How To Publish

Systematic Review & Meta-

Analysis

Edi Sampurno Ridwan, Ph.D

Alma Ata Graduate of Public Health & Department of Nursing,
Universitas Alma Ata
Research Collaboration, Ehsan Institute
 Our Goals
q You obtain an insight (the capacity to gain an accurate and
deep intuitive understanding of a thing) into publishing
your research papers

q You gain a support to pass through your academic excellent

as a scientist or a member of international intellectual
community
Publication
Well prepare to do so
About systematic review and
meta-analysis
• systematic review and meta-analysis is one of
research designs
• Result of systematic review and meta-analysis
studies is recognized as an original paper
• Publishing a systematic review and meta-analysis
follows specific guideline and recommendation
Hierarchy of Evidence

SR follows specific
rules
What are the rules
 Writing manuscript

• Ensure to break our language barriers:

English
• Write all information in the manuscript
concisely
• Ensure you are following specific guideline
in writing manuscript a result of SR/MA
based study types in your protocol
each type of study has
specific guideline
Standard for Reporting Systematic Review
/MA
Register & Protocol
Prisma Flowchart, 2020
 Cheklist to
prepare final
report SR
 Cheklist to
prepare final
report SR
 Report
included in
the method
section
 Report
included in the
method section
 Report
included in the
result section
 Report
included in
the result
section
Checklist for RCT study
Checklist for RCT study
Mind your
Manuscript
1. Think about why you want to publish your
work – and whether it's publishable
Ask yourself:
1. Have I done something new and interesting?
2. Is there anything challenging in my work?
3. Is my work related directly to a current hot topic?
4. Have I provided solutions to some difficult problems?

vIf all answers are ”YES," then you can start preparations
for your manuscript.
vIf any of the responses are ”NO," you can probably
submit your paper to a local journal or one with lower
Impact Factor.
Reviewers use questionnaires to
respond to questions such as:
1. Does the paper contain sufficient new material?
2. Is the topic within the scope of the journal?
3. Is it presented concisely and well organized?
4. Are the methods and experiments presented in the way
that they can be replicated again?
5. Are the results presented adequately?
6. Is the discussion relevant, concise and well documented?
7. Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?
8. Is the language acceptable?
9. Are figures and tables adequate and well designed?, are
there information duplicated? Are they too many?
10. Are all references cited in the text included in the
references list?
2. Decide what type of the
manuscript to write
At least has three options on the type of
manuscript:
1. Full articles, or original articles, are the
most important papers. Often they are
substantial completed pieces of research that
are of significance as original research.
2. Review papers or perspectives summarize
recent developments on a specific hot topic,
highlighting important points that have
previously been reported and introduce no
new information.
3. Choose the target journal

1. A common question is how to select the right journal

for your work.
a. Do not scattering your manuscript to many journals at the same
time.
b. Only submit once and wait for the response of the editor and the
reviewers.
2. The most common way of selecting the right journal is to
look at the articles you have consulted to prepare your
manuscript.
a. Read very recent publications in each candidate journal (even in
press), and find out the hot topics and the types of articles
accepted.
3. Also consider the high rejection rates of the journals
and if your research is not very challenging, focus in
more humble journals with lower Impact Factors.
3. Use journal finder to choose
the target journal
4. Pay attention to journal
requirements in the Guide for Authors.
When Journal Selected:
1. Go to the web page and download the Guide for
Authors, print out it and read the guidelines again and
again!
2. Guideline includes:
• detailed editorial guidelines,
• submission procedures,
• fees for publishing open access, and copyright and ethical
guidelines.
3. You must apply the Guide for Authors to your
manuscript, even the first draft, using the proper text
layout, references citation, nomenclature, figures and
tables, etc.
§ this simple tip will save your time – and the editor's time.
5. Pay attention to the structure
of the paper
1. A section that enables indexing and searching
the topics, making the paper informative,
attractive and effective. It consists of the Title,
the Authors (and affiliations), the Abstract
and the Keywords.
2. A section that includes the main text, which is
usually divided into: Introduction, Methods,
Results, Discussion and Conclusions.
3. A section that includes the
Acknowledgements, References, and
Supplementary Materials or annexes.
Paper structure follows the
IMRAD format
Introduced as a standard by the American
National Standards Institute in 1979, which
responds to the questions below:
1. Introduction: What did you/others do? Why
did you do it?
2. Methods: How did you do it?
3. Results: What did you find?
4. And
5. Discussion: What does it all mean?
6. Understand publication
ethics to avoid violations
1. One of the worst things in science is plagiarism.
2. Plagiarism and stealing work from colleagues can
lead to serious consequences, both professionally
and legally.
3. Violations include data fabrication and
falsification, improper use of human subjects and
animals in research, and using another
author's ideas or wording without proper
attribution.
4. It's also possible to commit ethics violations
without intending to.
7. Steps to organizing your
manuscript
1. Prepare the figures and tables.
2. Write the Methods.
3. Write up the Results.
4. Write the Discussion. Finalize the Results and Discussion before
writing the introduction. This is because, if the discussion is
insufficient, how can you objectively demonstrate the scientific
significance of your work in the introduction?
5. Write a clear Conclusion.
6. Write a compelling introduction.
7. Write the Abstract.
8. Compose a concise and descriptive Title.
9. Select Keywords for indexing.
10. Write the Acknowledgements.
11. Write up the References.
Two important things you should do that
will set the groundwork for the entire
process

1. The topic to be studied should be the first issue to be

solved. Define your hypothesis and objectives (These
will go in the Introduction.)
2. Review the literature related to the topic and select
some papers (about 30) that can be cited in your paper
(These will be listed in the References.)
• Finally, keep in mind that each publisher has its own
style guidelines and preferences, so always consult the
publisher's Guide for Authors.
0: Write a compelling
Introduction
1. This is your opportunity to convince readers that you
clearly know why your work is useful.
2. A good introduction should answer the following questions:
a. What is the problem to be solved?
b. Are there any existing solutions?
c. Which is the best?
d. What is its main limitation?
e. What do you hope to achieve?
3. Editors like to see that you have provided a perspective
consistent with the nature of the journal.
4. You need to introduce the main scientific publications on
which your work is based, citing a couple of original and
important works, including recent review articles.
Tips for the introduction:
1. Never use more words than necessary (be concise and to-the-
point).
2. We all know that you are keen to present your new data. But
do not forget that you need to give the whole picture at first.
3. The introduction must be organized from the global to the
particular point of view
4. State the purpose of the paper and research strategy adopted
to answer the question, but do not mix introduction with
results, discussion and conclusion.
5. Hypothesis and objectives must be clearly remarked at the
end of the introduction.
6. Expressions such as "novel," "first time," "first ever," and
"paradigm-changing" are not preferred. Use them sparingly.
1: Prepare the figures and tables
1. "a figure is worth a thousand words.”
2. Illustrations, including figures and tables, are the most
efficient way to present your results. Your data are the
driving force of the paper, so your illustrations are
critical!
3. How do you decide between presenting your data as
tables or figures?
§ tables give the actual experimental results,
§ figures are often used for comparisons of experimental results
with those of previous works, or with calculated/theoretical
values.
§ Whatever your choice is, no illustrations should duplicate the
information described elsewhere in the manuscript.
§ Another important factor: figure and table legends must be self-
explanatory
When presenting your tables and
figures, appearances count!
1. Avoid crowded plots, using only three or four
data sets per figure; use well-selected scales.
2. Think about appropriate axis label size
3. Include clear symbols and data sets that are easy
to distinguish.
4. Never include long boring tables; You can
include them as supplementary material.
 2: Write the Methods
1. This section responds to the question of how the problem
was studied. If your paper is proposing a new method, you
need to include detailed information so a knowledgeable
reader can reproduce the experiment.
2. However, do not repeat the details of established methods;
use References and Supporting Materials to indicate the
previously published procedures. Broad summaries or key
references are sufficient.
3. Reviewers will criticize incomplete or incorrect methods
descriptions and may recommend rejection, because this
section is critical in the process of reproducing your
investigation. In this way, all chemicals must be identified.
Do not use proprietary, unidentifiable compounds.
Use standard systems for numbers and
nomenclature
1. For chemicals, use the conventions of the International Union
of Pure and Applied Chemistry and the official
recommendations of the IUPAC–IUB Combined Commission on
Biochemical Nomenclature.
2. For species, use accepted taxonomical nomenclature (WoRMS:
World Register of Marine Species, ERMS: European Register of
Marine Species), and write them always in italics.
3. For units of measurement, follow the International System of
Units (SI).
Length of the manuscript
Ideal length for a manuscript is 25 to 40 pages, double spaced,
including essential data only. Here are some general guidelines:
1. Title: Short and informative
2. Abstract: 1 paragraph (<250 words)
3. Introduction: 1.5-2 pages
4. Methods: 2-3 pages
5. Results: 6-8 pages
6. Discussion: 4-6 pages
7. Conclusion: 1 paragraph
8. Figures: 6-8 (one per page)
9. Tables: 1-3 (one per page)
10. References: 20-50 papers (2-4 pages)
3: Write up the Results
1. This section responds to the question "What have you
found?" Hence, only representative results from your
research should be presented.
2. The results should be essential for discussion.
3. Use sub-headings to keep results of the same type
together, which is easier to review and read.
4. For the data, decide on a logical order that tells a clear
story and makes it and easy to understand.
• An important issue is that you must not include references
in this section; you are presenting your results, so you
cannot refer to others here. If you refer to others, is
because you are discussing your results, and this must be
included in the Discussion section
Statistical rules
1. Indicate the statistical tests used with all relevant
parameters: e.g., mean and standard deviation (SD):
44% (±3); median and interpercentile range: 7 years
(4.5 to 9.5 years).
2. Use mean and standard deviation to report
normally distributed data.
3. Use median and interpercentile range to report
skewed data.
4. For numbers, use two significant digits unless more
precision is necessary (2.08, not 2.07856444).
5. Never use percentages for very small samples e.g.,
"one out of two" should not be replaced by 50%.
4: Write the Discussion
1. Here you must respond to what the results mean.
2. Here you get the chance to sell your data. Take into
account that a huge numbers of manuscripts are
rejected because the Discussion is weak.
3. You need to make the Discussion corresponding to
the Results, but do not reiterate the results.
4. Here you need to compare the published results by
your colleagues with yours (using some of the
references included in the Introduction).
5. Never ignore work in disagreement with yours, in
turn, you must confront it and convince the reader
that you are correct or better.
 Take into account the following
tips:
1. Avoid statements that go beyond what the results can
support.
2. Avoid unspecific expressions such as "higher
temperature", "at a lower rate", "highly significant".
Quantitative descriptions are always preferred (35ºC,
0.5%, p<0.001, respectively).
3. Avoid sudden introduction of new terms or ideas; you
must present everything in the introduction, to be
confronted with your results here.
4. Speculations on possible interpretations are allowed,
but these should be rooted in fact, rather than
imagination.
5. Revision of Results and Discussion is not just paper
work.
To achieve good interpretations
think about:
1. How do these results relate to the original question
or objectives outlined in the Introduction section?
2. Do the data support your hypothesis?
3. Are your results consistent with what other
investigators have reported?
4. Discuss weaknesses and discrepancies. If your
results were unexpected, try to explain why
5. Is there another way to interpret your results?
6. What further research would be necessary to
answer the questions raised by your results?
7. Explain what is new without exaggerating
5: Write a clear Conclusion
1. This section shows how the work advances the field
from the present state of knowledge.
2. A common error in this section is repeating the abstract,
or just listing experimental results. Trivial statements of
your results are unacceptable in this section.
3. You should provide a clear scientific justification for
your work in this section, and indicate uses and
extensions if appropriate.
4. Moreover, you can suggest future experiments and point
out those that are underway.
5. You can propose present global and specific conclusions,
in relation to the objectives included in the introduction
6. Write the Abstract
1. The abstract tells prospective readers what you did and
what the important findings in your research were.
2. You must be accurate, using the words that convey the
precise meaning of your research.
3. The abstract provides a short description of the
perspective and purpose of your paper. It gives key
results but minimizes experimental details. It is very
important to remind that the abstract offers a short
description of the interpretation/conclusion in the last
sentence.
4. A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not
your work is further considered.
5. Just check the 'Guide for authors' of the journal, but
normally they have less than 250 words.
Closing advice
1. As you prepare your manuscript, there are some
basic principles you should always keep in mind:
2. Cherish your own work – if you do not take care,
why should the journal?
3. There is no secret recipe for success – just some
simple rules, dedication and hard work.
4. Editors and reviewers are all busy scientists, just
like you. Make things easy to save them time.
5. Hence, if you are ready to learn more about
preparing a manuscript, look for the next articles in
this series and have good luck!
Dealing with rejection