Research has been prioritized in homeopathy postgraduate curriculum through provision of ‘Journal clubs’ and a

compulsory paper on ‘Research Methods and Biostatistics’ in part I university examination. The purpose is to
develop critical analytical skills while evaluating medical literature, enable independent writing, designing quality
research, and thus improving research productivity. However, the ultimate task of publishing researches in
indexed and scientific journals of homeopathy remains a daunting task. The reasons being the limited number of
standard journals publishing such works and the barrier of stringent peer review, to name a few. Improper and
unscientific writing, lack of awareness and time, and low priority for research adds to the misery. About 62% of
published papers have been rejected at least once. Rejection rates of top-tier journals vary between 80-85% (e.g.
JAMA Internal Medicine has 13% acceptance rate), while some others reported it to be around 90-95% (e.g. New
England Journal of Medicine has acceptance rate of 5% only). Acceptance rate of top homeopathy and CAM
journals is also about 15% only.

While choosing a journal for submitting papers, the following points should be kept in mind: response time of the
journal, journal’s scope and readers, acceptance rate, impact factors and other metrics, and to avoid predatory
journals. For ready reference, a table has been appended at the end of the paper mentioning the journals
publishing homeopathy research.

There are 3 main types of original research manuscripts –

1. Original articles including trial reports, brief communication, case reports/series

2. Review papers, especially systematic reviews and meta-analyses
3. Letters, commentaries and opinions

Before starting to write, the author should have a very clear idea what he intends to say, i.e. what is the ‘take
home message’ from the work, and then to prepare the manuscript around it. This is the secret to a well-written
paper. Standard structure of a research paper usually consists of the following sections: title, abstract, keywords,
introduction and objectives, methods, results including figures and tables, discussion, conclusion,
acknowledgement, statement of ethics, disclosure of conflict of interests, funding, author contribution, and
references.

Different components of a research paper required during submission in a journal: cover letter, title page, main
text, figures, tables, appendices and supplementary material, duly signed copyright agreement.

The title is the first impression of any paper. It should be concise, accurate, original, and captivating. The abstract
should convince the reader to keep reading! It should include the key points from the background and rationale,
methodology, results and conclusion. It should be a self-sufficient miniature paper, but should provide adequate
details to ensure inclusion in reviews and meta-analyses. It should be lay-reader-friendly. It should be followed by
field-specific keywords.

The introduction of manuscript explains why taking up the research is important. It includes appropriate
background mentioning the landmark researches conducted till date on the relevant topic (e.g. homeopathy
researches on atopic dermatitis), what the bigger problem is going to be addressed, what is known to date, and
what is the study aim and hypotheses. Rich and appropriate citations must be ensured.

The methodology part of a clinical paper should include description of the study setting and time of data
collection, details of experimental or sampling designs, inclusion and exclusion criteria, statistical analysis plan
and details of the ethical guidelines followed. The methodology part of basic research paper should include
description of animal models or biological materials, specifics of animal ethics guidelines followed, details of
experimental or sampling design, information on reagents used (including brands), concentrations, incubation
times, temperatures etc., information on any advanced equipment, software and setting used, and statistical
analysis plan.

The results should include distinct sections for each subset of experiments/findings, figures and tables, structured
around a distinct theme. Data should be presented in a clear, attractive and easily comprehensible manner.
Supplementary materials and appendices should be considered if needed. Tables/figures can be more concise or
reader-friendly than textual presentations. Footnotes, as required, should be added at the bottom of the tables
and figures. Data may be needed to be deposited in public databases (e.g. in MENDELEY® in many Elsevier
journals seeking submission through Evise®).

The discussion section should comprise of the following: a transparent encapsulation of the study design and
main outcome in the first paragraph, subsequent individual paragraphs should focus on major outcomes, brief
discussion related to studies supporting or disputing outcomes, discussion of unexpected findings, and provision
of logical reasoning about discrepancies. The limitation section should focus on constraints related to study
design, study sample/population, sample size, study duration, factors evaluated. Methodology, materials used
etc.

The Conclusion should summarize the key findings and highlight their short-, medium- and long-term implications
and future research in the respective medical/scientific field.

In-text citations must be provided in the manuscript wherever a work has been influenced by someone else’s
work. Authors should provide citations while quoting directly, paraphrasing or presenting results on the basis of
an already published work. Medical literature largely follows either Vancouver or Harvard citation styles; however,
an author should follow the style guide specified in the journal guidelines. Both commercial (ENDNOTETM,
RefWorks® etc.) and free (e.g. zotero®, MENDELEY®, citavi® etc.) reference management software packages
are available.

The following checklist may be followed before manuscript submission:

Double checking of facts and details

Acknowledging and citing all sources
Structuring manuscript in journal format and style
Well prepared tables and figures
Accurate authors information
Compliance to ethical guidelines
Disclosure of conflicts of interests
Strong cover letter
Author response letter (when applicable)

The main reasons for immediate rejections or delay in processing of the manuscript include the paper being
beyond the scope of the journal, ethical unsoundness, plagiarism, formatting errors and non-compliance to
submission requirements. The major reasons for rejection after peer review includes lack of novelty, inadequate
details or incomplete methods, scarce or inappropriate sample size, low quality illustrations in figures and tables,
inaccurate reflection of results, overstated findings, unjustified conclusion. The key reasons for rejection or delay
in final decision are poor compliance to reviewers’/editor’s recommendations, requirement of further external
review, extensive additions to the original work, and inclusion of new data.

Guidelines to be followed while preparing original research papers of homeopathy are the following:

1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
analysis (PRISMA), 2009 [1]
2. Clinical trials: Consolidated Statement of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), 2010 [2]; Reporting Data on
Homeopathic Treatment (ReDHoT), 2007 [3]
3. Drug proving or Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials (HPTs) [4, 5]
4. Basic researches: Reporting Homeopathic Basic Research (ReHBaR), 2009 [6]
5. Guidelines for case series [7, 8]
6. Guideline for case reports [9]

In recent years, universities have earned a reputation for ruthless manipulating figures to improve their positions
in international rankings [10]. Editors attempting to elevate their impact factor by compelling authors to cite articles
published by their journals [11]. To maximize profits, publishers launch pseudo- or predatory journals ready to
publish practically every submission [12], while individuals resort to gaming strategies like text-recycling, self-
plagiarism and self-citations to enhance their chances for promotion [13, 14]. These examples, very much
characteristic of recent times, suggest that the phenomenon of academic misconduct. During the first stage of
research, the most obvious examples of misconduct include the fabrication of research data, material evidence,
and results. The stage of the review process also offers opportunities for gaming, such as positive bias of
mentorship networks or harsh criticism by competitors. When an article is published, the most widespread
examples of malpractice range from adding undeserved authors and omitting individuals who made a significant
contribution to plagiarism and text-recycling. The reason for these instances of misconduct can be traced back to
the desire to maximize the impact factor by gaming citations. Although researchers rarely report their own
academic dishonesty, they confirm that such practices are comparatively widespread in academia [15]. However,
the sensitivity of the topic is a critical limitation in self-reported evidence regarding misconduct.

In a nutshell, successful publication of homeopathy research papers in indexed journals depends on few key
factors – sound knowledge of research methodology and biostatistics, strict adherence to the journal and
standard reporting guidelines, avoiding plagiarism successfully, timely compliance to editorial and/or reviewers’
comments, and cautious escape from predatory journals. The skill of publishing can only be achieved by untiring
endeavour and perseverance. Innovative ideas deserve the best places to get published.

References:

1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Brit Med J. 2009;339:b2535.
2. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel
group randomized trials. Brit Med J. 2010;340:c332.
3. Dean ME, Coulter MK, Fisher P, Jobst K, Walach H. Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot):
A supplement to CONSORT. Homeopathy 2007;96(1):42-45.
4. Jansen JP, Jong M, Hildingsson I, Jong MC. A minimum protocol for randomized homeopathic drug
proving as basis for further research. Forsch Komplementmed. 2014;21(4):232-238.
5. Manchanda RK, Khurana A, Mittal R, Taneja D, Haselen Rv. Research protocol: Homoeopathic Drug
Proving: Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Ind J Res Hom. 2015;9(1):3-11.
6. Stock-Schröer B, Albrecht H, Betti L, Endler PC, Linde K, Lüdtke R, et al. Reporting experiments in
homeopathic basic research (REHBaR). Homeopathy 2009;98(4):287-298.
7. Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Rajmohan S, Barai I, Orgill DP, for the PROCESS Group. Preferred reporting of case
series in surgery; the PROCESS guidelines. Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt A):319-323.
8. Jabs DA. Improving the reporting of clinical case series. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139(5):900-905.
9. Haselen Rv. Homeopathic clinical case reports: Development of a supplement (HOM-CASE) to the CARE
clinical case reporting guideline. Complement Ther Med. 2016;25:78-85.
10. Berggren C, Karabag SF. Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing
institutional logics and fragmented control. Res Pol. 2019;48(2):428-443.
11. Biagioli M, Kenney M, Martin BR, Walsh JP. Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A
reassessment. Res Pol. 2019;48(2):401-413.
12. Bagues, M, Sylos-Labini M, Zinovyeva N. A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information
asymmetries in scientific evaluations. Res Pol. 2019;48(2):462-477.
13. Horbach SPJM, Halffman W. The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’. Res
Pol. 2019;48(2):492-502.
14. Seeber M, Cattaneo M, Meoli M, Malighetti P. Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for
career decisions. Res Pol. 2019;48(2):478-491.
15. Hussinger K, Pellens M. Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators. Res
Pol. 2019;48(2):516-530.