Abstract
OBJECTIVES:To evaluate characteristics, suggested modifications and reasons for rejection in scientific articles submitted for publication in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A prospective study analyzed the flaws noted by reviewers in 52 scientific articles submitted to the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between August 31, 2014 and February 28, 2015.RESULTS:Fifteen flaws concerning content and 7 concerning form were identified. In more than 25% of submissions, major flaws were noted: purely descriptive paper; lack of contribution to existing state of knowledge; failure to define a clear study objective and/or analyze the impact of major variables; poorly structured Materials and methods section, lacking description of study population, objective and/or variables; lack of or inappropriate statistical analysis; Introduction verbose and/or misrepresenting the literature; excessively heterogeneous and/or poorly described study population; imprecise discussion, straying from the point, overstating the significance of results and/or introducing new results not mentioned in the Results section; description of the study population placed in the Results section instead of under Materials and methods; serious mistakes of syntax, spelling and/or tense; and failure to follow the Instructions to Authors. After review, 21.1% of articles were published, 65.3% rejected and 13.4% non-resubmitted within 3 months of review. On univariate analysis, the only variable increasing the percentage of articles accepted was the topic not being devoted to head and neck surgery (P=0.03).CONCLUSION:These results document the excessive flaw rate still to be found in manuscripts and demonstrate the continuing need for authors to master and implement the rules of scientific medical writing.