Computer imaging techniques are commonly used to preserve and share readable manuscripts, but capturing writing locked away in ancient, deteriorated documents poses an entirely different challenge. This software pipeline-referred to as “virtual unwrapping”-allows textual artifacts to be read completely and noninvasively. The systematic digital analysis of the extremely fragile En-Gedi scroll (the oldest Pentateuchal scroll in Hebrew outside of the Dead Sea Scrolls) reveals the writing hidden on its untouchable, disintegrating sheets. Our approach for recovering substantial ink-based text from a damaged object results in readable columns at such high quality that serious critical textual analysis can occur. Hence, this work creates a new pathway for subsequent textual discoveries buried within the confines of damaged materials.
Candidemia is one of the most frequent opportunistic mycoses worldwide. Limited epidemiological studies in Latin America indicate that incidence rates are higher in this region than in the Northern Hemisphere. Diagnosis is often made late in the infection, affecting the initiation of antifungal therapy. A more scientific approach, based on specific parameters, for diagnosis and management of candidemia in Latin America is warranted. ‘Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of candidemia’ are a series of manuscripts that have been developed by members of the Latin America Invasive Mycosis Network. They aim to provide a set of best-evidence recommendations, for the diagnosis and management of candidemia. This publication, ‘Recommendations for the management of candidemia in adults in Latin America’, was written to provide guidance to healthcare professionals on the management of adults who have, or who are at risk of, candidemia. Computerized searches of existing literature were performed by PubMed. The data were extensively reviewed and analyzed by members of the group. The group also met on two occasions to pose questions, discuss conflicting views, and deliberate on a series of management recommendations. ‘Recommendations for the management of candidemia in neonates in Latin America’ includes prophylaxis, empirical therapy, therapy for proven candidemia, patient work-up following diagnosis of candidemia, central venous catheter management, and management of complications. This manuscript is the fourth of this series that deals with diagnosis and treatment of invasive candidiasis. Other publications in this series include: ‘Recommendations for the diagnosis of candidemia in Latin America’, ‘Recommendations for the management of candidemia in adults in Latin America’, and ‘Recommendations for the management of candidemia in children in Latin America’.
Publication of your research represents the culmination of your scientific activities. The key to getting manuscripts accepted is to make them understandable and informative so that your colleagues will read and benefit from them. We describe key criteria for acceptance of manuscripts and outline a multi-step process for writing the manuscript. The likelihood that a manuscript will be accepted by a major journal is significantly increased if the manuscript is written in polished and fluent scientific English. Although scientific quality is the most important consideration, clear and concise writing often makes the difference between acceptance and rejection. As with any skill, efficient writing of high-quality manuscripts comes with experience and repetition. It is very uncommon for a manuscript to be accepted as submitted to a journal. Thoughtful and respectful responses to the journal reviewers' comments are critical. Success in scientific writing, as in surgery, is dependent on effort, repetition, and commitment. The transfer of knowledge through a well-written publication in a high-quality medical journal will have an impact not only in your own institution and country, but also throughout the world.
This article presents a new, detailed catalogue of the Greek manuscripts at the Wellcome Library in London. It consists of an introduction to the history of the collection and its scholarly importance, followed by separate entries for each manuscript. Each entry identifies the text(s) found in the respective manuscript - including reference to existing printed edition(s) of such texts - and gives a physical description of the codex, details on its provenance and bibliographical references.
There seems to be reluctance amongst scientists to invest some of their own time in the peer-review of manuscripts. As a result, journal editors often struggle to secure reviewers for a given manuscript in a timely manner. Here, two simple principles are proposed, which could fairly allocate the contribution of individual researchers to the peer-review process.
Much of what is researched is never published. This would not be of great concern if the selection of what we read would occur irrespective of study outcomes. Unfortunately, the reverse is the case: “positive” studies have a much larger chance of acceptance after editorial and peer review than “negative” ones. Several solutions to this problem of publication bias have been discussed or implemented, but none seem to be very effective. In this article, the approach of implementing an editorial and peer-review procedure that is blinded to study outcomes is discussed. This would require a two-step submission procedure of manuscripts: first a version including just the introduction and methods and in some cases followed by a second submission including results and discussion. The pros and cons of such an approach are discussed.
Unfavourable decisions and rejections on submitted manuscripts are not uncommon in scholarly publications. Rejection in a particular journal need not be viewed as end of all hopes for aspiring authors. Substantial number of rejected manuscripts find their final place in one or the other journal after suitable revision. As an author, it is extremely important to be familiar with common reasons for unfavourable decision/rejection in order to prevent them or to find solutions.
As future scientists, university students need to learn how to avoid making errors in their own manuscripts, as well as how to identify flaws in papers published by their peers. Here we describe a novel approach on how to promote students' ability to critically evaluate scientific articles. The exercise is based on instructing teams of students to write intentionally flawed manuscripts describing the results of simple experiments. The teams are supervised by instructors advising the students during manuscript writing, choosing the ‘appropriate’ errors, monitoring the identification of errors made by the other team and evaluating the strength of their arguments in support of the identified errors. We have compared the effectiveness of the method with a journal club-type seminar. Based on the results of our assessment we propose that the described seminar may effectively complement the existing approaches to teach critical scientific thinking. © 2017 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2017.
In academia, authorship is considered a currency, and is important for career advancement. As the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR®) is the highest-ranked journal in the field of bone, muscle, and mineral metabolism, and is the official publication of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, we sought to examine authorship changes over JBMR®’s 30-year history. Two bibliometric methods were used to collect the data. The “decade method” included all published manuscripts throughout one year in each decade over the past 30 years starting with the inaugural year, yielding 746 manuscripts for analysis. The “random method” examined 10% of published manuscripts from each of the 30 years, yielding 652 manuscripts for analysis. Using both methods, the average number of authors per manuscript, numerical location of the corresponding author, number of collaborating institutions, number of collaborating countries, number of printed manuscript pages, and the number of times each manuscript was cited all significantly increased between 1986 and 2015 (p < 10(-4) ). Using the decade method, there was a significant increase in the percentage of female first authors over time from 35.8% in 1986 to 47.7% in 2015 (p = 0.02) and this trend was confirmed using the random method. The highest percentage of female first authors in 2015 was in Europe (60.0%), and Europe also had the most dramatic increase in female first authors over time (more than double in 2015 compared with 1986). However, the overall number of female corresponding authors did not significantly change during the past 30 years. With the increasing demands of publishing in academic medicine, understanding changes in publishing characteristics over time and by geographical region is important. These findings highlight JBMR®'s authorship trends over the past 30 years, demonstrate those countries having the most changes, and where challenges still exist. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Many scientific manuscripts submitted for publication are limited by fundamental mistakes in their preparation, leading to rejection. We describe how to write a well-organized radiological research manuscript containing all of the important ingredients for effective communication of a hypothesis-driven scientific study in the context of medical imaging.