Justifying No-Better Than Never

Sir,

In the article “Why We Say No! A Look through the Editor’s Eye” the authors have summarized the probable causes for rejecting a manuscript and suggested possible remedies to avoid it [1]. It provides a great insight to the world of academic publication. Before any article is finally published it goes through a number of rigorous processes of authentication and verification by a competent editorial team.

In this article, the rejection rate of articles in JCDR was reported to be more than 50% and the most common cause was commonality of articles [1]. So there are number lessons for an author to learn from this article.

The first step for an author is obviously to select a suitable topic for research. Since now-a-days it is a must for faculty and students to have research papers, there is a steep rise in the number of authors and the number of journals. The so called predatory journals take advantage of this urgent need to publish. In the race of “publish or perish” gullible authors fall easily for these journals. To curb the effects of the predatory journals, the authors should be aware of authentic journals recognized by professional bodies before submitting their valuable research work. They should go through the list of journals, their requirements, the instructions for manuscript preparation and submission. The journal’s performance, average time taken to review a manuscript also should be available in the journal’s website for the authors to view and take decision regarding submission of article.

As pointed out by this article and also by Banerjee A proper study design, material and method and results are the backbones of a good study [2]. Sometimes, the results may not be what is expected but that should not deter researchers. On the other hand if the material and methods are sound then one can always review one’s work and take suggestion from others to explain any discordant results. Due to their time bound nature, the results of many post graduate theses are inconclusive. Definite conclusions can be drawn from these studies only if similar results are obtained in other subsequent studies.

The controversial issue of author inclusion and of giving credit to contributions of all authors also needs to be better defined. We are of the opinion that all authors should be given equal credit and collective responsibility. A good research work should have team effort rather than highlighting individuals [3,4].

Most of the journals are not keen on accepting case reports. But if a truly unique case is encountered it should be reported with relevant message for the clinicians and their diagnostic counterparts [5]. The authors should try to stick to originality to avoid receiving no as an answer.

The art of writing, reviewing and editing an article will be likely to undergo many changes till a consensus is reached.

[1]. Garg A, Das S, Jain H, Why we say no! a look through the editor’s eye J Clin Diagn Res 2015 9:JB01-05.  [Google Scholar]

[2]. Banerjee A, Ethics in medical research: The difficulty of being good Med J DY Patil Univ 2015 8:421-24.  [Google Scholar]

[3]. Patnayak R, Jena A, Rejection of a manuscript: The other side of the story Indian J Med Microbiol 2014 32:350-51.  [Google Scholar]

[4]. Patnayak R, Jena A, List of authors in scholarly publications: Does it matter? Niger J Surg Res 2016 17:27  [Google Scholar]

[5]. Patnayak R, Jena A, Case reports: A case well presented Med J DY Patil Univ 2016 9:424  [Google Scholar]