1. How to publish a world class paper?
M. Arfan Ikram, MD PhD
Department of Epidemiology, Radiology, Neurology
Erasmus MC Rotterdam

2. Goal of publishing Not to get the publication, PhD, position
Not to publish in NEJM, JAMA, etc
Not to achieve high H-index
But to share your enthusiasm of your findings with the world
… other things are pleasant by-effects

3. My “top” publications Variant of TREM2 in AD – NEJM (52)
GWAS of stroke – NEJM (52)
Incidental findings on MRI – NEJM (52)
GWAS of AD – JAMA (30)
GWAS of MRI – various Nat Genet (32)
AHA guidelines – JAMA (30)

4. My “favorite” publications
ICAC and stroke – JAMA Neurol (8)
Kidney function and MRI – Stroke (6)
Lipids and ICH – ATVB (6)
Patterns of cognitive function – Eur J Epi (5)
PAR of stroke – PLoS Medicine (15)
Distribution of CMB – Neurobiol Aging (6)
GWAS headsize – Nat Genet (32)

5. How do numbers influence my research?
Cannot deny I look at impact factor
… but would rather not
Vicious cycle:
Funding bodies look at publication record High publications  More funding  Need for high publications

6. Find a journal that fits your data and not data that fit your (target) journal

7. What defines a publishable unit?
Calcification  cognitive decline
Submitted to Biol Psychiatry (9.8)
“We did not consider this paper a sufficient advance over the prior literature (Alzheimer's and Dementia Volume 8, Issue S5, Pages S104-S111) for us”
Calcification  cognitive decline + dementia
Accepted at Alzheimer’s & Dementia (15.4)

8. Publishable unit – my ‘rules of thumb’
Conclusions to be stated in 3 sentences, with each sentence reflecting 1 (minor) novel aspect
Reflected in 3 (+1) Tables / Figures
Translational findings
Biomarker  Pre-clinical stage  Clinical outcome

9. Table 1: Study characteristics
Table 2: Determinants
Table 3: MRI Correlates
Table 4: Prognosis

10. How to deal with rejection?
Initial reaction: UNFAIR!
Rejection as learning moment
Never had a paper deteriorate after rejection!
Takes extra time, but delivers a better paper
Appeal a rejection?

11. Research Grants - Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
“If one knows what one will do and find in it, then it is not research any more and is not worth doing”
“Scientific research is, in many ways, related to art. If one wants good music to be produced, one looks for a good musician and not for a project”
“Projects are nonsense. I don't think that any of the great discoveries were even made by projects. They were made by intuition.”

12. “The foundation of science is honesty
“The foundation of science is honesty. The present granting method is so much at variance with the basic ideas of science that it has to breed dishonesty, forcing scientists into devious ways. One of the widely applied practices is to do work and then present results as a project and report later that all predictions were verified.”
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine (1974) 18, 41-43

13. Few words on grant writing
Good quantifiable measures are lacking, but necessarily required
Need for valorization focuses on short-term goals and partly undermines quality
Research plans are required to be too extensive
Papers have multiple chances, grants only a few
No sustainable alternative yet

14. Conclusions Science should be an enjoyable endeavor
Publishing is aimed at delivering a message to the world
Where to submit?
When to submit?
How to submit?
Rejection as opportunity to improve manuscript