Enferm Intensiva.

2018;29(2):80---85

[Link]/ei

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Ten questions you should consider before submitting

an article to a scientific journal夽
A. Falcó-Pegueroles (PhD, MSc, RN) ∗ , D. Rodríguez-Martín (PhD, MSc, RN)

Escuela de Enfermería, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Barcelona, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat,
Barcelona, Spain

KEYWORDS Abstract Investigating involves not only knowing the research methods and designs; it involves
Nursing research knowing the strategies for disseminating and publishing the results in scientific journals. An
methodology; investigation is considered complete when it is published and is disclosed to the scientific com-
Prevention munity. The publication of a manuscript is not simple, since it involves examination by a rigorous
editorial process evaluator to ensure the scientific quality of the proposal. The objective of this
article is to communicate to potential authors the main errors or deficiencies that typically and
routinely explain the decision by the referees of scientific journals not to accept a scientific
article. Based on the experience of the authors as referees of national and international jour-
nals in the field of nursing and health sciences, we have identified a total of 10 types or groups,
which cover formulation errors, inconsistencies between different parts of the text, lack of
structuring, imprecise language, information gaps, and the detection of relevant inaccuracies.
The identification and analysis of these issues enables their prevention, and is of great use to
future researchers in the dissemination of the results of their work to the scientific commu-
nity. In short, the best publishing strategy is one that ensures the scientific quality of the work
and spares no effort in avoiding the errors or deficiencies that referees routinely detect in the
articles they evaluate.
© 2017 Sociedad Española de Enfermerı́a Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias (SEEIUC). Published
by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

DOI of original article: [Link]

夽 Please cite this article as: Falcó-Pegueroles A, Rodríguez-Martín D. Diez cuestiones que debería considerar antes de enviar un artículo a
una revista científica. Enferm Intensiva. 2018;29:80---85.
∗ Corresponding author.

E-mail address: annafalco@[Link] (A. Falcó-Pegueroles).

2529-9840/© 2017 Sociedad Española de Enfermerı́a Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias (SEEIUC). Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights
reserved.
Ten questions you should consider before submitting an article 81

PALABRAS CLAVE Diez cuestiones que debería considerar antes de enviar un artículo a una revista
Metodología de la científica
investigación
Resumen Investigar implica no solo conocer los métodos y diseños de investigación, sino que
enfermera;
comporta comprender las estrategias para la difusión y publicación de los resultados en las
Prevención
revistas científicas. Se considera que una investigación termina cuando está publicada y es
divulgada entre la comunidad científica. La publicación de un manuscrito no es sencilla, puesto
que conlleva pasar por un riguroso proceso editorial evaluador para garantizar la calidad cien-
tífica de dicha propuesta. El objetivo de este artículo es comunicar a los autores potenciales
los principales errores o deficiencias que normalmente y de forma general justifican la decisión
de no aceptar un artículo científico por parte de los revisores de revistas científicas. A partir
de la experiencia de las autoras como revisoras de revistas nacionales e internacionales del
ámbito de la enfermería y las ciencias de la salud, se identifican un total de 10 tipos o grupos,
que versan sobre los errores de formulación, las incongruencias entre diferentes partes del
texto, la falta de estructuración, un lenguaje poco preciso, las lagunas respecto a información
y la detección de imprecisiones relevantes. La identificación y el análisis de estas cuestiones
permiten prevenirlas, siendo de gran utilidad a los futuros investigadores a la hora de difundir
los resultados de sus trabajos a la comunidad científica. En definitiva, la mejor estrategia de
difusión es aquella que asegura la calidad científica del trabajo y que no escatima esfuerzos
para prevenir dichos errores o deficiencias que los revisores suelen detectar en los artículos
evaluados.
© 2017 Sociedad Española de Enfermerı́a Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias (SEEIUC). Publicado
por Elsevier España, S.L.U. Todos los derechos reservados.

The scientific production of Spanish nurses, in both In the specific case of publication and in the interests of
national and international journals, has increased expo- scientific quality, journals have a defined process of selec-
nentially in recent years. The reforms that started at the tion and anonymous evaluation by peers or third parties,
beginning of 2000 when our university system entered the chosen by the editor. The process of submitting an article to
European Higher Education Area, and the consequent access a journal can often require a great deal of work, desire and
to university master’s degrees and doctorate programmes, patience, because it can take many months from the date it
opened new routes for nurses in research training within is sent until notification from the editor of whether or not
their own professional discipline. it has been accepted.
Nursing science is advancing at a pace; there are increas- In some contexts, such as doctorate programmes,
ingly more nurse-led research projects and projects in which academic careers and accessing financial resources for
nurses participate. These projects are designed from the research, scientific publication is essential, since it is a
concept of care and seek to change clinical practice towards fundamental requirement to deposit a doctoral thesis, be
positively impacting people’s health and the health systems. approved by university quality agencies and to receive fund-
A major part of this nursing knowledge generation is ing for teams with a clearly demonstrated capacity for
based on the dissemination of results. Research requires not scientific publication.
only knowledge of the methods and designs of investigation The objective of this article is to inform potential authors
but a mastery of search skills for scientific evidence and its of the main errors or deficiencies that commonly result
critical analysis, as well as strategies for scientific dissemi- in referees rejecting a scientific article for a specialist
nation and publication. For most scientists, a research study scientific journal. This might be useful to researchers in pre-
is complete when its results are published and disseminated venting and duly correcting these errors and deficiencies,
to the scientific community. The results can then be ana- and ensure that they are better equipped to present their
lysed, contrasted and objectively criticised by colleagues, proposals for publication. We chose 10 points to highlight.
and evaluated as reasons for changes in clinical practice. A
research study may also guide future papers stemming from
it. This is the circuit of science and, of course, the circuit Failing to choose the appropriate journal
of nursing science as well.
Scientific dissemination and publication require specific Choosing the right journal should be a well-thought-out
skills, including being systematic and persistent in practice. process that is involved in the publication strategy itself.
One learns through writing and having articles published, but Everyone who undertakes research dreams of being pub-
also by having them rejected for publication. The opinion of lished in the best scientific journals, usually those of the
referees in clarifying issues that were not clear enables the greatest impact, in order to inform as many professionals
overall article to be improved. as they can of the results of their investigation. However,
82 A. Falcó-Pegueroles, D. Rodríguez-Martín

many base their selection purely on ranking, quartile score, research ‘‘assumptions’’ or ‘‘premises’’. These assumptions
impact factor or citation indexing,1 without establishing should be prepared based on empirical, theoretical and
whether the journal might be interested in the particu- methodological backgrounds. Furthermore, they must refer
lar subject, either because it features on their website or to how a particular phenomenon is understood, they are
because they have published articles previously along similar assumptions about something that we do not know and that
lines. The international journals, whether or not they have will be corroborated or otherwise through the investigation.
impact factor according to the Journal Citation Reports, Therefore, their formulation is different to that of quantita-
are interested in publishing papers relevant to their area tive designs, since they do not make predictions about the
that are written from an international, not a national, per- relationship between variables or aims.
spective. If you want to be published in these journals it Along these same lines, a hypothesis being absent or
is important for your paper to be replicable in other cul- wrongly oriented in qualitative studies is a relatively com-
tural contexts and that the results are applicable in other mon inconsistency or error. Therefore, we recommend
countries.2 In short, it must appeal to other healthcare carefully reviewing these sections and, particularly, the con-
contexts. Our main recommendation in this regard is to sistency between objectives, hypotheses or premises and
be honest and examine whether the subject matches the research design from a technical as well as a grammatical
preferences described by the journal; whether it is truly perspective, because terminological accuracy is essential.
internationally oriented and whether the power or strength
of the data match the quality of the journal.
Unscientific or inaccurate language
Inconsistencies or formulation errors
It is well known that scientific language must be precise and
accurate, and must highlight what is important. Personali-
There may be inconsistencies or formulation errors in dif- sations, digressions, inaccuracies, colloquialisms, redundant
ferent parts of the manuscript. The title should be brief, or far-fetched writing should be avoided. Resources should
clear and explanatory and contain the relevant or key be used to keep the text discursive and avoid running the
words. We also recommend that it should be appealing and risk of using too many words to refer to the same thing and
question formats should be avoided.3 It should follow the thus confuse the referee or potential reader.
same lines as the objectives and the results. A common For international publications in English or other lan-
error is to include words such as ‘‘impact’’, ‘‘evidence’’ or guages, translation and revision should be undertaken by
‘‘analysis’’ in the article, without their being consistent with a professional translation service with experience in scien-
the objectives and methodologies of quantitative or analyt- tific publications. Beforehand, the text should be analysed
ical intervention or exposure. To give an example, the term bearing in mind that the grammatical structure and syntax
‘‘impact’’ should not be used as a synonym for ‘‘influence’’ will be different to that of Spanish, which tends to use long
in the context of a descriptive or qualitative study, but it and subordinate sentences. Universities, research centres
should be used in an analytical study that offers levels of and healthcare centres can usually refer translation services
statistical significance that demonstrate it as such. for scientific papers; however there will probably be some
The abstract, should preferably be structured, focus on financial cost. Unless one of the authors has wide knowledge
the principal points of the manuscript and not digress from of the foreign language and previous experience in interna-
the authors’ intentions. All the journals limit the number of tional publications, it is advisable to use these translation
words for this section to between 200 and 350. services.
Every research paper should contain a question or query
that represents a knowledge gap and to set the scene for the
issue that it seeks to investigate. This research question usu-
ally comes at the end of the introduction and precedes the Insufficient or disconnected theoretical
study objectives. It can be either implicit or explicit and is framework
usually included in qualitative, descriptive and experimental
or quasi-experimental studies, in the main. For formulating The theoretical framework of an article is in the introduction
the research question, the PICO format---patient, interven- and background section. It should make the subject of the
tion, comparison, outcome---is recommended for systematic study clear, contain the main ideas duly referenced from
reviews, because the question is structured so as to find a careful review of the literature and should present the
scientific evidence for a particular subject on the databases. theoretical or philosophical premises, that will be consistent
The research objectives, included in every design, are with the methodology chosen for the study. It should show
fundamental parts that must be consistent with the the- the current status of the subject and any questions that have
oretical framework and research method. Their wording not yet been clarified at a scientific level and those that,
must be clear, precise and complete, since they will guide theoretically, the article or proposed study seek to answer.
the data analysis and interpretation of results. Hypotheses Some of the weaknesses of rejected articles are that
are affirmative responses to the question and the research their theoretical framework was insufficient or unclear, or
objectives. They become predictions of the relationship that their content was not thematically connected with the
between variables, and therefore should be present in interpretation of the results. It is easy to detect whether
analytical designs and are superfluous in descriptive or or not authors have devoted sufficient time to linking the
exploratory designs.4 It is not customary to refer to hypothe- theoretical content with the research question or with the
ses in the particular case of qualitative research, but rather objectives. This will become a problem that will affect the
Ten questions you should consider before submitting an article 83

subsequent development of the discussion and the conclu- the objectives of research and the tests undertaken, which
sions, and one that is therefore worth preventing. should be provided clearly, in depth and in detail.
For quantitative studies the variables, categories and
tests performed must be detailed, providing the chosen
Errors in research design or methodology level of significance,5 and for observational and experimen-
tal studies the effect size should be determined if possible.
Errors in research design are perhaps the most common Carelessness in how data has been handled, organised and
reasons for a proposed article being rejected; they are con- tabulated is common, and has a negative impact on referees.
sidered very serious errors. It should be borne in mind that For studies on the validation of instruments, cross-
the information in this section must enable its reproducibil- cultural adaptation process or information about the
ity; therefore it must be meticulous in detail. There must be different types of validity and reliability are often ignored.
consistency between the research question, the objectives If these issues are not outlined the overall scientific quality
and the design of the study. This means that the paper must of the document is impaired.
reflect whether the methodology is quantitative, qualita- On the other hand, for qualitative studies these types
tive or mixed; whether descriptive, analytical, experimental of data are analysed as they are obtained.6 Therefore
or observational. And in the particular case of qualitative the researcher has to be very systematic in organising
research, the theoretical approach and method must be and storing all the data that has been obtained by means
stated. Each design involves a specific structure that must of the various techniques (observation, field notes, inter-
be followed and which the referee will take into account. views, focus groups, documentary sources, etc.).7 When
Along these lines, we would recommend seeking the describing the analysis techniques you have used you should
advice of a research expert, or consulting the literature, if consider the specific philosophical method of the study
applicable, to ensure that the precepts set by each method- (grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, etc.). You
ology are being followed, and the recommendations for should explicitly mention that the data has been coded and
quality and scientific rigour specific to each case. that the thematic areas have been identified. It is also nec-
essary to mention whether specific programmes have been
used for data analysis.
Gaps in sample selection and ethical access to In mixed studies, you should clarify that which cor-
the sample responds to each methodology. And in any of the
abovementioned cases, you should also accurately describe
The study sample and access criteria are essential elements the list of tasks performed by each.
that form part of the research study and which some papers
often disregard. It is important to clarify the people who Inaccurate presentation of results
have participated in the study, the criteria followed for their
selection and their level of participation. The results must be presented following an order and in
All journals, in the descriptions of article sections, ded- detail, and be consistent with the study objectives. It is usu-
icate one to ethical aspects, where they frequently refer ally preferable to start with the sociodemographic data of
to authors’ compliance with current legislation on data the sample so that the reader can position themselves in the
processing and the Declaration of Helsinki recommendations context to interpret the results. This section only requires
on human research. However, detailed information should the description and presentation of the results, not their
also be provided on how access was obtained to the sample, interpretation, which will come in the discussion section.
how the information and informed consent was managed, A common shortcoming, in addition to presenting data
and how the right to anonymity and data confidentiality that are not consistent with the objectives, the title or the
were maintained. In experimental studies we recommend keywords, is the use of tables to substitute and not to com-
explaining the interventions that were undertaken in the plement text. Therefore you should avoid simply writing up
control group and those that were not in order to demon- the results as ‘‘Sociodemographic data: see Table 3’’, for
strate, even though it might seem obvious, that they were example.
not ignored. It is recommended that you do not use Tables and Figures
Finally, we recommend including technical data, such as directly from the statistical programmes; instead you should
the code and number of the clinical research ethics commit- make them more visually attractive. Forgetting the n value
tee that authorised the research. In many journals, before or level of statistical significance is more common than one
the manuscript to be reviewed is sent, this data is hidden by would imagine.
a text editing process to ensure the anonymity of the par- As with the previous sections, we recommend that your
ticipating institution. However, once accepted it is revealed strategy should be explicit, clear and concise to prevent gaps
so that it is explicit in the definitive published version. and inaccuracies in presenting your results.

Shortcomings in data analysis techniques Discussion or conclusions that are not well
founded
Procedures and statistical analysis of data are important
elements of the scientific rigour of an article; therefore As we mention in our fourth section, a poor or wrongly ori-
we recommend that you are explicit when providing this ented theoretical framework will have a negative impact
information. There must, obviously, be consistency between on the discussion and conclusion sections because the ref-
84 A. Falcó-Pegueroles, D. Rodríguez-Martín

erences to be used to interpret the data obtained are not study at a particular time, allow a few years to pass without
clear. This issue deserves attention because it can make it updating it and then submit it for publication in a journal.
impossible to understand the content and therefore result You should remember that in the area of the health sciences
in the rejection of the manuscript. it is recommended that references should not be more than
The discussion section is where the authors make an 5 years old. Although this refers to the validity of treatment
interpretation and a comparison of their results with what and procedures and the scientific validity of clinical practice
is already known at a scientific level. This exercise also guidelines.
requires authors to structure the discourse in line with the Once the main issues that authors and researchers
objectives. should avoid before submitting an article to a scien-
Care should be taken when making categorical or forceful tific journal have been addressed, our recommendation,
statements if you are not providing the appropriate levels along the same lines as those of the editors of Enf
of significance or evidence to support them. In a research ermerÍaIntensiva, is to use the key international guidelines
study, a phenomenon is explored in a specific sample, which for the quality of research designs: Standards for QUality
means that the results are limited to this sample and the Improvement Reporting Excellence---SQUIRE, Consolidated
resulting inferential analysis, and so generalisation must be Standards of Reporting Trials---CONSORT, Preferred Reporting
accompanied by reference to other scientific papers that Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses---PRISMA,
point in the same direction. Therefore, despite researchers’ STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies
understandable joy when they obtain positive and hopeful in Epidemiology---STROBE, and COnsolidated criteria for
data that might transform clinical practice, we recommend REporting Qualitative research---COREQ.
that statements such as ‘‘this study has demonstrated that Prior revision of the manuscript can also be very use-
X is more effective than Y’’ should be avoided if there is not ful, based on critical reading guidelines such as the Critical
the level of significance and effect size to support such a Appraisal Skills Programme español---CASPe---or Joanna Briggs
claim. In these cases it is advisable to substitute this sen- Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. The latter not only serve to
tence for one that better places the findings in the study analyse and determine the level of scientific evidence found
context, such as ‘‘the data shows that X is more effective by a researcher, but they also define the gold standard on
than Y in the sample studied, and thus new perspectives are which editors and referees will base their evaluation of our
opened for. . .’’ work.
We did not want to finish without mentioning that there
are some exceptions in relation to scientific publications,
Literature citations that are wrongly as in all areas of life, although we would require a sepa-
referenced, out of date and poorly oriented rate article to do so. In any case, we consider that the best
strategy for disseminating a study is one that ensures the sci-
Unfortunately, errors with regard to references are more entific quality of the work presented. You should spare no
common than one might at first imagine. Although incorrect effort to avoid the principal errors that referees commonly
citations occur most often because the authors have little find in the articles we assess.
knowledge of the rules of citation and little research experi- Furthermore, you should bear in mind that having an arti-
ence, using sentences or findings from other people without cle accepted in a scientific journal is always very satisfying,
correctly referencing them can result in a serious risk of pla- not only for the authors involved, but also for the institution
giarism or unauthorised copying, which is an offence under they represent and for the profession in general, because
the Spanish Penal Code. This, along with a lack of truthful- it indicates an advance in nursing science. It is recogni-
ness, is very serious and can result in discrediting not only tion of the work undertaken and the many hours invested
the research itself but also the authors and the institutions to contribute a tiny scientific contribution to an ocean of
they represent. knowledge.
Leaving aside the channels and legislation in force to Finally, the authors of this manuscript want to encour-
combat plagiarism, we recommend that the ideas and find- age researchers to disseminate their findings by publishing
ings of others should be very much respected and used in scientific journals, but not without examining the main
appropriately in your paper by correct and complete bib- errors they should address before they submit an article for
liographic citation. the scrutiny of editors and referees. So, on you go!
Furthermore, authors seeking publication in the scien-
tific journals must demonstrate that they documented their
references well when they planned their study. They should
Conflict of interests
demonstrate that they performed a good review of the liter-
ature, choosing the most precise keywords possible, based The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
on DeCS or MeSH, well combined using the Booleans pro-
vided by the databases. Referees also evaluate papers by References
the level of accuracy of the references and their use within
the discourse. 1. García García A. La tiranía del factor de impacto. AFT.
Study results that are old are frequently referenced with- 2014;12:8---13.
out an explanation being offered, such as the fact that it was 2. Griffiths P, Norman I. Why was my paper rejected? Editors’ reflec-
a benchmark study that involved a change in practice or that tions on common issues which influence decisions to reject papers
their authors researched the phenomenon a long time ago. It submitted for publication in academic nursing journals. Int J Nurs
is also easily detectable when authors undertake a research Stud. 2016;57:A1---4.
Ten questions you should consider before submitting an article 85

3. Jiménez-Villa J, Argimón-Pallás JM, Martín-Zurro A, Vilardell- 6. Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research syn-
Tarrés M. Publicación científica biomédica. Cómo escribir y thesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers
publicar un artículo de investigación. Barcelona: Elsevier; 2010. utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:
4. Icart MT, Pulpón AM, coordinadoras. Cómo elaborar y presentar 179---87.
un proyecto de investigación una tesina y una tesis. Barcelona: 7. Miles M, Huberman A, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: a
Publicacions i Edicions Universitat de Barcelona; 2012. methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
5. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ Inc.; 2014.
manual: 2016 edition. South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Insti-
tute; 2016.