STOMATOLOGY EDU JOURNAL 2017, Volume 4, Issue 2 2 | Page 24

Table 2. Example how results should be presented: Tensile bond strength of ceramics contaminated with saliva after different cleaning procedures. Ceramic 1 Ceramic 2 References 1. 2. After contamination cleaned with Control Water spray H 3 PO 4 gel polishing paste Cleaner 55.9±9.2 ab1 21±13.6 c1 40.6±10.7 b1 29.7±15.2 c1 54.2±8.8 ab1 a1 c1 c2 c1 52.1±10.9 15.8±16.1 26.7±11.8 21.9±14.2 46.3±7.9 a1 ANOVA, Tukey post hoc test p<0.01. superscript letters show same statistical groups in rows, superscript numbers show same statistical groups in columns 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Table 3. Comments of reviewers, actions taken by authors and comments of authors for the reviewers. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Biedermann M. Projekte managen. ATW Verlag, Buchs SG, Switzerland; 2009. Roulet J-F, Viohl J. Der Weg zum Doktorhut. Quintessenz Berlin 2. Auflage; 2006. Roulet JF. Why Peer Review? Stoma Edu J. 2014;1(1):6. Roulet JF. Open Access Publishing. Stoma Edu J. 2016;3(2):122. Budapest Open Access Initiative 2003. http://www. budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read van Meerbeek B, Roulet JF. Open-access Journals - A Scientific Thriller. J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(6):503-504. Bonannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60-65. Bennett KJ, Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Neufeld VR, Tugwell P, Roberts R. A controlled trial of teaching critical appraisal of clinical literature to medical students. JAMA. 1987;257(18):2451-2454. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richasdson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-72. BMJ. How to read a paper. http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/ resources-readers/publications/how-read-paper Greenhalgh T. Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. BMJ 1997;315(7103):305-308. Review. Roulet JF, Friedmann A. Evidence based – eine Medallie mit 2 Seiten. Prophylaxe Impuls 2015;20:115. Latyon D. A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: Are systematic reviews really systematic? Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(1):13-21. 14. Taylor BN, Thompson A. The international system of units (SI). NIST Special Publication 330, 2008 Edition National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf 15. World Medical Association. WMA declaration of Helsinki – Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects (1964, last update 2013). https://www.wma.net/ policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles- for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ 16. Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. 21 CFR Parts 210 & 211. GMP Publications 2017. http://www. gmppublications.com/210211DrugGMPs.htm 17. Matthews DE, Farewell V. Using and understanding medical statistics. Karger, Basel, Switzerland; 1985. 18. Remington RD, Schork MA. Statistics with applications to the biological and health sciences. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ, USA; 1970. 19. Neter J, Wassermann W. Applied linear statistical models. R.D. Irwin, Homewood IL, USA; 1974 20. Roulet JF. Good ideas have many fathers. J Adhes Dent. 2005;7(3):179. 21. Layton DM, Clarke M. Accuracy of medical subject heading indexing of dental survival analyses. Int J Prosthodont. 2014;27(3):236-244. 22. Layton DM, Clarke M. Will your article be found? Authors choose a confusing variety of words to describe dental survival analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(1):115-122. 23. Layton DM, Clarke M. Quality of reporting of dental survival analyses. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(12):928-940. Jean-François ROULET DDS, PhD, Dr hc, Prof hc, Professor Chair Department of Restorative Dental Sciences College of Dentistry, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA CV # of samples produced (e.g. 3 materials x 2 shades and 3 treatments = 3x2x3= 18 cells; if the author reports that 200 samples were made, then 200/18 = 11,11 ergo something is wrong, since n can be 11 or 12 only). If the resulting n is not a single number then something is wrong and the paper in the best case goes back to the authors. Many papers get rejected outright, very few are accepted without modifications/revisions. This means they are sent back to the authors with comments and requests for modifications. This causes frustration at first glance and the authors may get emotional, since they had tried to do the best. But remember the objective of the reviewers is to improve the paper, therefore authors should not object to the reviewer’s comments unless really justified and return the manuscript with minimal revisions only. I have personally experienced many cases where the revised paper was sent the second time to the reviewers and came back with the recommendation “reject” and the comment that authors did not follow the recommenda tions for improvement. Therefore the recommendation is that the authors compile all comments of the 100 HOW TO SET UP, CONDUCT AND REPORT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY reviewers into a table with one line per comment. Then they should add two more columns. In the first they should address the comments and let the reviewer know what they did or give reasons why they did NOT do any changes. In the other column the changes can be displayed (Tab. 3). This approach may further speed up the review process, since having very good explanations about the changes the editor may decide based on such a table rather than send it for the second time to the reviewers. 5. Conclusions • research is exciting • hard work is often boring • writing follows standard rules -> boring • with precision, know how, and the right attitude there is a very high chance for success Acknowledgments The author reports no conflict of interest and there was no external source of funding for the present study. Stoma Edu J. 2017;4(2): 90-101 http://www.stomaeduj.com Jean-François Roulet, DDS, Dr med dent, PhD, is the former chair and current professor of the Department of Restorative Dental Sciences at the University of Florida. Professor Roulet is author/coauthor of more than 180 papers, edited/contributed to 27 textbooks and mentored more than 150 theses. He is a renowned international lecturer with over 800 appearances to date. Dr. Roulet is a member of many professional organizations, has won numerous awards, and holds four patents. He is editor of Prophylaxe Impuls and Stomatology Edu Journal. His areas of interest include minimally invasive dentistry, dental materials (ie, composites and ceramics), adhesive dentistry, esthetic dentistry, and application concepts in preventive dentistry. HOW TO SET UP, CONDUCT AND REPORT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY Questions There are many reasons why people do research. What reason should not exist: qa. Obtain a title; qb. Obtain/maintain a position; qc. Obtain grant money; qd. “L’art pour l’art”. The “Material and Methods” section contains: qa. Explanations why the materials were used; qb. Explanations why the used method was selected; qc. Reasons for the outcome; qd. Tables and figures. What should a mentor not do? qa. Provide guidelines; qb. Provide instructions for use; qc. Provide templates; qd. Do the work. What part is not in the structure of a scientific paper: qa. Introduction; qb. Material and methods; qc. Results; qd. Acknowledgements. Stomatology Edu Journal 101