Laccourreye O, Bonfils P, Denoyelle F, Garrel R, Jankowski R, Karkas A, Makeieff M, Righini C, Vincent C, Martin C
HEGP, service d'oto-rhinolaryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, AP-HP, université Paris-Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 20-40, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France.
HEGP, service d'oto-rhinolaryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, AP-HP, université Paris-Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 20-40, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France.
Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016 Jun;133(3):171-4. doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2016.01.004. Epub 2016 Feb 12.
To assess flaws, rejection rate and reasons for rejection of case reports submitted for publication in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases.
A prospective analysis of flaws noted in reviewing 118 case reports from 29 countries consecutively submitted to the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases during the period Sept. 1, 2014 to Sept. 30, 2015.
The most frequent flaws, noted in 74.5% of cases, were: lack of originality (more than 15 such cases previously reported in the medical literature) and lack of new data contributing to the medical literature. Overall, 5% of the cases were accepted for publication, 7% were not resubmitted by the authors, and 88% were rejected. On univariate analysis, none of the variables under analysis correlated with acceptance or rejection of the submitted case. Editorial decision time varied from 1 to 7months (median, 1 month). In 16.3% of the 104 cases of rejection (17/104), the editors suggested resubmission in the section "Letter to the Editor" or "What is your diagnosis?"; 15 of the 17 reports were resubmitted, and 10 (66.6%) were ultimately accepted for publication.
The editorial committee of the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases hope that the present data and review of the literature will provide authors with a framework to avoid major errors leading to rejection and will speed publication of the case reports they submit to our columns in the near future.
评估提交至《欧洲耳鼻咽喉头颈疾病年鉴》发表的病例报告中的缺陷、拒稿率及拒稿原因。
对2014年9月1日至2015年9月30日期间连续提交至《欧洲耳鼻咽喉头颈疾病年鉴》的来自29个国家的118篇病例报告进行回顾，对其中发现的缺陷进行前瞻性分析。
最常见的缺陷（74.5%的病例中存在）为：缺乏原创性（医学文献中已报道过15例以上类似病例）以及缺乏对医学文献有贡献的新数据。总体而言，5%的病例被接受发表，7%的病例作者未重新提交，88%的病例被拒稿。单因素分析显示，所分析的变量均与提交病例的接受或拒稿无关。编辑决策时间从1个月至7个月不等（中位数为1个月）。在104例拒稿病例中的16.3%（17/104）中，编辑在“致编辑的信”或“你的诊断是什么？”板块建议重新提交；17篇报告中有15篇重新提交，其中10篇（66.6%）最终被接受发表。
《欧洲耳鼻咽喉头颈疾病年鉴》编辑委员会希望目前的数据及文献回顾能为作者提供一个框架，以避免导致拒稿的重大错误，并在不久的将来加快他们提交至本刊各栏目的病例报告的发表速度。
