SCI医学论文写作与发表 英国医学会 英国医学杂志出版集团

主题 中国研究的趋势 如何计划研究 研究中的伦理问题 研究提出的问题及试验设计 如何撰写论文 “专业写手”的角色 和论文发表相关的伦理问题 如何取悦编辑和审稿人

编辑报告中关于原稿问题 书写较差, 过多专业术语 未充分/切当的表达 设计描述不清 过度热情，自我提升 基本原理不明，前后矛盾 遗漏重要数据 无趣 忽略他人的重要工作 很少 偶尔 频繁 Byrne DW, Publishing Medical Research Papers, Williams and Wilkins, 1998

医学研究的发表:来自中国的巨大增长 PubMed data base was accessed on December 3, 2009 through the Medical Library at the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, PR China. This means that the number of publications for 2009 was not quite complete at the time of analysis. But we did not analyse the 2009 publications in isolation – only among all publications from 2005-2009. The data base contained 18,251,963 publications. The following fields were analysed: journal name, year of publication, publication language, corresponding author‟s address and publication type. The country of origin of each publication was identified from the corresponding author‟s address field; some address fields were empty and some address fields did not include enough information to be used for country identification. The publication type was coded as full article (“article”) or non-full article, such as editorial or letter to the editor. Only full articles were used in the main body of the analysis. 4

医学研究的发表:但中国的研究缺少影响 All high impact journal articles were identified. High impact journal articles were defined as published in one of the leading 100 biomedical journals, based on the impact factor figure for year 2008 (Journal Citation Reports, Thomson Reuters4). Two sub-groups of high impact articles were also established; “Clinical”, i.e. articles published in New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, BMJ or JAMA, and “Pre-clinical” published in Nature or Science. 5

中国科学技术信息研究所数据 2008年，中国内地在国际期刊上发表 9.55万篇 世界份额6.6% 排名第4 （美国，英国，德国） 其中1.6万篇“表现不俗”-超过学科的世界平均被引用次数 国内发表47.20万篇

医科院（协和医大）信息所数据 医学 1996年-2008年, 110138篇 2008年, 22062篇 排名美，英，德，日，法，意，加，西，澳，荷，中国，土耳其，印度

如何在高影响因子的期刊上发表 （一） 利用文献提出研究问题，并确保这个问题是重要的，新颖的，国际化的 列出协同作者，统计师，导师 设计试验，制定方法，检查伦理 撰写计划，获得经费和伦理审查 好好地做试验

如何在高影响因子的期刊上发表 （二） 清楚，简单的语言报告研究 遵循出版伦理 选择正确的期刊 与编辑有效的沟通

来自中国的投稿 2008年 - 90 篇 (1.2%): 1篇发表 2009年 – 173 篇(2.1%): 2篇发表 2010年– 158篇(3.2%): 5篇发表 2008年， 56%的投稿来自英国以外: 23%来自欧洲其他国家，18%来自北美，9%来自澳洲，6%来自世界其他国家

近年中国作者在BMJ发表情况 Research Methods & Reporting: Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluatethe credibility of subgroup analyses. Xin Sun (Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence Based Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu) and colleagues fromCanada. BMJ 340:doi:10.1136/bmj.c117 Letter: Fever as nature’s engine: Adaptive and protective values of symptoms. Ming Yi, Haolin Zhang (Neuroscience Research Institute, Peking University, Beijing). BMJ 340:doi:10.1136/bmj.c1339 Editorial: Diagnosing diabetes using glycated haemoglobin A1c. Wenying Yang (China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing). BMJ 340:doi:10.1136/bmj.c2262 Research: Overweight and obesity in mothers and risk of preterm birth and low birth weightinfants: systematic review and meta-analyses. Sarah D McDonald, Zhen Han (First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiao Tong University, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xi’an, Shaanxi Province) and colleagues from Canada. BMJ 341:doi:10.1136/bmj.c3428

影响因子 IF = a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a given period of time. The impact factor for a journal is calculated based on a three-year period, and can be considered to be the average number of times published papers are cited up to two years after publication. For example, the impact factor 2010 for a journal would be calculated as follows: A = the number of times articles published in 2008-9 were cited in indexed journals during 2010 B = the number of articles, reviews, proceedings or notes published in 2008-2009 impact factor 2010 = A/B (note that the impact factor 2009 will be actually published in 2010, because it could not be calculated until all of the 2009 publications had been received. Impact factor 2010 will be published in 2011) 12

May 2008 引用时长？ A measure of how long articles in a journal continue to be cited after publication Median age of the articles that were cited in the JCR year (Half a journal's cited articles were published more recently than the cited half-life) A higher or lower cited half-life does not imply any particular value for a journal 13

BMJ及旗下期刊的关注点 新颖性/创新性 引领世界医学前沿/潮流 严谨性 可重复性 趣味性 符合伦理学（不可过度入选患者）

发表的重要性 总结经验 晋升职称 获得学位 与同行分享发现的乐趣 其他更高的境界

发表的影响 推动科学发展 提高知名度 对排名的影响 国家的地位 基金的申请和评价 成果的评价

认识SCI论文 要想在国际核心期刊发表论文，首先要注重原创性；原创性课题通常是来源于时间或对各种有关信息的研究，而不是来源于现成文献。 任何期刊都不希望发表已见于其他杂志，或由其它语言发表，或以少有不同的形式发表的论文

创新性 新理论 新观点 新技术 新方法 源头创新 跟踪创新

发表SCI论文的关键 一定要符合西方人习惯，严格按照体例，格式等要求进行立题，试验，写作，投稿等 注重伦理，数据真实性 特别重视论文题目，摘要，研究方法，图表和结论 花大力气提高英语写作水平 做好内外沟通、联络工作 出版伦理，不要抄袭！

研究中的伦理问题 20

研究中应遵循的伦理 赫尔辛基宣言(2008) ICH GCP (1996) 中欧新签署的关于试验伦理的协议 (2010) Declaration of Helsinki: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html Bionet: http://www.bionet-china.org/pdfs/BIONETexpertReport.pdf ICH GCP: http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA482.pdf Over three years (2006-2009), the BIONET project examined challenges of ethical governance related to Sino-European collaboration in advanced life sciences research, focusing on the fields of stem cell research, clinical trials and biobanking. Through a series of workshops and conferences held in Beijing, Shanghai, Changsha, Xi'an, Shenzhen and London, scientists, clinicians, lawyers, ethicists and social scientists met to discuss and debate how ethical challenges arising from Sino-European research collaborations might be addressed. 21

赫尔辛基宣言 世界医学会于2008年更新： 修改如下: 每一个临床试验必须在入选第一例病例前在官方网站上进行注册 每一个潜在的受试者必须充分知情试验的目的，方法，资金来源，利益竞争，研究者单位，参加试验的受益与风险，及其他与本试验相关的内容 http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html 22

伦理问题 – 广义 在获得受试者知情同意之前应该提供什么样的信息？ 本研究与目前普遍认同的临床实践操作上有什么不同？ 受试者将可能承受多大负荷？ 受试者或他人可能承受什么样的风险？ 受试者或他人可能获得什么样的受益？ 社会及今后的患者将可能获得怎样的受益？ 是否有暴露患者的身份的风险？ 23

科研问题

何为科研问题? 研究者会提出的一个特定的问题并验证某个特定假说 问题也可能称为目的或目标 虽然称之为一个“问题”有助于让人们关注该假说，从而去探求答案，但常常，它被称为一个“目的”或“方向”

什么是不好的问题? 一个对于任何人包括你自己都无关紧要的问题 一个希望可以从常规临床资料/记录中解脱出来的问题 记录容易偏倚混杂 因为其他方面原因所收集的信息， 往往不足以回答你的问题 数据侦察/探测 –收集新的数据并希望这个问题可以脱颖而出 The two main problems introduced by multiple analyses are, firstly, the increased probability of detecting intervention effects where none exist (“false positives” owing to multiple comparisons — type I errors), and secondly, the limited capability (“power”) of trials to detect a true treatment effect in secondary outcomes if not enough participants are enrolled to show a statistically significant difference in these outcomes (“false negatives” — type II errors). 26

好的科研题目 What impact has China’s New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme had on village health clinics? BMJ 341:doi:10.1136/bmj.c5617 (21 October 2010) How effective is the Shenzhen antenatal syphilis screening programme at identifying infants at high risk? Sex Transm Infect 2010;86:280-284 doi:10.1136/sti.2009.038893 (24 June 2010) Are IL-23R polymorphisms associated with susceptibility to Behcet's disease in a Chinese Han population? Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1325-1328 doi:10.1136/ard.2009.119420 (7 April 2010) New evidence on the impact of China’s New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme and its implications for rural primary healthcare: multivariate difference-in-difference analysis. Kimberly Singer Babiarz, Grant Miller, Hongmei Yi, Linxiu Zhang, Scott Rozelle BMJ 341:doi:10.1136/bmj.c5617 (Published 21 October 2010) Congenital syphilis: refining newborn evaluation and management in Shenzhen, southern China. Da-Dong Wu, Fu-Chang Hong, Tie-Jian Feng, Xiao-Li Liu, Li-Jun Lin, Li-Shan Tian, Li-Xia Qiu. Sex Transm Infect 2010;86:280-284 Published Online First: 24 June 2010 doi:10.1136/sti.2009.038893 Extended report: IL-23R gene confers susceptibility to Behcet's disease in a Chinese Han population. Zhengxuan Jiang, Peizeng Yang, Shengping Hou, Liping Du, Lin Xie, Hongyan Zhou, Aize Kijlstra. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1325-1328 Published Online First: 7 April 2010 doi:10.1136/ard.2009.119420 27

将研究问题付诸实践 * 样本量 – 向统计人员请求帮助 从谁那里获取信息？ 需要什么类型的信息？ 需要多大量的信息？ * 怎样使用这些信息? 怎样减少机遇/偏倚/混杂因素？ 怎样伦理地收集这些信息? * 样本量 – 向统计人员请求帮助 http://www.bmj.com/collections/statsbk/13.dtl Credit: Developing a research project. Part 1. Developing a research question. Dr Sarah Larkins PHCRED Program http://www.jcu.edu.au/medicine/idc/groups/public/documents/form_download/jcudev_016738.pdf 28

样本量的误区 2008年，西安交大公卫学院 2010年，上海交大糖尿病研究所 2010年，西安交大附属第一医院 “小样本量”的文章： 1994年，第四军医大学

第四军医大

减少偏倚与混杂 机遇因素 – 测量方法几乎总是随机变化。 通过保证充足的样本量以及利用统计分析机遇来最小化。 偏倚因素 – 由于筛选患者，测量结果及分析数据的系统性差异或错误造成-需要格外当心 混杂因素 - 影响诠释结果的因素 例如：携带火柴的人很有可能患肺癌，但是吸烟是混杂因素-因此也需要测试可能混杂的因素 Types of bias: selection bias non-response bias observation bias records show or participants recall information inaccurately different interviewers may elicit different responses misclassification loss to follow up 31

选题与创新-先想再做 研究之前，必须想清楚：结果能不能发表，发表在哪里？ 请列出5-10本目标期刊 调查并平衡审稿速度，影响因子，难易程度 没有想清楚之前千万不要动笔，动笔即错。 1：1：1=立题：试验：写作

科学选题 课题选择和国际接轨，想在国际核心期刊发表文献，就必须了解国际研究动态，选择与国际学术研究合拍的课题。 经验：读高水平和高质量的论文！这些文章往往是由该学科的领军人物撰写，并且是发表在影响因子较高的杂志！

测试 1. LIANGBO, JIKEJUNYI？ 2. 微笑“表哥”名叫？ 3.

测试 1. 2012年诺贝尔医学奖谁？哪个国家？因何获奖? 1. 2012年诺贝尔医学奖谁？哪个国家？因何获奖? 2. 2011年，2012年华中科技大学同济医学院发表的最具影响力的文章是_________? 3. H1N1有疫苗了吗？ 日本科学家山中伸弥(Shinya Yamanaka)与英国发育生物学家约翰·格登(John Gurdon)， 细胞核重新编程研究领域

近五年NOBEL Prize医学或生理学 2011年，美国科学家布鲁斯•博伊特勒、法国科学家朱尔斯•霍夫曼和加拿大科学家拉尔夫•斯坦曼。他们发现了免疫系统激活的关键原理，这使人们对人体免疫系统的认识有了革命性的改变。 2010年，英国生理学家罗伯特•爱德华兹。他在体外受精技术领域做出的开创性贡献。 2009年，美国科学家伊丽莎白•布莱克本、卡萝尔•格雷德和杰克•绍斯塔克。他们解决了一个生物学的重要课题，即染色体在细胞分裂过程中是怎样实现完全复制，同时染色体如何受到保护而不至于发生降解。 2008年，德国科学家哈拉尔德•楚尔•豪森及两名法国科学家弗朗索瓦丝•巴尔－西诺西和吕克•蒙塔尼。豪森发现了人乳头状瘤病毒(HPV)，这种病毒是导致宫颈癌的罪魁祸首。巴尔－西诺西和蒙塔尼的获奖成就则是发现了艾滋病病毒(HIV)。 2007年，美国科学家马里奥•卡佩基、奥利弗•史密斯和英国科学家马丁•埃文斯。他们的一系列突破性发现为“基因靶向”技术的发展奠定了基础，使深入研究单个基因在动物体内的功能并提供相关药物试验的动物模型成为可能。

获得idea的两种途径 传统途径 首先阅读大量科研论文，弄清目前的研究现状和要解决的问题等

如何获得好的idea 注意：别人没做过的东西，也许不是因为别人没想到，而是因为没有意义或者没有可能性。

如何获得好的idea 学会阅读文献，读懂文章。 首先阅读10-20篇相关的review，然后再看研究性论文。 拿到一篇研究性论文，先看标题，立即停住，问自己几个问题： 以前看到过么？创新性 自己能实现吗？现实性 最后能发表吗？实践性 。。。 。。。

如何获得好的idea 经验一 比较全面地阅读本领域文章。读文章要看其idea，总结成一句话，并用卡片记录好，分类整理。如果把别人文章的idea总结成一句话，就容易理解它的本质，也好做变化。

如何获得好的idea 经验二 读了很多文章之后，要写一个special study，将读过的本领域的东西系统的总结在一起，相当于你的综合理解，以后翻阅起来也相当方便。

该进行哪类研究？ 42

PICO P病人 疾病或一种状态 阶段，严重性 人口特征（年龄，性别等） I干预 干预或暴露的类型 量，持续时间，时间测量，途径等 C对照 风险或者治疗方式 安慰剂或其他积极的治疗 O结局 频率、风险、益处、伤害 分叉或者连续的 类型：死亡，患病，生活质量等 Credit – presentation on Formulating the Review Question & Writing a Protocol [for a systematic review] by Madhukar Pai, MD Systematic Reviews Group Division of Epidemiology University of California, Berkeley madhupai@uclink.berkeley.edu 43

研究设计 人群(P) 结局 (O) 干预 (I) or 暴露 (E) 所有研究 描述性（PO） 分析性 PICO 或PECO 调查 （横断面） 定性研究 试验性研究 观察性 分析性研究 （随机） 平行分组 交叉 队列研究 横断面 （分析性研究） 病例对照研究 From http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1039 Doesn’t include before and after studies descriptive studies case report, case series, qualitative study, cross sectional survey show what’s happening in a population and in subgroups analytic studies examine effect of intervention (I)/exposure (E) on outcome (O) compare frequency of outcomes in a comparison (C) group with frequency in intervention or exposed group to quantify effect may be experimental or observational Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, UK cebm.net Prospective A prospective study watches for outcomes, such as the development of a disease, during the study period and relates this to other factors such as suspected risk or protection factor(s). The study usually involves taking a cohort of subjects and watching them over a long period. The outcome of interest should be common; otherwise, the number of outcomes observed will be too small to be statistically meaningful (indistinguishable from those that may have arisen by chance). All efforts should be made to avoid sources of bias such as the loss of individuals to follow up during the study. Prospective studies usually have fewer potential sources of bias and confounding than retrospective studies.   Retrospective A retrospective study looks backwards and examines exposures to suspected risk or protection factors in relation to an outcome that is established at the start of the study. Many valuable case-control studies, such as Lane and Claypon's 1926 investigation of risk factors for breast cancer, were retrospective investigations. Most sources of error due to confounding and bias are more common in retrospective studies than in prospective studies. For this reason, retrospective investigations are often criticised. If the outcome of interest is uncommon, however, the size of prospective investigation required to estimate relative risk is often too large to be feasible. In retrospective studies the odds ratio provides an estimate of relative risk. You should take special care to avoid sources of bias and confounding in retrospective studies.  http://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm 人群(P) 结局 (O) 干预 (I) or 暴露 (E) Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, UK www.cebm.net 44

横断面研究 Glycated haemoglobin A1c fordiagnosing diabetes in Chinese population: cross sectional epidemiological survey Yuqian Bao, Xiaojing Ma, Huating Li, Mi Zhou, Cheng Hu, Haiya Wu, Junling Tang, Xuhong Hou, Kunsan Xiang, Weiping Jia. BMJ 2010;340:c2249 (Published 17 May 2010) Image from http://www.fsrrn.net/modules/content/ 45

46

病例对照研究 Potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in China: the INTERHEART China study. K K Teo, L Liu, C K Chow, X Wang, S Islam, L Jiang, J E Sanderson, S Rangarajan, S Yusuf, for the INTERHEART Investigators in China. Heart 2009;95:1857-1864 doi:10.1136/hrt.2008.155796 28 May 2009 Image from http://www.fsrrn.net/modules/content/ 47

队列研究 Frailty and type of death among older adults in China: prospective cohort study. Dupre ME, Danan Gu, Warner DF, Zeng Yi BMJ 338:doi:10.1136/bmj.b1175 9 April 2009 Image from http://www.fsrrn.net/modules/content/ 48

随机对照研究 BMJ 2008;337:bmj.a2001 49

系统评价 50

在研究开始前同意作者身份！

作者身份和贡献者身份 承担信用与责任 但很多作者文章贡献很少 人们的名字没有出现在文章中 作者并不了解作者的身份标准 贡献者身份的定义更广泛 Authorship The uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to medical journals state that authorship credit should be based only on substantial contribution to: conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published.  All these conditions must all be met. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship.  We want authors to assure us that all authors included on a paper fulfil the criteria of authorship. In addition we want assurance that there is no one else who fulfils the criteria but has not been included as an author. We believe that the definition of authorship, produced by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (or Vancouver Group, see www.icmje.org), has some serious flaws.  The current definition of authorship does not make clear who has contributed what to the published study, nor does it clarify who is responsible for the overall content. It also excludes those whose sole but often large contribution has been to collect data.  We now list contributors in two ways. Firstly, we publish a list of authors' names at the beginning of the paper and, secondly, we list contributors (some of whom may not be included as authors) at the end of the paper, giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work.  One or more of these contributors are listed as guarantors of the paper. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. See  bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7313/588 Contributorship and guarantorship are concepts that were applied first to original research papers, and are sometimes hard to define for other articles. Each contributorship statement should make clear who has contributed what to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article, and should identify one, or occasionally more, contributor(s) as being responsible for the overall content as guarantor(s). For BMJ articles that do not report original research such as editorials, clinical reviews, and education and debate please state who had the idea for the article, who performed the literature search, who wrote the article, and who is the guarantor (the contributor who accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to any data, and controlled the decision to publish). For non-research articles that include case reports such as lessons of the week, drug points, and interactive case reports, please also state who identified and/or managed the case(s). Researchers must determine among themselves the precise nature of each person's contribution, and we encourage open discussion among all participants. Authorship Posted January 10, 2007 Authorship is a way of making explicit both credit and responsibility for the contents of published articles. Credit and responsibility are inseparable. The guiding principle for authorship decisions is to present an honest account of what took place.  Criteria for authorship apply to all intellectual products, including print and electronic publications of words, data, and images.  Journals should make their own policies on authorship transparent and accessible. Criteria for Authorship.   Everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the study on which the article is based (for example, to the research question, design, analysis, interpretation, and written description) should be an author.  It is dishonest to omit mention of someone who has participated in writing the manuscript (“ghost authorship”) and unfair to omit investigator who have had important engagement with other aspects of the work.  (See the WAME policy statement, “Ghost Writing Initiated by Commercial Companies”) Only an individual who has made substantial intellectual contributions should be an author.  Performing technical services, translating text, identifying patients for study, supplying materials, and providing funding or administrative oversight over facilities where the work was done are not, in themselves, sufficient for authorship, although these contributions may be acknowledged in the manuscript, as described below.  It is dishonest to include authors only because of their reputation, position of authority, or friendship (“guest authorship”). Many journals publish the names and contributions of everyone who has participated in the work (“contributors”).  Not all contributors necessarily qualify for authorship.  The nature of each contributors’ participation can be made transparent by a statement, published with the article, of their names and contributions and WAME encourages this practice.  One author (a “guarantor”) should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole.  Often this is the corresponding author, the one who sends in the manuscript and receives reviews, but other authors can have this role. All authors should approve the final version of the manuscript. It is preferable that all authors be familiar with all aspects of the work.  However, modern research is often done in teams with complementary expertise so that every author may not be equally familiar with all aspects of the work.  For example, a biostatistician may have greater mastery of statistical aspects of the manuscript than other authors, but have somewhat less understanding of clinical variables or laboratory measurements.  Therefore, some authors’ contributions may be limited to specific aspects of the work as a whole. All authors should comply with the journals’ policies on conflict of interest. Number of Authors.  Editors should not arbitrarily limit the number of authors.  There are legitimate reasons for multiple authors in some kinds of research, such as multi-center, randomized controlled trials.  In these situations, a subset of authors may be listed with the title, with the notation that they have prepared the manuscript on behalf of all contributors, who are then listed in an appendix to the published article.  Alternatively, a “corporate” author (e.g., a “Group” name) representing all authors in a named study may be listed, as long as one investigator takes responsibility for the work as a whole. In either case, all individuals listed as authors should meet criteria for authorship whether or not they are listed explicitly on the byline. If editors believe the number of authors is unusually large, relative to the scope and complexity of the work, they can ask for a detailed description of each author’s contributions to the work.  If some do not meet criteria for authorship, editors can require that their names be removed as a condition of publication. Order of Authorship.   The authors themselves should decide the order in which authors are listed in an article.  No one else knows as well as they do their respective contributions and the agreements they have made among themselves.  Many different criteria are used to decide order of authorship.  Among these are relative contributions to the work and, in situations where all authors have contributed equally, alphabetical or random order.  Readers cannot know, and should not assume, the meaning of order of authorship unless the approach to assigning order has been described by the authors.  Authors may want to include with their manuscript a description of how order was decided. If so, editors should welcome this information and publish it with the manuscript. Authorship Disputes.  Disputes about authorship are best settled at the local level, before journals review the manuscript. However, at their discretion editors may become involved in resolving authorship disputes.  Changes in authorship at any stage of manuscript review, revision, or acceptance should be accompanied by a written request and explanation from all of the original authors. http://www.wame.org/resources/policies#authorship 52

“医学写手”的角色 “医学写手”与“枪手”的区别 欧洲医学作家协会原则: 医学作家应以合法的角度，帮助作者完成可被同行评审的杂志或演讲的稿件 贡献与经费应公开 掌握学术交流，数据展示，期刊与学会的要求，以及出版伦理 可能因此提高出版物的水平，加快进程 “医学写手”与“枪手”的区别 http://www.emwa.org/Mum/EMWAguidelines.pdf http://www.emwa.org/Home/Ghostwriting-Positioning-Statement.html 53

作者身份 作者的定义必须并且只建立在其是否在以下方面做出了重大贡献： 概念和实验设计，或数据分析及诠释 起草文章或对其重要的知识内容进行批判性修改 并且有权决定文章最终被出版的版本 以上所有要求都必须满足  仅仅是参与了资金的筹集或是数据收集的人员不能被称为作者 所有被署名的作者都必须符合以上所有要求。 任何做出以上贡献的人都应该被署名为作者

http://www.cmrojournal.com/ipi/ih/MPIP-author-toolkit.jsp Authors' Submission Toolkit: A practical guide to getting your research published August 2010, Vol. 26, No. 8 , Pages 1967-1982 (doi:10.1185/03007995.2010.499344)   Leighton Chipperfielda, Leslie Citromeb, Juli Clarkc, Frank S. Davidd, Robert Encke, Michelle Evangelistaf, John Gonzalezg, Trish Grovesh, Jay Magranni, Bernadette Mansij, Charles Millerj, LaVerne A. Mooneyk, Ann Murphyl, John Sheltonm, Philip D. Walsonn, Al Weigelo 55

研究型文章的写作

文章写作指导 国际医学编辑委员会生物医学文章投稿统一要求 http://www.icmje.org EQUATOR 网络资源，研究报告指导方针 http://www.equator-network.org 牛津循证医学中心 http://www.cebm.net 英国医学杂志给作者的建议 http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors

http://www.bmj.com/site/video/publishing.xhtml 58

注意：医药公司赞助项目 http://www.gpp-guidelines.org/ 59

最全面的解读 equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research reporting 60

报告声明 对于随机对照试验：CONSORT 对于诊断性研究： STARD 对于观察性研究： STROBE 对于试验的系统性回顾： PRISMA 对于观察性研究的荟萃分析： MOOSE

CONSORT 2010 CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 62

论文撰写 1. 传达的信息 什么是 …你的科研问题？ …该正确的文章格式？ …是读者需要知道的？

论文命题的注意事项 命题要准确反映论文的主要内容，因为大多数读者只看标题。因此，命题的含义一定要准确，用词要具有专指性。 命题应当言简意赅，用最少的文字概括尽可能多的内容。 题目中应去掉多余的词：如：‘’对于…影响‘’，‘’关于…研究‘’，‘’关于…分析’’,’’关于…观察’’.

论文命题的注意事项 命题最好不要超过10-12个单词或100个英文字符。能用一行文字表达，不用两行。 命题要清楚反映文章的具体内容和特色，明确地表达研究工作的独到之处，并用突出重点。 命题不是句子，因此词序尤为重要。如果词语建的修饰关系使用不当，会影响读者正确理解命题的真实含义

论文撰写 2. 题目：格式 描述性：成人中脑袋的数目：审核 陈述性: 大多数成人有一个脑袋 新闻性: 多少个脑袋，你赢了！ 提问性: 成人有多少个脑袋？ 仔细检查期刊对作者的指示，并且阅读该期刊中的其他文章

论文撰写 3. IMRaD 引言——为何提出该研究问题？ 方法——我已经做了什么？ 结果——我已经发现了什么？ 结论——该研究可能的意义是什么？

论文撰写 4. 引言 提供给读者的简要背景介绍 只用3-4个段落 你的研究中已知和未知的问题 不要让读者、编辑、审稿人觉得无聊 不要炫耀你读过多少东西 科研问题 在引言的最后一段中陈述清楚 说明它重要的原因

论文撰写 5. 方法 与烹调书类似 该部分对于被告知对象——读者来说，是最为重要的部分 描述： 纳入标准及排除标准 结局测量指标 干预措施或者暴露 列举标准方法的参考文献 遵从http://www.equator-network.org/中阐释的研究报告指南

论文撰写 6. 结果 必须包括基本的描述性数据资料 文——讲故事；表——摆证据；图——列重点 置信区间 必要的统计结果 把不必要的表格和数据删去 不得在该部分开始进行讨论

论文撰写 7.结构式讨论 不是简单的重复引言 应包括： 阐述主要发现 该研究的优缺点 相对于其他研究（尤其是系统性综述）的优缺点以及主要区别 研究的意义：可能机制以及对于临床医生或政策制定者的含义 未解决的问题以及今后研究方向 最后两项要简明

讨论的注意事项 讨论必须紧紧围绕着自己的研究结果，分析国际上其他学者同类的研究，哪些事相同的，哪些是不同的，或者相反的，并分析不同的和相反的原因。以说明自己结论的的独特性。 重要的是将获得结果渗入阐述清楚，不能让人有意犹未尽之感。但是要做到这点的确很困难。

讨论的注意事项 讨论部分一低昂要注意保持也结果的一致性！就是结果和讨论要一一对应。 千万不要出现这种情况：按讨论的内容可以推论出与试验相反的结论，证明你的讨论的思路彻底的失败或你的试验根本就是失败的。 所以讨论的文字描述和语言表达的精确性尤为重要。

讨论的注意事项 讨论部分应包括研究结果的可能影响因素，研究设计的局限性和进一步研究的意义。 不要忌讳揭自己研究的疮疤

讨论的注意事项 讨论中不要轻易使用“首创”，‘’领先‘’或‘’过去未见报道‘’的字眼。 注意：如果确如此，也应客观地陈述：李茹是采用哪些词检索哪些数据库（如Pubmed），检索的结果。因为从这些数据库中找不到的文献，不等于全世界就没有人报道过。客观的陈述检索结果，容易被人家接受，而且审稿人和读者必要时也可运用同样的策略，重复进行检索。

摘要：一般规律 重要的 须有所有作者的批准 编辑可以通过摘要进行筛选 对于 BMJ： 通常是 300-400 个字 用主动语气 p值也需要数据 %s 需要有分母 不用参考文献 试验注册细节 Please ensure that the structured abstract is as complete, accurate, and clear as possible—but not unnecessarily long—and has been approved by all authors. We may screen original research articles by reading only the abstract. For randomised controlled trials please provide all the information required for a CONSORT style abstract. 76

结构式的摘要 目的——科研问题 设计——前瞻的，随机的，有安慰剂对照的，病例对照等 环境——初级还是次级的健康护理？中心数目多少？哪个国家？ 研究对象——纳入和排除标准，进入并完成试验的人数，性别，合适的话注明种族群体 干预——什么方式，如何做，何时干预，持续多久 主要的结局测量——计划中的，最终测量的 结局——主要结局，95% 的置信区间，统计学的显著性，需要诊治/带来伤害的人数  结论——主要结论，意义；不要超越数据得出结论 试验注册——注册以及号码（仅对于临床试验来说）

BMJ pico 纸本BMJ中的缩略版文章 作者会为纸本BMJ准备摘要。而全文会全部刊载在BMJ.com上，并无字数限制。 研究问题 总结回答 偏倚、混杂及其它注意事项 样本的代表性 研究资金/利益冲突 研究在BMJ.com上的引用量 And title, authors, reference/doi, corresponding author’s email BMJ pico is our one page abridged format for research papers in the print journal, which some authors volunteered to help us pilot. We have designed BMJ pico with evidence based medicine experts to succinctly present the key evidence from each study, to help minimise delay between online and print publication, and to enable us to publish more research in each week’s print BMJ.  There is no need for authors to prepare a BMJ pico to submit along with their full research article. Authors produce their own BMJ pico, using a template from us, only after the full article has been accepted. Examples at: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/article-submission/bmj-pico-abridged-research-articles 78

参考文献 参考文献重要在于格式，一定要根据不同杂志对参考文献格式的要求认真排列所有的内容。 参考文献的内容必须准确，一定要反复核对其准确性，任何一篇引用文献都必须是作者读过的原文。

如何选刊并顺利通过同行评审 80

选择杂志的五大关键问题 我希望谁来关注（目标观众)? 我打算如何获得目标观众的注目？ 读者如何可以看到我的文章？* 哪个类型的杂志能最好地满足我的要求？ 我要/需要多长时间得到发表? *是否能够支付开放获取期刊的版面费？

决定因素 退稿率（期刊间差别迥异） 指数 （例如，通过 Medline） 等候接收的时间；等候发表的时间 影响因子 文章长度限制 典型发表的文章类型 对有行业赞助的研究的政策 对经认可的辅助医学写作的政策 有投稿经验的接纳度 对页数、发表、彩色插图或者开放路径的费用 加快的审稿或者出版进度

选刊 量力而行 三思后行 再思再行 博士毕业？ African Journal of Microbiology Research（AJMR）《非洲微生物学研究期刊》09年影响因子：0.409

BMJ (影响因子 13.66) About 1.5 million unique users download 6 million pages from bmj.com each month (ABCe audit, October 2009). The BMJ’s Impact Factor is 13.66 (ISI Web of Science, 2009). http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/about-bmj What editors want: Importance Originality Relevance to the audience Real potential to improve decision making Truth and transparency Clear writing that people want to read “Wow” factor We aim to provide our readers with articles that will help them to make better decisions Pure academic interest isn't enough for most BMJ readers, who mainly comprise doctors – - whether they're practising clinical medicine, working in public health, developing and implementing health policy, or working mostly as researchers 84

BMJ 中文版 http://scholar.ilib.cn/P-zh-bmj-c.html 85

86

http://casereports.bmj.com/ 87

http://group.bmj.com/group/media/bmj-journals-information-centre Also 88

BMJ 审稿程序 提交文章 初审 外审 编委会 每年4000至5000篇文章 退稿3000至4000篇 约对 录用 每年4000至5000篇文章 退稿3000至4000篇 约对 1000篇进行同行审查，然后退稿500篇 500篇送交编辑，顾问和统计员和BMJ工作组 4-7% 全部免费，无字数限制，BMJ pico Editorials 4-5000 research papers, 4-7% accepted approximate numbers at each stage: 1000 sent to two reviewers; 500 more rejected 500 to weekly manuscript meeting attended by the Editor, an external editorial adviser (a specialist or primary care doctor) a statistical editor, and all BMJ research editors 250-300 research articles accepted, usually after revision value added by commissioned editorials and commentaries; often written by reviewers 89

与编辑部的沟通 中国研究者最薄弱环节之一 不停的沟通，直到杳无音信 委婉的挑战 问三本“顶级”刊，让自己的文章变“强大” 积极的应对所有挑战 讨论的态势，心理的优势

盗版与反盗版 知识产权保护，各出版商“文章下载示踪(tracking)技术” 封杀浙江某高校（盗版及抄袭） 封杀四川某医院（盗版） 道德上升到法律 针对“原文传递/馆际互借”的清剿行动 各出版商认定的盗版公司及网站： 康健: www.kjmed.com.cn 医文网:www.metamed.com.cn 医知网:www.yz365.com 请大家务必使用正版文献及网站！！！

停止侵权-律师信

BMJ 申诉 欢迎申诉， 申诉都会被认真处理 20%被接受 但只有一次申诉机会 请好好利用 Most papers end up being published somewhere. See: Lock, S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London: BMJ, 1991. 68% of papers rejected by the BMJ during 7 months of 1979 were eventually published elsewhere, most in specialist journals. A quarter, however, remained unpublished. Relman AS. Are journals really quality filters? In: Goffman W, Bruer JT, Warren KS, eds. Research on selective information systems. New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 1980. Random sample of 300 papers rejected by NEJM in 1975. Questionnaire showed that, among the 55% who replied, four fifths of authors said their papers had been published elsewhere. Only a fifth of these, however, had been revised according to peer review comments received before submission to final journal. Must interpret these findings cautiously. Both studies are old - things may have changed since. 93 93

出版伦理 94

研究与发表中的不当行为 伪造：编造数据或结果，并且记录或报道这些伪造的数据。 弄虚作假：窜改试验材料，设备或过程，以及改变或省略在试验记录中无法准确表述的数据。 剽窃：使用了他人的观点，过程，结果或语言后不加以适当的说明。 US Office of Research Integrity http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/definition_misconduct.shtml The Council of Science Editors defines plagiarism as "a form of piracy that involves the use of text or other items (figures, images, tables) without permission or acknowledgment of the source of these materials." 95

出版伦理 避免不当行为 保护受试者身份 报告知情同意和更广的伦理问题 声明竞争利益 仅有伦理委员会的审批是远远不够的

竞争利益 对于一个有利益冲突的人，他/她对读者的影响虽无法看到的，但是他/她会影响读者的判断。 必须始终声明存在的竞争利益，若事后被发现，极其尴尬。（囧！！！） Evidence that competing interests affect the reporting of research (and probably its conduct): Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:454-65. Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B. Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: epidemiogical study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002;325:249-53 Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006;333:782-5. Lise L Kjaergard and Bodil Als-Nielsen Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002;325:249; doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7358.249 Veronica Yank, Drummond Rennie, and Lisa A Bero Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study.BMJ 2007;335:1202-5; doi:10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE Competing interests also affect readers’ judgments: Samena Chaudhry, Sara Schroter, Richard Smith, and Julie Morris Does declaration of competing interests affect readers' perceptions? A randomised trial BMJ 2002;325:1391-2;doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1391 Sara Schroter, Julie Morris, Samena Chaudhry, Richard Smith, and Helen Barratt Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers' perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial. BMJ 2004;328:742-3;doi:10.1136/bmj.38035.705185.F6 97

打磨与枪手 Polishing：必要不绝对 Ghost Writing: 绝对不必要 BMJ编辑部中的超级反抄袭智能系统 Google的自检，自查-语句的改变 禁用中介，禁用翻译公司，一切靠自己！

检测抄袭的新工具：CrossCheck 网上可搜索重叠内容的工具，既可以是 出版前的内容 出版后的内容 专家搜索引擎(iThenticate) 使用“文本指纹”和“字符窜匹配” 进入到存取控制的后台（免费工具无法完成此工作） 在CorssRef的数据库和计数中有90亿篇文章 CrossCheck developed jointly by iThenticate and Cross Ref How does iThenticate compare to Turnitin? iParadigms developed both solutions. iThenticate is designed to accommodate corporate organizations, while Turnitin is designed for classroom use in educational institutions. Since 1996, our company has provided the most widely used verification technology, and established itself as expert in the promotion of content integrity. iThenticate is a web-based application. Users can access their accounts from any Internet-ready computer by logging in at our website. This has proved extremely advantageous for customers who have multiple locations, various dispersed departments working on projects, or employees working remotely. 99

CrossCheck to find plagiarism

建议与愿望 英语是根本基础 选题是灵魂体现 试验是成功之母 写作是最终展现 投稿是完美收官 祝大家顺利，成功！