Cancer is defined as uncontrolled, abnormal growth of cells. It can start in almost any organ
or tissue in human body. According to WHO, breast cancer is the most frequent cancer
among women, impacting 2.1 million women each year, and also results in the greatest
number of cancer-related deaths among women. In 2018, it is estimated that 627,000 women
died from breast cancer – that is approximately 15% of all cancer deaths among women.
While breast cancer rates are higher among women in more developed regions, rates are
increasing in nearly every region globally. Breast tumors are categorized into three main
classes: those in which cells have estrogen receptor (ER+) or progesterone receptor (PR+),
those in which cells have human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2+) with or
without ER+, and the triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) defined by the absence of these
receptors. In most cases of breast cancer, patients are treated with surgery, chemotherapy
or radiotherapy, however, those treatment choices have various undesired side effects.
Nanoparticles has been a promising tool for many types of cancer one of which is the breast
cancer. In this therapy, it is expected that it increases the selectivity and bioavailability. In
addition, decreasing drug toxicity.
Nanoparticles accumulate preferentially in the tumors due to the presence of well-defined
characteristics in tumors mass, such as the defective vasculature and poor lymphatic
drainage, resulting in an increase in permeation and retention effect.
This review aims to provide an update of the scientific progress related to nanoparticles for
breast cancer treatment
A Manuscript Outline - SAP
Word, Abstract, and Reference Limits
1. Cover Letter
a. Author contact information and word counts
2. Title Page
a. Authors
b. Author Note
a. Affiliations
b. Acknowledgments
c. Disclosure
i. Sources of support
d. Citation of any presentation
e. Key Words
f. Running Head
c. Special circumstances
3. Abstract
4. Introduction
a. The problem and its importance
b. Relevant literature including theory
c. Purpose Statement and Hypotheses
5. Method and Materials
a. Participants
b. Sampling procedure
c. Sample size, power, and precision
d. Measures and covariates
e. Design
f. Interventions
g. Data transformation
h. Statistical testing
6. Results
a. Recruitment
i. Participant flow
b. Baseline data
c. Data analysis of primary endpoints
i. Subgroup analysis
7. Discussion
a. Interpretation of results
b. Limitations
8. References
9. Tables
10. Figures
11. Copyright, Conflict of Interest Statement, Originality
6 Tips for Writing and Publishing an
Unsolicited Review
By ScienceDocs Editor Dr. Horvath (https://www.sciencedocs.com/writing-unsolicited-review/)
Most often, review articles are written in response to a request by a journal that
requires a review of a specific topic by an established expert in the field and are
known as invited reviews. Invited reviews are also typically associated with a
specific angle or perspective that the editor wishes to present for a certain issue of
the journal. However, many authors also seek to write reviews for various other
reasons, such as building a publication record in respected journals, establishing
themselves as experts in the field and highlighting their work, or conveying a novel
opinion regarding a current research direction. These types of reviews are not
invited, and are known as unsolicited reviews.
While an invited review is virtually always accepted for publication following peer
review and revisions, many authors find it much more difficult to publish an
unsolicited review. Although an unsolicited review is not unpublishable, there are a
few extra steps required prior to submission to increase the likelihood of
publication. The following steps outlined below can help authors select an
appropriate journal and avoid common mistakes to ensure that their unsolicited
review is ready for submission and the peer review process:
1. Select an appropriate journal
When looking to submit an unsolicited review, it is recommended that even before
the review is written, the authors carefully consider the candidate journals that they
intend to submit the manuscript. There are several aspects that should be
considered:
General vs. highly specific audience
The type of audience that the journal targets is an extremely important
consideration, as this will dictate how the document should be written and the
scope of the review. For example, a review written for a journal with a general
audience will need to take this into account and a high level of technical detail may
be beyond the scope. Moreover, a longer introduction with additional background
information is often required. In contrast, a highly specialized journal will not
require such detailed introductory information, but it will be more difficult to offer
a review that contains novel content and fits with the theme of upcoming issues. In
light of these differences, who will be interested in this review should be the focus
when considering the type of journal to submit the review.
Are there any requirements from the authors’ institution?
It is quite common that an institution or other guidelines (e.g., funding support)
will require that the authors publish in a journal that meets specific requirements.
The most common is the requirement for publication in SCI indexed journals. This
means that when selecting a journal for which to submit their review, the authors
must select from journals listed in this database (A list of the SCI indexed journals
can be found at: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgibin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=K). Another common requirement is a minimum impact
factor. While these are careful considerations, authors should be aware that their
choices become more limited with such restrictions. In addition, some journals that
may be an excellent fit for the authors’ work may not meet such stringent criteria.
Does the journal accept unsolicited reviews?
During the process of selecting journals that meet the authors’ various criteria, it is
a critical step to determine whether the journal of interest even accepts unsolicited
reviews. This information is typically found under the “scope” or “guidelines for
authors” sections located on the journal homepage. If such information is unclear
or not stated, it is recommended that the authors submit an inquiry to ascertain
whether submission is even possible. It is extremely disheartening to discover after
the review has been written and is ready for submission that the target journal is
not a candidate.
Journal type
Another consideration when selecting a journal is the type. The type of journal
refers to whether the journal is open-access, only publishes reviews, the frequency
of publication, and the impact factor. These are important considerations, and
should be thoroughly investigated to ensure that they are compatible with the
authors’ goals. Aspects such as the frequency of publication and journals that only
publish reviews will impact the likelihood that an unsolicited review is well
received by the editor of the journal.
After reviewing these criteria for the submission of an unsolicited review, it is
recommended that the top five candidate journals should be selected. Ensure that
the journals are listed in the order that meets your priorities, but are also realistic
based on the scope and impact factor of the journal.
2. Ensure there is a need
Before submitting to a target journal, do some homework to ensure that there is a
need for a review on that subject. This can be achieved by simply searching in a
journal database (e.g., PubMed) for similar reviews published within the past three
to five years. If the topic has been well-reviewed within the most recent literature,
it may be a sign that another review on the topic is not warranted. Alternatively,
even if a topic has been thoroughly reviewed, a unique niche that has not been
previously published may be an acceptable route. For example, if the goal is to
write a review on the recent advances in tuberculosis vaccine development but
there are several recent reviews describing the latest vaccine platforms, perhaps a
review on the specific immune response generated to each vaccine platform (e.g.,
viral-vector, live-attenuated, etc.) in relation to the prevailing theory on protective
immunity against TB is a better option.
3. Write to the audience
Once you have selected a journal, one of the most important considerations is
writing to the specific target audience of that journal. To do this, consider both the
scope and readership of the journal. Therefore, when submitting to a journal with a
general audience, greater background information will need to be provided,
compared to that with a more specific scope. For example, a review on a
respiratory mucosal vaccine against tuberculosis will need to present a more
thorough background of the disease and vaccine platform to a journal with general
medical or biological scope compared to those specifically involving the
respiratory tract or tuberculosis. This is important as a general readership will
become quickly lost or disinterested in a review if such details are not initially
presented.
4. Avoid vagueness
One of the most common issues that is encountered with reviews is the use of
vague statements that are not substantiated with evidence from the literature. As a
rule of thumb, it is recommended that each section of the review begin with a
broad statement that is then supported by evidence from the literature. Any
evidence contrary to such statements can also be presented; however, specific
details should always be provided.
Do This:
Instead of This:
5. Stay on track and maintain flow throughout the document
Another common mistake many authors make when composing a review is
deviation from the central theme of the paper. Typically, the theme of the review
will become derailed by describing non-relevant literature or introducing a topic
that does not fit with the overarching message of the article. To ensure that the
document maintains adequate flow and cohesion,
for each statement that is written, ask:
6. Present an effective conclusion
Surprisingly, the conclusions of a review are often overlooked or not mentioned at
all. The conclusions are one of the most crucial sections of the review as it is the
message that the reader will walk away with. Therefore, it is extremely important
that the following are mentioned in the conclusions of the review:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A summary (1 to 2 statements) of the current literature.
The significance of the main findings.
The implications of these findings.
The limitations and areas of future research.
While these are just some of the areas to consider when considering the submission
of an unsolicited review, they are extremely important for maximizing the
likelihood that the manuscript will advance to the peer review stage.
Learn more about Scientific Editor Dr. Horvath
Purchase answer to see full
attachment