The quality of the research output of an individual or an institution is the currency by which the caliber of a scientist or an educational institution is judged by peers. In India, the quality of research conducted in medical colleges and scientific institutions leaves much to be desired. The educational system in schools does not foster creativity and originality. The medical undergraduate training focuses mainly on making medical students good clinicians and does not have the curricular time for research. At a postgraduate level, residents are overburdened with clinical work or stifled by the lack of ideas and enthusiasm of their guides. The Indian Council of Medical Research has introduced a short-term studentship for undergraduate students and a research grant for postgraduate students in a bid to encourage research. The National Medical Commission has made it mandatory for postgraduates and faculty to undergo online training in research methodology. The thesis has been a part of the postgraduate curriculum with the idea that as the resident does the project, they will also learn how to do research. In a bid to translate the thesis into publications, many professional bodies conduct workshops and courses during conferences on various aspects of scientific writing. However, many postgraduates do not want to spend time in an activity that is seen as nonrewarding. Unless a drastic change in the postgraduate curriculum is made and the issue of research training is adequately addressed, along with a change in the outlook of faculty, the status quo is likely to continue.

Many young researchers face extreme difficulties while writing scientific articles, and there is seldom any specific training imparted as a part of under and postgraduate curriculums toward the art of presenting research work in written format. Yet, the publication is considered essential toward career advancement and for obtaining academic qualifications. We herein discuss the basic steps to follow in writing a scientific article using the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion format. The Introduction explains the scope and objective of the study in the light of current knowledge on the subject; the Materials and Methods describes how the study was conducted; the Results section reports what was found in the study; and the Discussion section explains the meaning and significance of the results and provides suggestions for future directions of research. We enumerate the main elements that should appear in these sections, and some pointers for making the overall result attractive and acceptable for publication. We also have placed special emphasis on the methods section (Finer nuances of data collections, Informed consent, steps to seek approval by the Institutional Ethics Committee and authorship directives as per IJCME guidelines), Results (How to highlight the results of the study using illustrations, charts, and legends, and Discussion section (“Structured approach” and the “Divide and rule” approach). A hastily written article with incorrect methodology remains the primary reason for rejection by the journal reviewers, and following the above directives would contribute toward obtaining a fruitful result.

Publishing a scientific article is an art by itself and each section of the manuscript has its relevance and importance. Usually, the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections are considered the core contents of a manuscript. However, the remaining sections such as the title, abstract, keywords, references, and others are no less important. The title and the abstract are the first read and the most easily accessible parts of a manuscript. Hence, unless the title is concise and specific, the reader may not go on to read the full manuscript. Similarly, a poorly written abstract not reflective of the manuscript may lead to outright rejection of a manuscript or may not attract the readers even if the manuscript is accepted. Keywords help in finding the appropriate scientific contents during literature search and properly chosen keywords help in greater visibility and wider dissemination of one's research. Adequate citation and proper referencing are the responsibility of every researcher. It helps in giving due credit to previous research and researchers and lends credibility to one's work. Deficiencies in citing appropriately or in referencing may lead to publication misconduct and rejection of the manuscript. Similarly, failure to disclose a conflict of interest or source of funding may lead to rejection or even retraction of the manuscript. Hence, all the efforts put in conducting a study and writing the core content would be wasted if enough attention is not given while writing these sections of the manuscript.

The case reports and case series are the oldest genres of medical literature. They constitute uncontrolled study designs with different varieties that describe important scientific observations that are missed or undetectable in other research methods. The advantages of employing case reporting include the discovery of unusual clinical conditions or unrecognized diseases, the detection of beneficial or side effects of treatments, the exploration of alternatives in clinical practice, solving ethical limitations, formulation of hypotheses, teaching, and the opportunity to generate publications. On the other hand, they have several shortcomings that limit their credibility such as the impossibility to generalize their findings, selection and recall bias, information preferences, overinterpretation (“anecdotal fallacy”), and the distraction of readers toward the unusual. The journey toward publishing a case study begins with the choice of the case, followed by an in-depth literature review on the issue. Obtaining the signed consent of the patients or their representatives and the selection of the journal for the publication of the article are the next steps. Writing a structured report may vary, but it can generally be represented by the acronym SIPDiSC: Summary (abstract), Introduction, Presentation, Discussion, Summary of the case experience, and Conclusion. Finally, a careful choice of authors should be made. Writing high-quality case reports and case series provides valuable information for clinical research, clinical practice, and medical education.

A key step in publishing one's manuscript is selecting the journal. If not done right, your work could lose its relevance. There are numerous factors that you may consider in choosing an appropriate journal for your manuscript and these have been listed out in this article. These include journal metrics, reputation, audience, the range and type of articles that the journal covers, turnaround time, its circulation and reach, and the business model of the journal. We, in this article, have covered certain important metrics of a journal like an impact factor, citation index, rejection rate, and the Eigen factor. We have also described the business models that govern scientific publication today – both the traditional and the open-access model – in adequate detail, along with their key advantages and disadvantages. We hope that this article would help you make the key decision of finding the right journal for your manuscript.

Publication metrics enable the assessment of the performance of citations or utilization of published work. Journal-level metrics depend on the database whose citations are analyzed. Publication metrics from the Web of Science include the widely-used journal impact factor (JIF) and other indices such as Journal Citation Impact, Eigenfactor, normalized Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Score. Metrics from Scopus include the CiteScore, Source Normalized Impact Factor, and SCImago Journal Rank. Author-level metrics such as total citations, h-index, i10-index, and g-index inevitably increase with time and can be inflated by self-citations. Article-level metrics such as total citations and online attention scores derived from Scopus (PlumX Metrics) or Altmetric indicate the extent of utilization and discussion in scientific circles of a particular article. Publication metrics are useful to provide a bird's eye view of how well an individual journal or article has been cited or used. They do not necessarily reflect article quality. As an example, some of the articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores are actually retracted publications that attained high scores due to the negative debate that they elicited. Journal-level metrics such as the JIF are fluid and prone to historical fluctuations from year to year, most recently observed by increases in the JIF of journals which published a lot of coronavirus disease 19-related content. Research assessment of individual scientists often misuses publication metrics such as the JIF, when they should instead rely on a critical appraisal of research articles by assessors.

Predatory journals are journals that do not adhere to best editorial and publication practices. They often provide false or misleading information. Similarly, predatory journals have a long history of sending often aggressive and indiscriminate invitations to submit articles to them. Finally, these journals lack transparency regarding their operations. There are a large number of predatory journals that include hundreds of thousands of articles, including millions of participants who have participated in clinical research and thousands of animals included in preclinical research. The quality of reporting of these articles is disturbingly low. Unfortunately, these articles have been included in systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health policy documents. The extent to which the inclusion of these articles influence clinical practice guidelines and health policy is unknown. It is unlikely to be a zero influence. Similarly, these articles have managed to leak into what is considered trusted resources, such as PubMed. To combat the proliferation of predatory publishers and journals requires collaborative efforts on the part of many groups. Researchers need more education and resources about predatory journals. They need to be cautioned about responding to the aggressive and unsolicited E-mails they receive from these journals. Funders need to be more explicit about not allowing the use of article processing fees for publishing in predatory journals. Universities, other research organizations, and their respective libraries need to enhance their outreach concerning the problems of predatory journals and publishers. Similarly, there needs to be stronger guards against using publications from predatory journals in hiring, promotion and tenure portfolios. Finally, the research ecosystem should move away from conceptualizing whether journals are predatory or not, to a more nuanced view whereby journals and publishers are judged on their practices-high risk to lower risk.

A peer-reviewed publication is a culmination of the scientific process, which involves various stages, including planning and executing a research project. Publications, apart from being evidence of research productivity, have become the chief measure of assessment of a researcher for selection and promotion. This has increased the pressure on academicians to have more publications. Moreover, with advances in peer review and an increasing number of journals that want to publish “impactful research” with a bias toward positive results, the process of getting a publication has become more difficult and complex. There is a lack of awareness about ethical practices known as good publication practices (GPPs). Reporting any research in a standard manner, preregistration of clinical trials, obtaining a proper ethical clearance, maintaining patient anonymity, and getting proper consent are some of the components of GPP. Misconducts in the publication process at the author's front include data fraud, plagiarism, copyright violations, nondisclosure of conflicts of interest, and duplicate publications. The peer reviewers and editors are also prone to misconduct, either knowingly or unknowingly. Ethical misconduct should be handled appropriately at the institutional, editorial, or journal level. The custodians of these ethical pillars are largely the editors and peer reviewers who must base their decisions on suggestions and advice from the organizations standardizing the practices, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

The scientific peer review process involves scrutinizing the work of researchers by a panel of scientific experts who are selected by the journal to which they have submitted a manuscript. It ensures that only the best ideas and the highest quality of research are circulated through the publications in the scientific journals. The concept of peer review preceded the development of the scientific journal, has co-evolved with the scientific method, and has now become irreplaceably integrated with it. The traditional method of peer review involved multiple submissions and revisions and was criticized for being time-consuming and biased with the reports of professional misconduct even among the renowned journals. Several guidelines now ensure a more ethical, consistent and rigorous review process. Novel methods of review such as the use of registered reports and the dynamic review methods are also being explored by publishers to deal with these issues. Although the role of peer review as a gatekeeper for high-quality research has been well established, its value in future research is rapidly evolving. Newer methods and adherence to guidelines will go a long way in improving this imperfect pillar of science.

Uniform requirements for manuscript submission (URMs) are considered to be “recommendations on conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.” They have gradually evolved from initial guidance describing how to prepare manuscripts into a full document defining the role and responsibilities for all key players involved with academic medical publishing and ethical considerations of publishing and editorial issues. Significant changes to URMs over the years include an update on criteria for authorship. Emphasis is also laid on mandatory disclosure of financial or relationships not only by the authors but also by editors, peer reviewers, and editorial staff alike. Since 2005, all International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) journals require that clinical trials are prospectively registered. Efforts and guidance by the ICMJE are primarily to ensure transparency in academic publishing and enhance the credibility of published data.

Background: Postgraduate training is often the first stage where a medical trainee is required to research and publish. With no or scant prior training and the pressure to publish, it is potentially a stage where ethical lapses and publishing misconducts are likely to occur. We conducted a web-based survey among medical postgraduate trainees in India to assess their awareness about publication ethics and identify the specific areas where they lacked awareness. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted among medical postgraduate trainees in India. A Google form with multiple choice type questionnaire comprising 10 items related to publication ethics was prepared and disseminated after checking its face and content validity. The questionnaire included items to assess awareness about informed consent, plagiarism, authorship issues, conflict of interest, data handling, and predatory publications. Results: A total of 205 responses were analyzed. While the respondents had better awareness about the informed consent, sample size and consequences of data fabrication (correct responses by 55%, 66%, and 77% of respondents, respectively), the responses to other questions (direct plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship issues, reviewer's conflict of interest, conflict of interest, salami publication, and predatory journals) were varied and demonstrated a greater degree of ignorance. Majority of the respondents were unaware that a manuscript cannot be submitted to multiple journals at the same time. Conclusion: This survey shows that postgraduate medical trainees lacked adequate awareness of publication ethics. Structured approaches involving curricular exposure, focused workshops, and special courses covering these aspects may result in better awareness regarding these issues.