The Oncologist & How to Prepare Papers for Top-Tier International Journals

1. The Oncologist & How to Prepare Papers for Top-Tier International Journals 《肿瘤学家》期刊介绍如何向国际一流学术期刊投稿 Authors’ Toolkit: A Practical Guide（投稿者工具包：实用指南）

2. Objectives（目的） By the end of this session, you will be able to: 在此次讲座结束时，参加讲座者应掌握以下几点： • Describe journals’ editorial policies 描述期刊的编辑方针 • Identify the most suitable audiences for your work确定你的稿件最适合的读者群 • Select the right journal for your manuscript 为你的稿件选择正确的投稿期刊 • Demonstrate the best practices for preparing manuscripts and supplemental materials使用最优方法来准备稿件和附加材料 • Develop skills for dialogue with editors掌握一些与编辑对话的技巧 • Explain the review, revision, and resubmission procedures解释审稿、修稿、再次投稿的过程

3. Journal Selection（选择投稿期刊） • Whom do I want to reach (target audience)?我想让谁阅读我的文章？ 目标读者 • How do I intend to reach the desired audience?怎样使我的文章被目标读者读到？ • Is the journal open-access? 这部期刊是开放性的吗？ • How will readers access my article?读者会怎样读到我的文章？ • What type of journal will best meet my needs (general or specific, local or international)?哪种期刊最满足我的需求（综合性期刊还是专刊，国内还是国际期刊）？ • How soon do I need to publish the data?我需要多快发表我的数据？ • Speed of review审稿的速度 • Speed of publication发表的速度

4. Journal Selection（选择投稿期刊） • Research journal options 查找合适的期刊 • Request input from peers, mentors, librarians.向同行、导师、图书馆相关人员寻求意见 • Research PubMed (MEDLINE) for similar topics.从PubMed(MEDLINE)上查找相似议题 • Explore journal directories (e.g., Directory of Open Access Journals). 查找期刊目录（例如：开放性期刊目录） • Identify your journal of choice 确定你所选择的期刊 • Determine the fit between your study and a target journal确定你选择的期刊与你的研究的适合程度 • Research the journal thoroughly对期刊进行全面的调查 • Consider the needs of co-authors and research sponsors还需考虑其他作者和研究赞助者的需求

5. Journal Selection（选择投稿期刊） Considerations: 考虑因素 • scope and aims of the journal 期刊的宗旨和涉及范围 - (e.g. narrow, broad, how well it matches your topic) (例如：范围、宽度、与你研究的相关度) • typical readership (e.g., researchers, clinicians…)典型读者类型（例如：科研人员、临床医生….) • methodology preferences, balance of reviews and original research  期刊刊登文章的研究类型，综述和原创研究的比例 • credibility and prestige of the journal, impact factor期刊的可靠度和信誉，影响因子 • visibility, journal accessibility 期刊的可及度 - Open access? Available on mobile? Indexed by PubMed开放性期刊？在手机上是否可以阅览？ 是否由PubMed引录？

6. Journal Selection（选择投稿期刊） • Review Author Instructions.阅读投稿须知 • Ensure article falls within the mission of the Journal.确定投稿文章内容在期刊发表范围之内 • Read the content of a few issues. 阅读期刊近几期的内容

7. Pre-submission Inquiries （投稿前询问信） • Directed to the Editors to gauge their level of interest in the topic of a manuscript与编辑通信来判断他们对你的文章议题的感兴趣程度 • Helps to determine whether the paper will likely be considered for peer review帮助确定文章是否会被审稿

8. Pre-submission Inquiries（投稿前询问信） This under-utilized tool streamlines the manuscript submission and review process这个不常用的方法常常会简化投稿与审稿的过程 • Facilitates the receipt of timely and useful feedback帮助获取来自编辑及时、有用的反馈 • Helps clarify Instructions for Authors帮助弄清投稿须知 • Reduces strain on journal resources (e.g., peer reviewers)减轻期刊相关人员的负担（例如：审稿者） • Enhances efficiency and speed of publication提高文章发表的速度与效率 • Improves transparency in article selection process改善文章选择的透明度

9. Pre-submission Inquiries（投稿前询问信） Best Practices（最优方法） • Submit a pre-submission inquiry especially: • 在下述的情况下尤其需写投稿前询问信 • If you are unsure about your article’s suitability for a journal 如果你不确定你的文章是否适合在该期刊上发表 • If you have questions about the submission or review process 如果你不清楚投稿与审稿的程序 • Provide sufficient study information for decision-making • 为期刊最终决策提供充足的信息 • Abstract 摘要 • Perceived value to a journal’s audience 对该期刊读者的价值 • Relationship to an existing body of work for a specific topic与相关研究领域内一项议题的联系 • Disclosure of prior submissions 公开先前投稿情况 • Description of unusual circumstances 说明特殊情况 • Be concise 简明 • Stay open-minded if your article is not accepted 保持开明的态度 • Request suggestions about more suitable journals (if not accepted) • 询问编辑其他适合投稿的期刊（如果没有被该期刊接受）

10. Pre-Submission Inquiry--Example Dear Editors: I plan to submit an unsolicited review manuscript entitled “Metformin is associated with survival benefit in cancer patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes: a systemic review and meta-analyses”, to Journal of The Oncologist. Patients with type 2 diabetes have increased cancer risk and cancer-related mortality, which can be reduced by metformin treatment. However, it is unclear if metformin can also modulate clinical outcomes in cancer patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes. Since 2009, a growing number of studies compared metformin versus non-metformin treatment on survival outcomes of diabetic patients in various types of malignancies, including breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, hepatic, and ovarian cancer, etc. Through a meta-analysis, consisting of 14 publications with 9,028 subjects, we found that there was a relative survival benefit associated with metformin treatment, compared with treatment with other glucose-lowering medications (HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49–0.74).  These associations were also observed in subgroups by country (Asian or Western countries: HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.40–0.60, Asian countries; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52–0.85, Western countries). This is the first review article and meta-analysis on this topic. Publication of this article may have potential to impact treatment options in such patients. All the authors declared no conflict of interest. A title page in enclosed to identify all authors. Thank you for your time, attention, and consideration. DESCRIBE THE QUESTION（叙述研究问题） Patients with type 2 diabetes have increased cancer risk and cancer-related mortality, which can be reduced by metformin（二甲双胍）treatment. However, it is unclear if metformin can also modulate clinical outcomes in cancer patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes. Since 2009, a growing number of studies compared metformin versus non-metformin treatment on survival outcomes of diabetic patients in various types of malignancies, including breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, hepatic, and ovarian cancer, etc. SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS（总结结果） Through a meta-analysis（荟萃分析）, consisting of 14 publications with 9,028 subjects, we found that there was a relative survival benefit associated with metformin treatment, compared with treatment with other glucose-lowering medications (HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49–0.74).  These associations were also observed in subgroups by country (Asian or Western countries: HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.40–0.60, Asian countries; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52–0.85, Western countries). HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS UNIQUE（突出文章的独特之处） This is the first review article and meta-analysis on this topic. Publication of this article may have potential to impact treatment options in such patients.

11. Manuscript Preparation（稿件的准备） Compliance with journal guidelines makes it easier to evaluate your submission.依从期刊要求使你的文章更容易评估 • Follow the journal’s instructions regarding:在以下方面遵循期刊投稿须知上的要求 • Formats and lengths形式与长度 • Graphic sizes图表大小 • Types of supplemental data补充数据的类型 • Use proper grammar, punctuation, and language使用合适的语法、标点及语言 • Check that data and results within all text and accompanying materials are internally consistent检查文章中的数据与结果，确定资料间的一致性 • Be as transparent as possible when disclosing the research question, how the study was conducted, and what findings are included.在公布研究问题、研究实施方法及结果时做到尽可能透明化

12. Manuscript Preparation （稿件的准备） Major Challenges for Authors 对于作者要求 • Keeping up-to-date withoriginal sources and reviewing the literature不断更新原始资料和文献回顾 • Providing complete disclosure statements提供完整的披露申明 • Addressing the utility and importance of drugs not currently available in authors’ home countries说明在作者本国不通用药品的使用情况以及其重要性

13. Manuscript Preparation（稿件的准备） Mistakes to Avoid 可避免的一些错误 • Missing and/or illegible pages 缺页或者页面不清楚 • Visible comments by internal reviewers 内部审阅者的评论 • Poor grammar and typographical errors 语法、排字上的错误 • Failing to ensure that all authors have read and approved the submission 其他作者未阅读稿件及同意投稿 • Submitting to multiple journals at once and noting the wrong journal in the cover letter (Duplicate submission)一次向多个期刊投稿而在投稿信中混淆期刊名称（重复投稿） • Duplicate publication 重复发表

14. Manuscript Preparation（稿件的准备） Mistakes to Avoid可避免的错误 • Rambling text and formatting errors杂乱无章的全文及格式错误 • Over-interpretation, uncritical discussion过度解释、不重要的讨论 • Excessive length, references, and figures篇幅过长，参考文献与图表过多 • Figure legends and text that do not match图表解释部分与文章内容不一致 • Lack of senior authorship involvement in writing introduction and discussion在写前言和讨论时，缺少年资较高的作者参与 • Lack of proper acknowledgment of authorship and other contributors (e.g., medical “ghost” writers)缺少感谢作者及其他贡献者的参与（例如：医学“影子”作者）

15. Submission Types（投稿类型） • Original Articles 原创研究 • Review Articles 综述文章 • Brief Reports 简短报告 • Letters to the Editor 给编辑的信 • Case Discussions 病例研讨 • Clinical Trial Results 临床试验结果

16. CSCO Case Discussions • Case Discussions are useful for reporting: 病例研讨可汇报以下内容 • Unreported or unusual side effects or adverse interactions involving medications 未报道过的、罕见的药物副作用或者药物间的不良相互作用 • Unexpected or unusual presentations of a disease意外的或者罕见的疾病表现 • Presentations, diagnoses and/or management of rare diseases罕见疾病的表现、诊断、处理 • An unexpected association between diseases or symptoms疾病间或者症状间意外的相关性 • An unexpected event in the course of observing or treating a patient, including adverse events在观察或者治疗病人过程中一些意外的事件，包括不良反应事件 • Case Discussions should have obvious educational merit病例研讨应具有显著的教育意义

17. CSCO Case Discussions • Partnered with Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Foundation and Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) 与北京市希思科临床肿瘤学研究基金会和中国抗癌协会临床肿瘤学专业委员会合作 • Moderated by Professor LU Shun from Shanghai Chest Hospital, expert panel of oncologists discusses patient cases in a live Internet forum 由上海市胸科医院的陆舜教授指导，肿瘤专家组以在线论坛的形式讨论疑难病例 • Enables other oncologists to participate in a virtual dialogue促使其他肿瘤学家参与实质性的多方对话 • Available through the support of CSCO & STO在CSCO与STO的支持下实现 • Milestone in cancer education by The Oncologistin China《肿瘤学家》期刊在中国开展肿瘤教育的里程碑

18. Clinical Trial Results （临床试验结果） An article type designed to encourage the reporting of all clinical trial results 一种鼓励报告临床结果的文章形式 • Rapidly publish results that provide insight into pharmacology, drug interactions, and reason(s) for drug failure 对提供具有深度的药理学、药物相互作用及用药失败的结果给予快速发表 • Publishespositive and negative trials; encourages transparency of clinical trial results 汇报阳性与阴性结果；鼓励临床试验的透明度 • Fully indexed by PubMed, ensuring thorough access to results worldwide 被PubMed收录，可供全球读者阅览 • Combination format 文章格式 • Author Summary: abstract + brief discussion + 1 or 2 salient graphics 作者总结：摘要+简要讨论+1至2个图表 • Full data set + extended discussion available online 完整的数据集+扩展的在线讨论

20. Cover Letters （投稿信） • This is the first summary of your article and first chance to convey its significance and relevance.这是对你的文章的首次总结，也是展现文章重要性和相关性的首次机会 • Explain why the selected journal is the right place to publish your article 解释你的论文为何适合发表在该期刊 • Describe how your article will advance the field叙述你的论文如何推动相关研究领域的发展 • Continue journal-author dialogue 继续期刊-作者间的对话 • Disclose any prior submissions • 公开先前投稿情况

21. Cover Letters (投稿信） Best Practices 最优方法 • Clearly articulate the purpose of the article • 清晰地阐明文章目的 • Be open-minded and respectful 开明、尊重 • Remind editors of previous communications (e.g., pre-submission inquiries) • 提醒编辑先前的交流（例如：投稿前询问信） • Show interest in issues of importance to the journal: • 关注对期刊重要的问题 • Regulatory requirements 药物监管要求 • Conflict of interest disclosures 利益冲突的公开 • Authorship and contributorship criteria 作者与贡献者的标准 • Mention prior submissions 提及先前的投稿情况 • Helps editors evaluate improvements made to a manuscript 帮助编辑评估稿件的改正情况 • Utilize the cover letter template (please see handout) • 使用投稿信的模版

22. Cover Letter: Example #1 On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to submit to The Oncologist this manuscript of original research entitled “EGFR and KRAS Mutation Heterogeneity and the Mixed Response to EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer”. All authors of this research paper have directly participated in the planning, execution, or analysis of the study and met International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria. HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS UNIQUE （突出研究特点） Our study is, thus far, the largest reported study on heterogeneity. SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS （总结结果） In total, 239 paired samples from a database of 3071 tumors were identified for the assessment of EGFR/KRAS heterogeneity by direct sequencing. 201 cases were left after the elimination of patients receiving TKI which including 54 synchronous tumor and 147 metachronous tumor. EGFR/KRAS mutations heterogeneity is indeterminate in T, N, and M1b groups while significant in patients with multiple pulmonary nodule and metachronous tumor. The presence of multiple pulmonary tumors should not preclude the second surgical resection. Explain the Impact （解释其影响） In addition, our results provide a potential explanation for the mixed response and TKI resistance, which may give foundation for future diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Our study is, thus far, the largest reported study on heterogeneity. In total, 239 paired samples from a database of 3071 tumors were identified for the assessment of EGFR/KRAS heterogeneity by direct sequencing. 201 cases were left after the elimination of patients receiving TKI which including 54 synchronous tumor and 147 metachronous tumor.EGFR/KRAS mutations heterogeneity is indeterminate in T, N, and M1b groups while significant in patients with multiple pulmonary nodule and metachronous tumor. The presence of multiple pulmonary tumors should not preclude the second surgical resection. In addition, our results provide a potential explanation for the mixed response and TKI resistance, which may give foundation for future diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

23. Cover Letter: Example #2 HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS UNIQUE （突出研究特点） This manuscript reports the first prospective study comparing surgical resection with best supportive care (BSC). SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS（总结结果） A consecutive of 126 patients were enrolled and assigned to receive surgical resection or BSC as treatments. The results showed that at an aggressive strategy based on surgical resection provided a 74.2% relative reduction in the risk of death compared with BSC, and provided a 13.7% 5-year survival rate. While there was no 3-year survivors in BSC arm. EXPLAIN THE IMPACT （解释其影响） These findings would be help for oncologists treating patients who have no access to sorafenib. Sorafenib is recommended as standard care for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). However, there is a need to develop alternative treatments in settings where sorafenib is not feasible at a population level, because developing countries accounted for 85% of all HCC occur globally. The long-term efficacy and safety of surgical resection in these patients is lacking in evidence. This manuscript reports the first prospective study comparing surgical resection with best supportive care (BSC). A consecutive of 126 patients were enrolled and assigned to receive surgical resection or BSC as treatments. The results showed that at an aggressive strategy based on surgical resection provided a 74.2% relative reduction in the risk of death compared with BSC, and provided a 13.7% 5-year survival rate. While there was no 3-year survivors in BSC arm. These findings would be help for oncologists treating patients who have no access to sorafenib.

24. Cover Letter: Example #3 HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS UNIQUE （突出研究特点） In this work we highlight a case of coexistent Langherhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) and Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) which is a very rare condition in clinical practice. … This is the first systemic study in the field from China. SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS （总结结果） After the case report, we further analyzed all patients with LCH or ECD diagnosed in our hospital in the past 8 years. Eosinophilic granuloma, Hand-schuller-Christian disease (HSC) and ECD are compared. EXPLAIN THE IMPACT （解释其影响） A triad of diabetes insipitus, hyperprolactinemia and pituitary stalk thickening on MRI is considered to be helpful to diagnose HSC at onset of the disease. We believe the paper will be of interest to both oncologists and endocrinologists.  This manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all authors who have contributed to the manuscript. In this work we highlight a case of coexistent Langherhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) and Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) which is a very rare condition in clinical practice. This is the first systemic study in the field from China. After the case report, we further analyzed all patients with LCH or ECD diagnosed in our hospital in the past 8 years. Eosinophilic granuloma, Hand-schuller-Christian disease (HSC) and ECD are compared. A triad of diabetes insipitus, hyperprolactinemia and pituitary stalk thickening on MRI is considered to be helpful to diagnose HSC at onset of the disease. We believe the paper will be of interest to both oncologists and endocrinologists.

25. Learning Objectives/Gap Analysis （学习目标/缺口分析） • Gap Analysis缺口分析 • Describe the best practice concerning the topic of the manuscript, the current practice, and the “gaps” between them (e.g., what needs to be learned on the subject). Explain how the article will bridge the gap and describe the impact that the article will have on readers’ competence or performance and/or how the articles might ultimately impact patients’ health. • 描述与稿件题目相关的最佳临床实践，现行的临床实践，以及他们之间的“缺口” （例如：关于这个问题我们还需了解什么）。解释论文怎样补充此研究缺口，以及描述论文对读者的影响，或者描述论文最终会怎样影响患者的健康。 • Learning Objectives 学习目标 • The gaps described by in the Gap Analysis should lead to learning objectives explaining what new information a reader will gain from reading the article. • “缺口分析”应该引出“学习目标”，解释读者通过阅读论文可以获得什么新信息。 • Implications for Practice/Impact Statement 对临床实践的意义/影响力申明 • A brief summary statement that describes the overarching significance of the article. It should clearly define the potential impact and importance of the manuscript, especially in terms of its clinical applications. • 以一个简短的总结描述论文的重要性。总结应该清楚地定义论文带来的影响及其重要性，尤其是在临床应用方面的重要性。

26. Editorial Review （编辑审查） • Upon submission, Editors assess:投稿后，编辑将会评估： • Suitability for the journal是否适合发表在该期刊 • Strength of the methods研究方法的验证强度 • Value to the field对于该领域的价值 • Based on the assessment, the manuscript will either be reviewed externally or rejected without external review根据评估结果，稿件会受外部同行审稿，或者被拒稿

27. Review, Revise and Resubmit（审稿、修稿、再次投稿） This is your opportunity to address all reviewer and editorial comments这是你回复审稿者及编辑提出的意见的机会 Specific guidance about a journal’s review system are often found in the Instructions to Authors and can help set appropriate expectations regarding the review process and projected timeline.在投稿须知中可找到有关期刊审稿程序的具体指南，借此可对整个审稿过程及时间有所了解。

28. Review, Revise and Resubmit（审稿、修稿、再次投稿） Best Practices 最优方法 • Remember that reviewers’ comments are meant to be helpful • 记住审稿者的反馈建议对你是有帮助的 • Follow journals’ guidelines for revising manuscripts • 遵从期刊的投稿者指南中提到的修改稿件的要求 • Respond systematically to each point raised by the reviewers in a cover letter • 系统地一一回应审稿者的反馈建议 • File formats (e.g., Word document with tracked changes) • 文件的格式（例如：有修改印记的Word稿件） • Address all reviewer and editorial comments point by point • 一一回应审稿者和编辑的反馈建议 • If a reviewer’s comment is viewed to be incorrect or unjustified, provide an explanation and supportive literature references • Avoid easy fixes - these are often transparent to editors • 避免简单的修改，这些对编辑们来说是很明显的 • Address all reviewers’ comments, even if submitting elsewhere • 即使向其他期刊投稿，也要回应所有审稿者的评论 • Stay open-minded if your article is not accepted • 即使文章没被接受，也要保持开明的态度

29. Revision: Example #1 Reviewer 2: Please address potential sampling error. You describe tumors that are supposedly EGFR WT-MUT (ie WT in primary, mutant in metastasis).  It would seem to me a highly unlikely scenario, while the reverse would be more plausible.  More likely is the concept that the primary is heterogeneous, and you only sampled and analyzed a WT portion. Please address in the Discussion section. Response: Refer to WT-MUT, a paragraph have been enhanced in the discussion section as requested: There are 5 patients present with WT in primary tumor while mutant in metastases. These might be originated from the heterogeneity within the primary carcinomas (page19, line 354 to line 365). In addition, the past Table 1 has been described by text. Reviewer 1: The authors’ conclusion that patients with multiple lung nodules should be considered for resection is a bold statement, they should clarify based on data on the number of nodules that should be considered as a patient with10 lung nodules versus 2 nodules are a very different case. Response: The sentence has been amended based on the reviewer’s suggestion. (page 19, line 371 to line 377):The presence of multiple synchronous or metachronous pulmonary tumors with N0, and no extra-thoracic involvement should not preclude a second surgical resection. However, whether patients with multiple lung nodules should be considered for resection based on many factors besides humor heterogeneity (multiple primary lung cancers or distant metastasis), including nodules number, location, and tumor size. Editors: Please note that both of the reviewers and the editor found the results section quite confusing as written. There should be clearer explanations of why the various analyses and subgroup analyses were done. Consider summarizing only the most important results in the text itself while making clearer tables to display the full data.  Response: In the revised manuscript, we have made it clear why the various analyses and subgroup analyses were performed, summarizing only the most important results in the text, using clear tables to display the full data.

30. Revision: Example #1More Reviews/More Revisions（多次审稿和多次修稿） • Two more rounds of revision 两轮的修稿程序 • Thoughtful, incisive reviews 深思熟虑、一针见血的审阅 • Measured, comprehensive response from authors来自作者的权衡及全面的回复 • In the end — SUCCESS 最终稿件被成功接受 • Published in 2012, this article is one of the most read and most cited papers in The Oncologist during the past two years. 该论文在2012年发表，是在过去两年中该期刊被阅读与引用次数最多的论文

31. Peer Review: Example #2 • The control arm was not offered TACE or any other therapy. This is not best supportive care. There is no surprise that the surgical treated patients did better. • The safety and efficacy of TACE in HCC is well proven. It is unclear why the BSC group was not offered this treatment. • It does not seem plausible that 100% of patients had tumors >7cm, with 48/86 having >1 tumor, but only 16/86 were bilateral. Was there an inaccuracy in pre-op imaging? •  It seems to be ethically unacceptable to conduct the controlled study between well-established and potentially curative treatment (resection) and BSC, setting two-times longer median survival between the two arms. Did the patients in the BSC arm have any non-medical reasons to refrain from surgical treatment? And what kind of the treatment was adopted for 137 patients who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in this study? 

32. Peer Review: Example #2 • FLAWS IN THE STUDY DESIGN 研究设计上的缺点 • The control arm was not offered TACE or any other therapy. This is not best supportive care. There is no surprise that the surgical treated patients did better. • The safety and efficacy of TACE in HCC is well proven. It is unclear why the BSC group was not offered this treatment. • QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DATA 对于数据提出的问题 • It does not seem plausible that 100% of patients had tumors >7cm, with 48/86 having >1 tumor, but only 16/86 were bilateral. Was there an inaccuracy in pre-op imaging? • ETHICAL CONCERNS 伦理问题 • It seems to be ethically unacceptable to conduct the controlled study between well-established and potentially curative treatment (resection) and BSC, setting two-times longer median survival between the two arms. Did the patients in the BSC arm have any non-medical reasons to refrain from surgical treatment? And what kind of the treatment was adopted for 137 patients who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in this study?  REJECTED（拒稿）

33. Revision: Example #3 Up to now, most of the cases about LCH or ECD were reported from Western countries. Since this is the first systemic study in the field from China, the authors should provide more background information of those diseases in China.  Response: According to the comment, Chinese literatures in the field have been reviewed in the discussion Can the authors detail the radiographic appearances of osteolysis vs. osteosclerosis, which is essential to understand the key points of the manuscript? Response: We agree with the comment, radiographic appearances of osteolysis vs. osteosclerosis have been introduced in the discussion Can the authors expand on the etiology of the pituitary stalk thickening? How can it be differentiated from a intracranial germinoma? Response: In the light of the comment, thickening of pituitary stalk is highlighted in the discussion. Differential diagnosis between LCH and germinoma is elaborated in the first paragraph on page 11.

34. Revision: Example #3 • Accepted! • A rare case report to be accepted as a CME (continuing medical education) course. • CME Learning Objectives • Distinguish Erdheim-Chester disease from Langerhans cell histiocytosis. • Cite the keys to diagnosis of Hand-Schüller-Christian disease in a patient with only central diabetes insipidus. • List the signs linking a Hand-Schüller-Christian disease patient to coexisting ECD.

35. Example #3: Learning Objectives,Gap Analysis & Implications for Practice Learning Objectives:1. know how to differentiate ECD from LCH. 2. Keys to diagnose HSC in a patient with only central diabetes insipidus.3. Signs to link a HSC patient to coexisting ECD. Implications for Practice: Central diabetes insipitus (CDI) is usually the first or one of the first symptoms of Hand-Schüller-Christian disease (HSC). It is difficult to determine whether CDI is part of HSC at its onset. We propose a new triad of symptoms including central diabetes insipitus, hyperprolactinemia, and pituitary stalk thickening on MRI. If a patient presents with the triad, HSC should be considered. Bone scans are very useful to reveal HSC in the absence of bone pain. Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) and Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) are featured with osteolytic lesions and osteosclerosis, respectively. If osteosclerosis is observed in a patient with LCH, coexistence of ECD should be considered. A new biopsy is helpful for the diagnosis.

36. Example #3: CME Case

37. Acceptance & Rejection （接受及拒稿） Acceptance includes, but is not limited to: 被接受的稿件优点包括，但不局限于： • Importance of the research to the field of oncology 肿瘤领域中的重要研究 • Originality of the work 研究的原创性 • Quality of the study 研究的质量 • Priority of the work to the Journal and its readership 对于期刊和读者来说具有重要性 Papers are rejected if they are:以下情况，论文会被拒稿: • Not relevant to oncology practice issues 与肿瘤学实践无关 • Case reports not of educational benefit/relevance to the practitioner 无教育意义的病例报告; by invitation from the editors only 仅仅由编辑邀请投稿 • Written by a ghost writer, paid by a commercial interest, promotional or not fair and balanced.由“影子”作者撰写，受商业利益驱使等 • Raise ethical concerns 引起伦理上的疑问 • Do not add significantly to the existing literature 对已有的文献没有贡献

38. Next Steps After Rejection(拒稿后采取的步骤） Following rejection, authors generally have two choices: 拒稿后，作者一般有两种选择 • Appeal the decision 反驳该期刊的拒稿决定 • Submit the manuscript to another journal向其他期刊投稿 • Refer to the original list of researched journals and re-consider those identified as having a strong fit参考原先搜查过的期刊目录，重新考虑向合适的期刊投稿 • Some journals will respond to follow-up questions. • 一些期刊会回应一些后续的问题 • Engage in open dialogue about the editors’ notes to develop a more effective new submission strategy作者应与编辑积极开展对话，开发更加有效的投稿策略 • Some journals may share submissions with partner journals if a submission may be more appropriate for one of the partners. • 一些期刊与其伙伴期刊可能会共同分享稿件，并相互推荐。

39. Goals: The Oncologist’s Editorial Board宗旨：《肿瘤学家》期刊编辑委员会 • To encourage meaningful reviews and state-of-the-art papers鼓励具有意义的综述和最新水平的论文 • To encourage original work that has relevance and impact on the practice of oncology  鼓励与肿瘤学实践有关并对其具有影响的原创性研究 • To keep pace with programs at the clinical frontier, and to encourage a bit of exploration at the same time跟进临床实践的尖端技术，同时也鼓励创新性探索 • To keep our readership informed of the latest developments in clinical care and clinical research in each area of specialization使我们的读者时刻了解每个副领域内最新的研究与临床进展 http://authors.theoncologist.com

40. Additional Resources （更多资源） Toolkit Manuscript （文献工具包）– Chipperfield, et al. (2010). Authors' Submission Toolkit: A practical guide to getting your research published, CMRO, 26:8, 1967-1982. The Oncologist（肿瘤学家期刊网址）: http://authors.theoncologist.com/ • Contains more detailed discussion of topics and additional information on submission best practice包括相关议题的详细内容以及与投稿有关的一些额外信息 • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors（国际医学期刊编辑委员会网址）: http://www.icmje.org • A comprehensive resource for writing articles for biomedical journals, including important ethical guidelines • 为撰写生物医学期刊论文提供全面的网上资源 Medical Publications Insights and Practices (MPIP) website: 有关医学论文发表的见解与方法的网址www.mpip-initiative.org • Provides a database of journals accepting “specialized interest” data and other helpful resources • 提供接受特殊研究方向数据的期刊数据库以及其他一些有用的资源