） Describe the best practice concerning the topic of the manuscript, the current practice, and the “gaps” between them (e.g., what needs to be learned on the subject). Explain how the article will bridge the gap and describe the impact that the article will have on readers’ competence or performance and/or how the articles might ultimately impact patients’ health.描述与稿件题目相关的最佳临床实践，现行的临床实践，以及他们之间的“缺口” （例如： 关于这个问题我们还需了解什么）。解释论文怎样补充此研究缺口，以及描述论文对读者的 影响，或者描述论文最终会怎样影响患者的健康。Learning Objectives 学习目标The gaps described by in the Gap Analysis should lead to learning objectives explaining what new information a reader will gain from reading the article.“缺口分析”应该引出“学习目标”，解释读者通过阅读论文可以获得什么新信息。Implications for Practice / Impact Statement对临床实践的意义/影响力申明A brief summary statement that describes the overarching significance of the article. It should clearly define the potential impact and importance of the manuscript, especially in terms of its clinical applications.以一个简短的总结描述论文的重要性。总结应该清楚地定义论文带来的影响及其重要性，尤 其是在临床应用方面的重要性。The journal you submit to may not require these elements, but it is a good way to help you to focus sharply on why what you have studied is important, how it advances the field, who will benefit…
26 Editorial Review （编辑审查） Upon submission, Editors assess: 投稿后，编辑将会评估：Suitability for the journal 是否适合发表在该期刊Strength of the methods 研究方法的验证强度Value to the field 对于该领域的价值Based on the assessment, the manuscript will either be reviewed externally or rejected without external review 根据评估结果，稿件会受外部同行审稿，或者被拒稿
27 Review, Revise and Resubmit （审稿、修稿、再次投稿） This is your opportunity to address all reviewer and editorial comments 这是你回复审稿者及编辑提出的意见的机会Specific guidance about a journal’s review system are often found in the Instructions to Authors and can help set appropriate expectations regarding the review process and projected timeline. 在投稿须知中可找到有关期刊审稿程序的具体指南，借此可对整 个审稿过程及时间有所了解。
28 Review, Revise and Resubmit（审稿、修稿、再次投稿） Best Practices 最优方法Remember that reviewers’ comments are meant to be helpful记住审稿者的反馈建议对你是有帮助的Follow journals’ guidelines for revising manuscripts遵从期刊的投稿者指南中提到的修改稿件的要求Respond systematically to each point raised by the reviewers in a cover letter系统地一一回应审稿者的反馈建议File formats (e.g., Word document with tracked changes)文件的格式（例如：有修改印记的Word稿件）Address all reviewer and editorial comments point by point一一回应审稿者和编辑的反馈建议If a reviewer’s comment is viewed to be incorrect or unjustified, provide an explanation and supportive literature referencesAvoid easy fixes - these are often transparent to editors避免简单的修改，这些对编辑们来说是很明显的Address all reviewers’ comments, even if submitting elsewhere即使向其他期刊投稿，也要回应所有审稿者的评论Stay open-minded if your article is not accepted即使文章没被接受，也要保持开明的态度Major study design defects cannot be addressed by simply rewriting or formatting a manuscriptT11-
29 Revision: Example #1 Reviewer 2: Reviewer 1: Editors: Please address potential sampling error. You describe tumors that are supposedly EGFR WT-MUT (ie WT in primary, mutant in metastasis). It would seem to me a highly unlikely scenario, while the reverse would be more plausible. More likely is the concept that the primary is heterogeneous, and you only sampled and analyzed a WT portion. Please address in the Discussion section.Response: Refer to WT-MUT, a paragraph have been enhanced in the discussion section as requested: There are 5 patients present with WT in primary tumor while mutant in metastases. These might be originated from the heterogeneity within the primary carcinomas (page19, line 354 to line 365). In addition, the past Table 1 has been described by text.Editors:Please note that both of the reviewers and the editor found the results section quite confusing as written. There should be clearer explanations of why the various analyses and subgroup analyses were done. Consider summarizing only the most important results in the text itself while making clearer tables to display the full data. Response: In the revised manuscript, we have made it clear why the various analyses and subgroup analyses were performed, summarizing only the most important results in the text, using clear tables to display the full data.Reviewer 1:The authors’ conclusion that patients with multiple lung nodules should be considered for resection is a bold statement, they should clarify based on data on the number of nodules that should be considered as a patient with10 lung nodules versus 2 nodules are a very different case.Response: The sentence has been amended based on the reviewer’s suggestion. (page 19, line 371 to line 377):The presence of multiple synchronous or metachronous pulmonary tumors with N0, and no extra-thoracic involvement should not preclude a second surgical resection. However, whether patients with multiple lung nodules should be considered for resection based on many factors besides humor heterogeneity (multiple primary lung cancers or distant metastasis), including nodules number, location, and tumor size.
30 Revision: Example #1 More Reviews/More Revisions（多次审稿和多次修稿） Two more rounds of revision 两轮的修稿程序Thoughtful, incisive reviews 深思熟虑、一针见血的审阅Measured, comprehensive response from authors 来自作者的权衡及全面的回复In the end — SUCCESS最终稿件被成功接受Published in 2012, this article is one of the most read and most cited papers in The Oncologist during the past two years.该论文在2012年发表，是在过去两年中该期刊被阅读与引用次数最 多的论文Persistence matters—so does being open to constructive criticism. All involved in the peer review process want the same thing—high quality research and publications that can advance the field.
31 Peer Review: Example #2The control arm was not offered TACE or any other therapy. This is not best supportive care. There is no surprise that the surgical treated patients did better.The safety and efficacy of TACE in HCC is well proven. It is unclear why the BSC group was not offered this treatment.It does not seem plausible that 100% of patients had tumors >7cm, with 48/86 having >1 tumor, but only 16/86 were bilateral. Was there an inaccuracy in pre-op imaging? It seems to be ethically unacceptable to conduct the controlled study between well-established and potentially curative treatment (resection) and BSC, setting two-times longer median survival between the two arms. Did the patients in the BSC arm have any non-medical reasons to refrain from surgical treatment? And what kind of the treatment was adopted for 137 patients who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in this study? Reviewers found fatal flaws and serious ethical concerns in the design of the study and chose to reject on those grounds.
32 Peer Review: Example #2 REJECTED（拒稿） FLAWS IN THE STUDY DESIGN 研究设计上的缺点The control arm was not offered TACE or any other therapy. This is not best supportive care. There is no surprise that the surgical treated patients did better.The safety and efficacy of TACE in HCC is well proven. It is unclear why the BSC group was not offered this treatment.QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DATA 对于数据提出的问题It does not seem plausible that 100% of patients had tumors >7cm, with 48/86 having >1 tumor, but only 16/86 were bilateral. Was there an inaccuracy in pre-op imaging?ETHICAL CONCERNS 伦理问题It seems to be ethically unacceptable to conduct the controlled study between well-established and potentially curative treatment (resection) and BSC, setting two-times longer median survival between the two arms. Did the patients in the BSC arm have any non-medical reasons to refrain from surgical treatment? And what kind of the treatment was adopted for 137 patients who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in this study? REJECTED（拒稿）
33 Revision: Example #3Can the authors expand on the etiology of the pituitary stalk thickening? How can it be differentiated from a intracranial germinoma?Response: In the light of the comment, thickening of pituitary stalk is highlighted in the discussion. Differential diagnosis between LCH and germinoma is elaborated in the first paragraph on page 11.Up to now, most of the cases about LCH or ECD were reported from Western countries. Since this is the first systemic study in the field from China, the authors should provide more background information of those diseases in China. Response: According to the comment, Chinese literatures in the field have been reviewed in the discussionCan the authors detail the radiographic appearances of osteolysis vs. osteosclerosis, which is essential to understand the key points of the manuscript?Response: We agree with the comment, radiographic appearances of osteolysis vs. osteosclerosis have been introduced in the discussion
34 Revision: Example #3 Accepted! A rare case report to be accepted as a CME (continuing medical education) course.CME Learning ObjectivesDistinguish Erdheim-Chester disease from Langerhans cell histiocytosis.Cite the keys to diagnosis of Hand-Schüller-Christian disease in a patient with only central diabetes insipidus.List the signs linking a Hand-Schüller-Christian disease patient to coexisting ECD.
35 Example #3: Learning Objectives, Gap Analysis & Implications for Practice Central diabetes insipitus (CDI) is usually the first or one of the first symptoms of Hand-Schüller-Christian disease (HSC). It is difficult to determine whether CDI is part of HSC at its onset.We propose a new triad of symptoms including central diabetes insipitus, hyperprolactinemia, and pituitary stalk thickening on MRI. If a patient presents with the triad, HSC should be considered.Bone scans are very useful to reveal HSC in the absence of bone pain. Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) and Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) are featured with osteolytic lesions and osteosclerosis, respectively. If osteosclerosis is observed in a patient with LCH, coexistence of ECD should be considered. A new biopsy is helpful for the diagnosis.Gap Analysis:Current PracticeBest PracticeThe Resulting GapCDI is usually the final diagnosis. The physicians seldom think the CDI may be part of HSC.For a patient with CDI presentation, pituitary MRI and blood prolactin test may be used for differential diagnosis. If pituitary stalk thickening and hyperprolactinemia are observed in the patient, HSC should be considered and a bone scan is necessary.Make a diagnosis of HSC at the early stage of the disease.Physicians seldom think a HSC patient may also suffer from ECD.If osteosclerosis appears in a patient with HSC, the coexistence of ECD should be considered and new biopsy is needed.Facilitate the diagnosis of ECD.The diagnosis of LCH or ECD is dependent on postoperative histopathological examination.LCH is featured as lytic bone lesions, elevated plasma ALP level. ECD is featured as osteosclerosis and normal ALP level.Make a primary diagnosis of LCH or ECD prior to surgery.Learning Objectives: 1. know how to differentiate ECD from LCH. 2. Keys to diagnose HSC in a patient with only central diabetes insipidus. 3. Signs to link a HSC patient to coexisting ECD.
36 Example #3: CME CaseA 36-year-old male is referred to your clinic with complaints of severe polyuria and extreme thirst that have lasted for several months. A water deprivation and desmopressin test reveal central diabetes insipidus (CDI). MRI shows pituitary stalk thickening. A blood test came back showing slightly increased prolactin. Which of the following is correct? a.He may have Hand-Schüller-Christian disease. b.A bone scan is indicated. c.CDI is an isolated disease and needs no further investigation. d.CDI is distinguishable from brain tumor such as germinoma and craniopharyngioma. e.A and B f.C and DA bone scan shows increased radionuclide uptake in the right zygoma, temporal bone, mandible, thoracic vertebra, and ribs. Osteolysis is observed in his X-ray images. Which of the following is incorrect? a.He is likely to be diagnosed with Hand-Schüller-Christian disease b.Biopsy may reveal Langerhans cell histiocytosis. c.He is likely to be diagnosed with Erdheim-Chester disease. d.He may suffer from Erdheim-Chester disease in the future.This submission was found to be acceptable for CME. Authors may be asked to contribute learning objectives and quiz questions for CME articles.
37 Acceptance & Rejection （接受及拒稿） Acceptance includes, but is not limited to:被接受的稿件优点包括，但不局限于：Importance of the research to the field of oncology 肿瘤领域中的重要研究Originality of the work 研究的原创性Quality of the study 研究的质量Priority of the work to the Journal and its readership 对于期刊和读者来说具有 重要性Papers are rejected if they are: 以下情况，论文会被拒稿:Not relevant to oncology practice issues 与肿瘤学实践无关Case reports not of educational benefit/relevance to the practitioner 无教育意 义的病例报告; by invitation from the editors only 仅仅由编辑邀请投稿Written by a ghost writer, paid by a commercial interest, promotional or not fair and balanced.由“影子”作者撰写，受商业利益驱使等Raise ethical concerns 引起伦理上的疑问Do not add significantly to the existing literature 对已有的文献没有贡献Papers are usually not rejected solely due to language, formatting, or other issues that meaningful revisions and the assistance of a good copyeditor can help to fix.
38 Next Steps After Rejection (拒稿后采取的步骤） Following rejection, authors generally have two choices:拒稿后，作者一般有两种选择Appeal the decision 反驳该期刊的拒稿决定Submit the manuscript to another journal 向其他期刊投稿Refer to the original list of researched journals and re-consider those identified as having a strong fit 参考原先搜查过的期刊目录，重新考虑向合适的期刊投稿Some journals will respond to follow-up questions.一些期刊会回应一些后续的问题Engage in open dialogue about the editors’ notes to develop a more effective new submission strategy 作者应与编辑积极开展对话，开发更加有效的投稿策略Some journals may share submissions with partner journals if a submission may be more appropriate for one of the partners.一些期刊与其伙伴期刊可能会共同分享稿件，并相互推荐。Appeals can be lengthy and acceptance is not guaranteed even if the appeal is granted. The manuscript will usually go through additional rounds of review, which may lead to the same conclusion.
39 Goals: The Oncologist’s Editorial Board 宗旨：《肿瘤学家》期刊编辑委员会 To encourage meaningful reviews and state-of-the-art papers 鼓励具有意义的综述和最新水平的论文To encourage original work that has relevance and impact on the practice of oncology 鼓励与肿瘤学实践有关并对其具有影响的原创性研究To keep pace with programs at the clinical frontier, and to encourage a bit of exploration at the same time 跟进临床实践的尖端技术，同时也鼓励创新性探索To keep our readership informed of the latest developments in clinical care and clinical research in each area of specialization 使我们的读者时刻了解每个副领域内最新的研究与临床进展
40 Additional Resources （更多资源） Toolkit Manuscript （文献工具包）– Chipperfield, et al. (2010). Authors' Submission Toolkit: A practical guide to getting your research published, CMRO, 26:8,The Oncologist（肿瘤学家期刊网址）:Contains more detailed discussion of topics and additional information on submission best practice 包括相关议题的详细内容以及与投稿有关的一些额外信息International Committee of Medical Journal Editors（国际医学期刊编辑委员会网址）:A comprehensive resource for writing articles for biomedical journals, including important ethical guidelines为撰写生物医学期刊论文提供全面的网上资源Medical Publications Insights and Practices (MPIP) website:有关医学论文发表的见解与方法的网址Provides a database of journals accepting “specialized interest” data and other helpful resources提供接受特殊研究方向数据的期刊数据库以及其他一些有用的资源