How to avoid common errors in writing scientific manuscripts

Crafting impactful papers: Expectations and recommendations for Business and management articles

This paper introduces Heliyon's Business and Management Section, established in 2023 as a platform committed to maintaining rigorous ethical and scientific publishing standards within the field. Prioritizing scientific correctness and technical soundness over mere novelty, it encompasses a wide range of research domains, encouraging contributions from scholars across diverse backgrounds. Within this guide, we provide insights into the process of preparing effective papers and offer constructive guidelines for the reviewing process. Authors will find valuable tools to align their work with the journal's expectations, incorporating current literature to enhance the probability of successful publication. Both aspiring authors and reviewers will benefit from this resource, which emphasizes academic and professional growth. By promoting collaboration and upholding high-quality standards, we aim to fortify the scholarly publishing community and advance knowledge in the field of business and management.

Mind the Gap: a Competency-Based Scoping Review of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Reported Simulation Training Models

BACKGROUND

Simulation training has become an integral part of plastic surgery postgraduate curricula. It facilitates the acquisition of skills in a safe environment that can be later transferred to real-life settings. A variety of models have been described covering some aspects of the specialty better than others. The aim of this study was to identify and classify all the previously reported plastic surgery simulation models and the possible gaps having the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) list of competencies as a guide.

METHODS

Through a Delphi process, the complete list of ACGME minimum requirements for certification was analyzed to identify domains amenable for simulation training. A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed looking for all previously reported simulation models in plastic surgery. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and parallel blind review were used to identify eligible models.

RESULTS

A total of 81 ACGME competencies were identified. Following a 3-round Delphi process, consensus was reached on 19 reconstructive and 15 aesthetic surgery domains suitable for simulation training. 1667 articles were initially retrieved from Pubmed, of which 66 articles were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive (65%), quasi-experimental (24%) and experimental studies (11%) were found. For the 34 identified ACGME competencies, there were simulation models described for 58.8% of these, mostly covering reconstructive surgery (84.2%) while for aesthetic surgery it was 13.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review has identified that there are still gaps in ACGME competencies that could benefit from new simulation training models, especially in those related to aesthetic surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Peer-Review and Rejection Causes in Submitting Original Medical Manuscripts

The purpose of specialized medical journals is to accurately disseminate the results of new research. The peer-review process is crucial for journals to be able to fulfill this purpose. Although the peer-review determines whether scientific papers are accepted or rejected for publication, for many authors is a not well known process in its entirety. Many journals have focused on educating their audience about how and what is assessed during peer-review, nevertheless, the rate of manuscripts rejected because of easily-avoidable causes related to this, remains high. In this paper, we describe the process that specialized journals use to assess original medical manuscripts and list the main causes of paper rejection. Practicing physicians and medical students who wish to report their research results stand to benefit if they can identify and early avoid on the issues that most often arise during the peer-review process.