Compartir
array:23 [ "pii" => "S0014256515001472" "issn" => "00142565" "doi" => "10.1016/j.rce.2015.04.007" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2015-10-01" "aid" => "1155" "copyrightAnyo" => "2015" "documento" => "article" "crossmark" => 1 "subdocumento" => "fla" "cita" => "Rev Clin Esp. 2015;215:401-4" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:2 [ "total" => 274 "formatos" => array:2 [ "HTML" => 105 "PDF" => 169 ] ] "Traduccion" => array:1 [ "en" => array:18 [ "pii" => "S2254887415000776" "issn" => "22548874" "doi" => "10.1016/j.rceng.2015.04.002" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2015-10-01" "aid" => "1155" "documento" => "article" "crossmark" => 1 "subdocumento" => "fla" "cita" => "Rev Clin Esp. 2015;215:401-4" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:2 [ "total" => 77 "HTML" => 77 ] "en" => array:12 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Special article</span>" "titulo" => "Research: Why and how to write a paper?" "tienePdf" => "en" "tieneTextoCompleto" => "en" "tieneResumen" => array:2 [ 0 => "en" 1 => "es" ] "paginas" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "paginaInicial" => "401" "paginaFinal" => "404" ] ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "es" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Investigación: ¿por qué y cómo escribir un artículo?" ] ] "contieneResumen" => array:2 [ "en" => true "es" => true ] "contieneTextoCompleto" => array:1 [ "en" => true ] "contienePdf" => array:1 [ "en" => true ] "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "autoresLista" => "R.W. Light" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "R.W." "apellidos" => "Light" ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" "Traduccion" => array:1 [ "en" => array:9 [ "pii" => "S0014256515001472" "doi" => "10.1016/j.rce.2015.04.007" "estado" => "S300" "subdocumento" => "" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:1 [ "total" => 0 ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S0014256515001472?idApp=WRCEE" ] ] "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S2254887415000776?idApp=WRCEE" "url" => "/22548874/0000021500000007/v1_201510020909/S2254887415000776/v1_201510020909/en/main.assets" ] ] "itemSiguiente" => array:18 [ "pii" => "S0014256515000922" "issn" => "00142565" "doi" => "10.1016/j.rce.2015.02.013" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2015-10-01" "aid" => "1130" "copyright" => "Elsevier España, S.L.U. y Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI)" "documento" => "simple-article" "crossmark" => 1 "subdocumento" => "crp" "cita" => "Rev Clin Esp. 2015;215:405-8" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:2 [ "total" => 352 "formatos" => array:2 [ "HTML" => 116 "PDF" => 236 ] ] "en" => array:11 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Clinical communication</span>" "titulo" => "Hodgkin's lymphoma of the thyroid in a woman with autoimmune thyroiditis" "tienePdf" => "en" "tieneTextoCompleto" => "en" "paginas" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "paginaInicial" => "405" "paginaFinal" => "408" ] ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "es" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Linfoma Hodgkin de tiroides en una mujer con tiroiditis autoinmune" ] ] "contieneTextoCompleto" => array:1 [ "en" => true ] "contienePdf" => array:1 [ "en" => true ] "resumenGrafico" => array:2 [ "original" => 0 "multimedia" => array:7 [ "identificador" => "fig0010" "etiqueta" => "Figure 2" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr2.jpeg" "Alto" => 2407 "Ancho" => 1000 "Tamanyo" => 605257 ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="spar0010" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">(a) FNAB of the left thyroid nodule. Slight increase in size with abundant lymphocytes and absence of thyroid follicles. (b) FNAB of the left thyroid nodule. Detail of the lymphoid population: predominance of small lymphocytes and presence of a large Reed–Sternberg cell with three nuclei and nucleolus. (c) Thyroid biopsy. Reed–Sternberg cells positive for CD30.</p>" ] ] ] "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "autoresLista" => "O. Rubio-Puchol, S. Garzón-Pastor, V. Cortés-Vizcaíno, I. Luna-Boquera, M. Gómez-Balaguer, A. Hernández-Mijares" "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "O." "apellidos" => "Rubio-Puchol" ] 1 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "S." "apellidos" => "Garzón-Pastor" ] 2 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "V." "apellidos" => "Cortés-Vizcaíno" ] 3 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "I." "apellidos" => "Luna-Boquera" ] 4 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "M." "apellidos" => "Gómez-Balaguer" ] 5 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "A." "apellidos" => "Hernández-Mijares" ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S0014256515000922?idApp=WRCEE" "url" => "/00142565/0000021500000007/v1_201510020911/S0014256515000922/v1_201510020911/en/main.assets" ] "itemAnterior" => array:18 [ "pii" => "S0014256515001277" "issn" => "00142565" "doi" => "10.1016/j.rce.2015.04.001" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2015-10-01" "aid" => "1148" "copyright" => "Elsevier España, S.L.U. y Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI)" "documento" => "article" "crossmark" => 1 "subdocumento" => "fla" "cita" => "Rev Clin Esp. 2015;215:396-400" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:2 [ "total" => 914 "formatos" => array:2 [ "HTML" => 387 "PDF" => 527 ] ] "es" => array:12 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Artículo especial</span>" "titulo" => "Utilización adecuada del lenguaje médico: principales problemas y soluciones" "tienePdf" => "es" "tieneTextoCompleto" => "es" "tieneResumen" => array:2 [ 0 => "es" 1 => "en" ] "paginas" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "paginaInicial" => "396" "paginaFinal" => "400" ] ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "en" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Proper use of medical language: Main problems and solutions" ] ] "contieneResumen" => array:2 [ "es" => true "en" => true ] "contieneTextoCompleto" => array:1 [ "es" => true ] "contienePdf" => array:1 [ "es" => true ] "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "autoresLista" => "R. Aleixandre-Benavent, J.C. Valderrama Zurián, F.J. Bueno-Cañigral" "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "R." "apellidos" => "Aleixandre-Benavent" ] 1 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "J.C." "apellidos" => "Valderrama Zurián" ] 2 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "F.J." "apellidos" => "Bueno-Cañigral" ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "es" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S0014256515001277?idApp=WRCEE" "url" => "/00142565/0000021500000007/v1_201510020911/S0014256515001277/v1_201510020911/es/main.assets" ] "en" => array:18 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Special article</span>" "titulo" => "Research: Why and how to write a paper?" "tieneTextoCompleto" => true "paginas" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "paginaInicial" => "401" "paginaFinal" => "404" ] ] "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "autoresLista" => "R.W. Light" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "nombre" => "R.W." "apellidos" => "Light" "email" => array:1 [ 0 => "rlight98@yahoo.com" ] ] ] "afiliaciones" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "entidad" => "Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA" "identificador" => "aff0005" ] ] ] ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "es" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Investigación: ¿por qué y cómo escribir un artículo?" ] ] "textoCompleto" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSections"><p id="par0005" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">I have been involved in medical research for more than 50 years.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0030"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">1</span></a> During that time I have both directed the research myself and also mentored many young researchers. The following is a summary of what I have learned during this period.</p><span id="sec0005" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0025">Why do research?</span><p id="par0010" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The first question that one might ask is why anyone, particularly you, should ever want to do research. There are several possible reasons. One might want to become famous, but only rarely does this happen. One might want to get rich, but most researchers do not end up that way. Without question, the income of practicing physicians in the United States is higher than those in private practice.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0035"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">2</span></a> One might want to get a free trip. Certainly, if you perform research and your abstract is accepted for presentation, you might win a free trip to an interesting place. One might want to obtain a good professional position. Certainly a background in research with publications might help in that regard. One might want to answer a question about a diagnosis or treatment for a disease that one of your patients has. This a rational reason to perform research. One might want to help patients. Again, this is a valid reason to perform research. Lastly, one might want to discover something new. The main reasons that I have performed research are the last three possibilities.</p></span><span id="sec0010" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0030">What is necessary to perform research?</span><p id="par0015" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Do you need a genius intelligence quotient (IQ) level, a lot of money, an inquisitive mind, dedication, persistence, or organization? In my opinion, the most important element is persistence. I have worked with many individuals who have started a project, but never completed it. They may likely stop at any stage from initially writing the protocol, doing the research or, most commonly, while writing the paper itself. To be a successful researcher one must be persistent and finish the research. In my opinion, the second most important element is organization. By organization I mean arranging one's life so that time is not wasted. Have things organized so you do not spend an hour looking for a paper. Do not waste time complaining about things. I keep a list of things that I need to do on my computer. When I have a certain number of minutes free, I look at the list and see what I can accomplish in that period of time. I believe that dedication is the third most important element. If you are not dedicated to your research and prefer instead to watch football games or go to movies, you are less likely to be successful. The fourth most important element is to have adequate money. Without adequate resources to perform your research, it will obviously fail. Even so, it should be noted that many of the research projects that I have completed did not require any money (e.g., the paper describing Light's criteria<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0030"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">1</span></a> and the one describing parapneumonic effusions).<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0040"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">3</span></a> The fifth most important element is to have an inquisitive mind. This is important to aid the researcher in formulating the research and analyzing the data. Lastly, one need not have a genius IQ level to perform research. It helps to be smarter than the average person, but being a genius is not necessary.</p></span><span id="sec0015" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0035">What are the different types of research?</span><p id="par0020" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Case reports are frequently the type of research that one starts with. However, it is difficult to get case reports published unless the case is distinctly unique. Medical journals do not like to publish them because they decrease their impact factor. Reviews of the literature are worthwhile but, again, are hard to get published unless one is invited to write the review. Retrospective reviews of case series generally do not cost any money and are certainly useful. However, their downside is that important data are frequently missing. Prospective reviews of case series do not cost any money either and, if they are organized, missing data should not be a problem. Be aware that it may take time to accumulate the appropriate number of patients. The evaluation of new diagnostic tests is an important part of medical research, when comparing them with the test that has previously been used as the gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, and receiver-operating curve for the new test should be compared with those of the previous one which was the gold standard. The evaluation of new therapies is one of the most commonly performed types or research. Ideally, it should be done with randomized, double-blind controlled studies. If the study is not blinded, the researcher may be biased in evaluating results. The evaluation of new medical devices is important in advancing medical science. Again, it is best to do randomized controlled studies, but it is frequently difficult to design medical device studies which are blind. Lastly, a large percentage of medical research has to do with basic science. I performed no basic science or animal studies until 1988. When I started doing animal studies I found that they were much easier than patients to recruit. Subsequently, I found that cells were easier to obtain. However, basic science research requires more resources than do many types of human research.</p></span><span id="sec0020" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0040">How do you get started to do research?</span><p id="par0025" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The first thing you need to do is to develop an idea including a hypothesis. How do you develop the idea? It can be a question raised when taking care of a patient. It can be a question raised by an associate, an attending or a subordinate. It can be a question raised while attending a lecture or while reading the medical literature. It can also be a question raised while dreaming or even while drinking.</p><p id="par0030" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Once you have posed the question, it is important to review the literature. It is best not to embark upon a project that has already been done and you need to review the literature to determine if this is the case. Medline is a good place to start. On Medline you should narrow your search as far as is practical. One should obtain a copy or download all pertinent reference papers. Do not rely on review papers. Do not use Wikipedia.</p><p id="par0035" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">It is important to organize the pertinent references. I recommend transferring all abstracts to your computer. Keep them organized by putting them in alphabetical order by the first author's last name. Make notes on the abstracts as pertinent. Make an outline of what you have found in your review.</p><p id="par0040" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Once you have your idea formulated and have reviewed the literature, then discuss the proposal with your associates. In addition, you should evaluate the resources necessary to complete your project. How many patients do you need to answer your question? How much money will it take to conduct the study? Take into account money for personnel, ELISA kits, animals, pharmaceuticals, pipettes, etc. What personnel are needed for the study? What space, including for both the office and laboratory, is necessary for the study? How long will it take to complete the project? In general, it is a good idea to multiply your estimate of required time by a factor of at least two.</p></span><span id="sec0025" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0045">Is the research ethical?</span><p id="par0045" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">For human subjects, the question I ask myself is as follows: would I volunteer for this project if I were qualified to participate? If your answer to this question is no, then the research should not be performed.</p></span><span id="sec0030" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0050">Writing the protocol</span><p id="par0050" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Before the research can be conducted, a research protocol needs to be written. You should start with the specific objectives and hypothesis. Then, set the stage for your protocol by writing the background information, which is essentially a review of the literature in the context of your research. Next, describe the actual research protocol. Make this very detailed. Do not leave anything open to question. Include the statistical method of analysis and perform a power analysis. Include references in the protocol.</p></span><span id="sec0035" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0055">Necessary approvals before research can begin</span><p id="par0055" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">If the project involves humans, approval must be obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) before the study can be started. If blood or tissue is obtained for present or future studies, a written informed consent is required. IRB approval is necessary even if you are simply doing a chart review, but this does not require a written informed consent. Most journals will not accept a paper for publication if the project has not been approved by an IRB. If animals will be studied, the animal studies committee must approve the project. If radioisotopes are used in the study, the radioisotope committee must approve the project. If biohazards are being used, e.g. <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">Staphylococcus aureus</span> or asbestos, the biohazard committee must approve the project. If you are studying a new drug or an old drug for a new indication, you may have to submit your proposal to the National Health Service (NIH in the United States).</p></span><span id="sec0040" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0060">Eliciting cooperation of collaborators</span><p id="par0060" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">In order to elicit the cooperation of collaborators, one needs to create a win–win situation. By this I mean you need to create a situation in which you win (your project gets done), but the collaborator also needs to benefit. The main difficulty is creating the win portion for the collaborator. This can be in the form of a co-authorship on the manuscript, saving the collaborator work, a dinner, a book or money. It is best to avoid the following: direct payment for patient referred is unethical, competition for patients that the collaborator wants to study, and making extra work for the collaborator where nothing in return is received.</p></span><span id="sec0045" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0065">Performing the research</span><p id="par0065" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Before you actually start the research, have everything organized. Effort is wasted if everything is not done on the first patients. It is best to develop forms for all the data which will be collected. They should be such that the data is easily transcribed to a computer. Alternatively, you can enter the data directly on spread sheets on the computer. The responsibilities of all co-investigators and collaborators should be well defined. Once the research is started, one should be patient, persistent, and compulsive. If the research is going poorly and the chances for success appear minimal, the research should be stopped.</p></span><span id="sec0050" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0070">Reasons for failure of research projects</span><p id="par0070" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The most common causes for failure of a research project are a lack of persistence or organization. Other reasons for failure include an inadequate literature review – after the research has been started it becomes apparent that the study has already been done or that the hypothesis is completely different from what is accepted in the medical literature. It is also possible that someone completes an identical project before yours is completed, but this is uncommon. Inadequate numbers of patients can lead to failure of a project as can a lack of required cooperation. In some instances, there is not enough time to complete the project. This is particularly likely to happen when residents, fellows or visiting researchers are primarily responsible for the project. And lastly, and very importantly, the research is done but the paper never gets written. This has happened to me numerous times in my career.</p></span><span id="sec0055" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0075">Analyzing the data</span><p id="par0075" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Once the research project is finished, it is time to analyze the data. Most physicians are frightened by statistics. However, analysis of the data is easy if it is organized. The actual statistical analysis will depend upon the design of the project. In general, one desires to discover whether the results in two groups differ significantly. Basic terms in statistics are the mean (the average value), the median (the value with an equal number of observations above and below), and the variance, which is a measure of the variability of the results in one group. Most studies involve comparing the mean levels in two or more different groups.</p></span><span id="sec0060" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0080">Minimize the variance</span><p id="par0080" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The formula for the variance is shown in the following equation:<elsevierMultimedia ident="eq0005"></elsevierMultimedia>where <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">x</span><span class="elsevierStyleInf"><span class="elsevierStyleItalic">i</span></span> is the value of the <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">i</span>th observation, <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">x</span><span class="elsevierStyleInf">mean</span> is the average of all observations and <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">n</span> is to total number of observations in the group. The standard deviation (SD) is the square root of the variance. The standard error of the mean (SEM) is the SD divided by the square root of <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">n</span>. In order for two means to be different with a probability (<span class="elsevierStyleItalic">p</span>) value less than 0.05, the two means need to be separated by 2 SEMs. From the above discussion, it is apparent that if the variance is minimized, the two means are more likely to differ significantly. In performing research, it is important to do everything possible to minimize the variance. This means paying careful attention to details to decrease the randomness of the results.</p></span><span id="sec0065" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0085">Writing the manuscript</span><p id="par0085" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The main sections of the manuscript are the abstract (summary), the introduction (why?), the materials and methods (how?), the results (what you found), and the discussion (so what). When I write a manuscript, I write the sections in the following order. First, I write the material and methods section. This section is the easiest to write – just cut and paste from the protocol (remember to change tenses from future to past). Then, I write the results with the liberal use of tables and graphs. I next write the introduction while relying heavily on the protocol. I do not write the introduction initially because the results of the study may alter it somewhat. Afterwards, I write the discussion. Lastly, I write the abstract so that it will be consistent with the remainder of the paper.</p></span><span id="sec0070" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0090">Writing the discussion</span><p id="par0090" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Without a doubt this is the most difficult part of the paper to write.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0045"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">4</span></a> Before I start writing the discussion, I always make an outline of what I want to include. In the outline, the first paragraph is a brief summary of the results of the study and the last paragraph is the conclusion. The other paragraphs in the discussion should compare the results of the present study with those reported previously, the clinical implications and limitations of the study.</p></span><span id="sec0075" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0095">Tips on writing</span><p id="par0095" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Write in a simple manner. Keep sentences short. The first sentence in each paragraph should say what that paragraph is going to say. This makes it easier for the reader to speed read the paper. If the reader agrees with and knows about what is said in the first sentence, he/she can skip the rest of the paragraph. If you have difficulty in writing one paragraph, go to a different one. Writing the manuscript is a big task. Count your successes as paragraphs, not entire papers. If you write one paragraph per day, you will have at least 12 manuscripts per year.</p></span><span id="sec0080" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0100">Submitting the paper</span><p id="par0100" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Before you submit the manuscript, have someone whose first language is English and has some knowledge about medicine, review the manuscript and edit it. Make certain that all the co-authors review the manuscript. Consider their suggestions, but remember that you do not need to accept all of them. Next, you need to choose the journal to submit your manuscript to. One should look at previous editions of the journal to see if they have accepted similar papers on similar subjects.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0050"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">5</span></a> It is best to select a journal with a high impact factor. After it has been selected, read the instructions to the authors carefully and follow them. Abide by any word limits that have been established (i.e., if the journal states that the upper limit is 2500 words, do not submit a paper with 3500 words). If they say that they do not accept animal experiments and your research involves animals, do not submit it to that journal. If you do not follow the directions, the reviewers will think that you are not a careful researcher.</p></span><span id="sec0085" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0105">When paper is accepted provided revisions are done</span><p id="par0105" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The goal of revising the paper is to get it accepted for publication. A rebuttal letter should be written where the critiques of each of the reviewers is addressed. List each criticism by reviewer and then formulate a response. It is best to use different fonts when listing criticisms and making responses. When the reviewer requests an explanation of something, he wants it explained in the manuscript – not only in the rebuttal letter. Make simple requested changes without argument. Remember, the reviewer is trying to make the paper better. Thank the reviewers for their constructive criticisms whether or not you like them.</p></span><span id="sec0090" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0110">When the paper is rejected</span><p id="par0110" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">If the paper is rejected, do not give up but rather plan on resubmitting. Remember that submitting a paper is a little like playing the lottery – sometimes you get favorable reviewers and sometimes you get unfavorable reviewers. Note that reviewers frequently do not agree–maybe you were just unlucky or, alternatively, maybe the paper is really bad. There are many medical journals and some have higher standards than others. Before you submit to another journal, look carefully at the criticisms of the reviewers from the first submission and answer as many as possible. You may get the same reviewer upon resubmission and nothing irritates a reviewer more than seeing the same paper again without any changes.</p></span><span id="sec0095" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0115">Conclusions</span><p id="par0115" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Persistence and organization are the most important factors for success when doing research. Before the research is started, review the literature and write a detailed protocol. Create win–win situations to elicit cooperation of collaborators. Write the paper one paragraph at a time. Respond to reviewers and change the paper as suggested.</p></span><span id="sec0100" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0120">Conflict of interest</span><p id="par0120" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.</p></span></span>" "textoCompletoSecciones" => array:1 [ "secciones" => array:25 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "xres563516" "titulo" => "Abstract" "secciones" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "identificador" => "abst0005" ] ] ] 1 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "xpalclavsec580059" "titulo" => "Keywords" ] 2 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "xres563517" "titulo" => "Resumen" "secciones" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "identificador" => "abst0010" ] ] ] 3 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "xpalclavsec580060" "titulo" => "Palabras clave" ] 4 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0005" "titulo" => "Why do research?" ] 5 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0010" "titulo" => "What is necessary to perform research?" ] 6 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0015" "titulo" => "What are the different types of research?" ] 7 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0020" "titulo" => "How do you get started to do research?" ] 8 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0025" "titulo" => "Is the research ethical?" ] 9 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0030" "titulo" => "Writing the protocol" ] 10 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0035" "titulo" => "Necessary approvals before research can begin" ] 11 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0040" "titulo" => "Eliciting cooperation of collaborators" ] 12 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0045" "titulo" => "Performing the research" ] 13 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0050" "titulo" => "Reasons for failure of research projects" ] 14 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0055" "titulo" => "Analyzing the data" ] 15 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0060" "titulo" => "Minimize the variance" ] 16 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0065" "titulo" => "Writing the manuscript" ] 17 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0070" "titulo" => "Writing the discussion" ] 18 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0075" "titulo" => "Tips on writing" ] 19 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0080" "titulo" => "Submitting the paper" ] 20 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0085" "titulo" => "When paper is accepted provided revisions are done" ] 21 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0090" "titulo" => "When the paper is rejected" ] 22 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0095" "titulo" => "Conclusions" ] 23 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0100" "titulo" => "Conflict of interest" ] 24 => array:1 [ "titulo" => "References" ] ] ] "pdfFichero" => "main.pdf" "tienePdf" => true "fechaRecibido" => "2015-04-26" "fechaAceptado" => "2015-04-27" "PalabrasClave" => array:2 [ "en" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "clase" => "keyword" "titulo" => "Keywords" "identificador" => "xpalclavsec580059" "palabras" => array:3 [ 0 => "Research" 1 => "Publishing" 2 => "Scientific writing" ] ] ] "es" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "clase" => "keyword" "titulo" => "Palabras clave" "identificador" => "xpalclavsec580060" "palabras" => array:3 [ 0 => "Investigación" 1 => "Publicación" 2 => "Escritura científica" ] ] ] ] "tieneResumen" => true "resumen" => array:2 [ "en" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Abstract" "resumen" => "<span id="abst0005" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><p id="spar0005" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">In this article, an internationally renowned pulmonologist with extensive experience in teaching and publishing gives practical advice to young physicians and/or residents on the importance of doing research, the steps for planning a project and also some do's and don’ts of writing and publishing a scientific paper.</p></span>" ] "es" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Resumen" "resumen" => "<span id="abst0010" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><p id="spar0010" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">En este artículo, un neumólogo internacionalmente reconocido, con amplia experiencia académica e investigadora, da consejos prácticos a residentes y médicos jóvenes para llevar a cabo proyectos de investigación y publicaciones científicas.</p></span>" ] ] "multimedia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:5 [ "identificador" => "eq0005" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFORMULA" "mostrarFloat" => false "mostrarDisplay" => true "Formula" => array:5 [ "Matematica" => "Variance=Sum(xi−xmean)2n−1" "Fichero" => "STRIPIN_si1.jpeg" "Tamanyo" => 1923 "Alto" => 34 "Ancho" => 184 ] ] ] "bibliografia" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "References" "seccion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "bibs0005" "bibliografiaReferencia" => array:5 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0030" "etiqueta" => "1" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Pleural effusions: the diagnostic separation of transudates and exudates" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:4 [ 0 => "R.W. Light" 1 => "M.I. MacGregor" 2 => "P.C. Luchsinger" 3 => "W.C. Ball Jr." ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Ann Intern Med" "fecha" => "1972" "volumen" => "77" "paginaInicial" => "507" "paginaFinal" => "514" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4642731" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 1 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0035" "etiqueta" => "2" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Life after fellowship: private practice versus academics – the low down" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:4 [ 0 => "V.K. Singh" 1 => "F.M. Giardiello" 2 => "S. Singhal" 3 => "R.J. Badreddine" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1016/j.gie.2013.11.028" "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Gastrointest Endosc" "fecha" => "2014" "volumen" => "79" "paginaInicial" => "327" "paginaFinal" => "331" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24433631" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 2 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0040" "etiqueta" => "3" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "The incidence and significance of parapneumonic effusions" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:4 [ 0 => "R.W. Light" 1 => "W.M. Girard" 2 => "S.G. Jenkinson" 3 => "R.B. George" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Am J Med" "fecha" => "1980" "volumen" => "69" "paginaInicial" => "507" "paginaFinal" => "512" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7424940" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 3 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0045" "etiqueta" => "4" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VI: discussion" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "J.W. Cals" 1 => "D. Kotz" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.04.017" "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "J Clin Epidemiol" "fecha" => "2013" "volumen" => "66" "paginaInicial" => "1064" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23993311" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 4 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0050" "etiqueta" => "5" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part X: choice of journal" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "J.W. Cals" 1 => "D. Kotz" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.014" "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "J Clin Epidemiol" "fecha" => "2014" "volumen" => "67" "paginaInicial" => "3" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24183607" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" "url" => "/00142565/0000021500000007/v1_201510020911/S0014256515001472/v1_201510020911/en/main.assets" "Apartado" => array:4 [ "identificador" => "1018" "tipo" => "SECCION" "es" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Artículos especiales" "idiomaDefecto" => true ] "idiomaDefecto" => "es" ] "PDF" => "https://static.elsevier.es/multimedia/00142565/0000021500000007/v1_201510020911/S0014256515001472/v1_201510020911/en/main.pdf?idApp=WRCEE&text.app=https://revclinesp.es/" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S0014256515001472?idApp=WRCEE" ]
