Address for Correspondence: Gulmira Kudaiberdieva, Editor-in-Chief, Heart Vessels and Transplantation, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Editors are frequently asked how to get acceptance decision for manuscripts submitted for consideration for publication in journals (1-5). There are two major factors influencing decision to accept: good project and presentation. Here I will make emphasis on the presentation of studies in the manuscripts.
It is advised to read carefully instructions to authors where most of information on requirements are presented.
Cover letter, which contains explanation of importance of the study, that manuscript is being submitted solely to journal and not under consideration in other journals, authorship and statement of potential conflict of interests should be submitted along with manuscript.
Title must be concise enough to reflect the content of research presented, followed by structured abstract (Objective, Methods, Results and Conclusion) and key words. The manuscript must have introduction, methods, results and discussion sections.
The introduction describes the importance of the problem, rationale for the study and well defined hypothesis/research question (2, 3, 5).
Methods should describe study design, study population, ethical considerations, variables, definitions, data collection, procedures and specific methods used in the study, statistical analysis in accordance with the hypothesis/research question. It is useful to visit the author`s corner at our website www.hvt-journal.com to select appropriate guideline for presentation of your study accordingly with study design (STROBE – for observational studies, STARD – for studies on diagnostic accuracy, CONSORT – for randomized interventional studies, etc).
Results section should describe study population, outcomes and results of statistical analyses of variables following order in methods section. It usually contains subheadings, figures and tables. Do not replicate in text information presented in tables. Every statement on comparison of data should be supported by p values or confident intervals.
Writing discussion is often recommended as crafting (artwork), which should start with summary of main findings, then comparing with results of previous studies, what is different and is the study result entirely novel, does it extend current knowledge or confirm previous studies results, followed by description of mechanisms, applicability to broader populations, discussion of clinical implications, strengths and limitations of the study and conclusion, summarizing main findings and answering research question/hypothesis (1-4). Do not over-interpret results of the study.
Editor in Chief
Heart, Vessels and Transplantation
Conflict of Interest: None to declare
Acknowledgement and funding: None to declare