Abstract:The main question to ask himself when preparing to write an article is "why publish a scientific paper?" First of all to publish an own article qualifies his author - or authors - as "scientist". Because the surgery is a mixture of art and knowledge, which coexist and interreact mutually increasing each other, scientific publications are the world where ideas are shared. Secondly, to an academic career is essential to be Author of scientific publications; but also for those who follow an hospital career or simply exercise the surgical profession in other contexts it represents the opportunity to communicate their experience and give a personal contribution to the knowledge of the art. The commitment of the academic world in particular must also stimulate new generations to pursue not only technical skills but at the same time updating their knowledge, and its members must also take on the role of researchers. The dissemination of ideas in the scientific community is a milestone for progress, because if they are not shared their concrete value is fleeting, and professional surgical activity value is itself transient and ephemeral, while the written documentation very often goes beyond the time, but certainly beyond space, stably transmitting ideas: "scripta manent". To write a "paper" - as a scientific publication is conventionally and internationally named - requires compliance with specific rules, which make it suitable to diffusion and well used by the readers. These appropriate rules are stated in the similar although variable "Guidelines for the Authors" set by the editors of most scientific journals - as also of Annali Italiani di Chirurgia - on the common purpose of making clear, comprehensive and concise the exposure of the study that is the motivation of the publication. The printed papers - as well the more recent on-line publications in digital format - use a very different language from that spoken in conferences and in verbal communications. Exemplary is the form of presentation used in the best "papers" of British tradition, where every effort is aimed at the clarity and brevity, for definite, consequential and well understood conclusions. Beyond any residual national pride, in the scientific world that has been globalized well earlier than other sectors of civil life, it is not a surrendering to a foreign tradition to conform oneself to the British model when writing a paper - and not simply adopting the English language - with the certainty to better achieve the brevity, clarity and concreteness of an exhaustive communication. "Be brief and you'll be good" - this is a suggestion always of great value to overcome the congestion and convulsions of our times. Furthermore in following the rules suggested by the "Guidelines for Authors" in writing a paper gives the Author the adjunctive advantage of a preventive and autonomous checking the validity and interest of the article as for premises, objectivity and reality of conclusions, and therefore vehicle of at least of one clear element of knowledge and progress, although possibly and despite of a "niche" argument. A paper is much more effective as more focused on a well-defined theme and as such more easily understood and its conclusions more easily assimilated. Therefore in the formal preparation of a paper, the critical sense must develop itself and grow, added to the vocation of following and attain the curiosity of knowledge typical of surgery, but following the typical procedure of the medical profession in the approaching march to the diagnosis, and then to the identification of the correct therapeutic indications which must take into account individual patient characteristics. As the very technical skill in performing the therapy chosen and agreed with the patient, completion of the professional duties, must not leave aside a constant exercise of criticism and self-criticism at every stage of the profession, similarly this same critical sense is also necessary in the preparation of a scientific paper to transmit a concrete, valid and original scientific contribution. It is useful to keep in mind that, as any student knows and does perhaps unconsciously, those who read an article do not follow the order in which it is printed, but having considered the catchy title go directly to review the conclusions. If still interested, they go on to the Abstract or to Summary, and only at this point if intrigued they read the Introduction, and then the material and method of study with their results, and finally the discussion, and to the end they read anew the Conclusions. However, in the formal drafting of a paper one has to remember this very likely sequence in reading an article and adapt accordingly: first put into focus the conclusions, which in fact are the reason of the publication. Therefore this must lead us to give up writing an article such as a report or a conference, and to conform attentively to the Anglo-Saxon model of presentation of a paper. A last point concerns the language of the presentation of a paper. Using own native language, in our case Italian, it is easy to the precise in language and is facilitated the communication of concepts, but that restricts the communication to own linguistics environment, whereas all scientific knowledge and the surgical one in particular, in accordance as stated by the motto of the International Society of Surgery "La Science n'a pas de Patrie", needs no linguistic boundaries. We should not feel therefore humiliated and colonized in adopting the English language in publishing our papers, because it has become the language of science globally adopted, indeed we must consider positively this choice for formal and substantial reasons. Formally the use of English forces ourselves to conform to a language traditionally pragmatic, schematic and synthetic typical of the Anglo-Saxon world, so renouncing to the usual subordinate phrases of Italian language, that may result contrary to its ingenuous purpose, making instead less clear and more foggy the concepts. This achieves in the meantime the advantage of a better and more schematic final clarity. We must take in mind from the very beginning the final concept you want to express with every sentence, and take it in the highest account. From a substantial point of view the adoption of English opens at the best the entire scientific world to all cultural contributions, no longer limited to the national linguistic areas, that now, in the globalized world of knowledge remains provincial even though vector of undisputed professional value and experience of Italian surgery. Any possible inadequacies of the used English language - that should be carefully avoided in terms of syntactic and orthographic rules, with the eventual help of a native language fellow - can anyways be accepted within certain limits as the price of a globalization of the diffusing knowledge, become even more evident by the introduction of digital editions. A special case is given by the publication of experiences derived from individual case reports. Clearly it is evident the impulse to disclose one's own individual experience, or because of its rare occurrence, or on the enthusiastic wave of a diagnosis successfully completed or because of the own satisfaction in choosing and performing an effective treatment successfully achieved thank to a surgical technique exceptional or of particularly difficulty. One can, however, make the mistake of aiming to publish "a case report" simply to show off one's skills and personal professional value. It is a short-sighted goal that gives the author an ephemeral satisfaction, but it will almost inevitably penalizated in the judgment of colleagues who read it. For psychological reasons it is difficult for someone to cheer the professional success of a not related fellow, and therefore it is advisable to refrain from this type of publication, which is a waste of time not very profitable, both to the one's reputation and for the likely rejection by the most accredited scientific journals. The publication of a case report must follow the same rules set for a "genuine article", with the difference that in the introduction has to be immediately highlighted the particularity of the experience, possibly framing it in common knowledge. The presentation of the clinical and strategic aspects is the result of a careful reflection on the surgical experience lived, because its exposure has to be very different from an extemporaneous oral presentation, which is by nature open to a free immediate confrontation in oral discussions that follow.

Abstract:Sir:FigureThere is nothing immutable, except the need to change. —Eraclito We read with great interest the editorial entitled “So You Want to Be a Change Artist?”1 published in the June issue of the Journal. Drs. Rohrich and Sullivan have touched on a topic of striking importance for the modern surgeon. The pursuit of stability of the human side faces with and somehow fights against the need for continuous innovation of the surgeon side. A balance of both aspects is suggested by both editors and nicely represented by the surfer metaphor: a modern and innovative surgeon needs to capitalize all knowledge and practice learned previously to face with a fearless approach new and uncertain challenges, taking lessons from his or her mistakes and adapting what he or she knows in a moment-by-moment continuum.1 Why do we have to change when we feel so familiar with a technique or with a procedure? Why do we have to spend time in changing continuously and approaching new challenges every day when we could work in our peaceable, routine way? Some lessons from history can help us in reaching the answer to both questions. Heresy, derived from the word Greek αι[Combining Diaeresis] ρεσις that should literally be translated as “choice,” has been used to define the selection of the type of life that a young person would have made among various philosophies. The Catholic Church later embraced it and exploited its meaning to indicate all beliefs and ideas that conflicted with established Catholic dogma. The accusation of heresy has been often used by the Church throughout history to preserve religious or traditional laws or codes from violations by scientific innovations. Nevertheless, by the late Middle Ages, the Church had increasingly interfered with surgical progress by forbidding members of the clergy (who were a prevalent portion of university-trained physicians) from the practice of surgery by means of a decree during the Fourth Lateran Council.2,3 The reason was that monks could not give Eucharist with their hands metaphorically “contaminated” by blood and body secretion; therefore, surgery was left largely to barber practitioners. It is within this context that the figure of Ambroise Paré emerged, a master in surgical techniques and an acclaimed anatomist and medical writer. His field of expertise was battlefield medicine—in particular, the treatment of wounds. Injured soldiers were treated with traditional boiling elderberry oil and cauterization to counteract the suspected “venomous nature” of wounds from gunshot. Paré introduced a medicament that was a mixture of egg yolk, oil of roses, and turpentine with unexpected improvement of the wounds compared with those of the soldiers treated with the boiling oil that were in agony.2,3 Although the excellent findings of Paré's new revolutionary treatment circulated widely through his writings defining the birth of modern surgery based on results and experimentation,2 inevitably he was harshly criticized for his revolutionary thinking by the physician and surgeon eminencies of university medicine of that time, who were too versed in the classics and Galen. In the same century, the Flemish physician Andries van Wesel (known as Andreas Vesalius), often referred to as the founder of modern human anatomy, published his pioneering work De Humani Corporis Fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human Body) that is arguably the best-known book produced in the history of Western medicine.3,4 He presented a careful examination and illustrations (made possible by progress in renaissance artistic paint and technique of printing) of the human body that disavowed almost all Galenic doctrine on anatomy that had been accepted and respected by the upper hierarchy of the university as a faith for over 1200 years, disclosing that all of Galen's anatomical findings were based on animal dissection rather than human dissection because of the banning of dissection in ancient Rome. The work of Vesalius was so revolutionary that he was not only ostracized and cursed by all his colleagues but also forced to burn all his unpublished works under the menace of accusation for heresy in challenging Galenism and Church doctrine.3,4 Vesalius's teachings were based on careful observation of details during dissection that were instantly reproduced by artists who were clearly present at the dissections themselves. This allowed the production of anatomically accurate textbooks, and the extent to which he let medical students participate in dissection lectures revolutionized medicine. Three centuries later, the Hungarian physician Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis discovered that hand disinfection in obstetric clinics could decrease the number of deaths related to puerperal fever. In that time, it was a habit for both doctors and medical students to pass freely from dissection theaters to examination of new mothers without first scrubbing their hands, with the consequence being infecting the patient and causing her death by puerperal fever. Through a comparative investigation supported by strong statistical analysis, Semmelweis identified the problem and compelled his colleagues to a rigorous hand-washing in the maternity ward to prevent the transmission of puerperal fever, reducing mortality dramatically. Despite the evidence reported in various publications, Semmelweis's conclusions conflicted with the established scientific and medical doctrine of the time, and his studies were overtly refused and criticized by the medical community that believed that maternal infections were caused by “poison air” in a hospital ward. Furthermore, physicians were offended by the idea that they were the vehicle of infection by means of their hands. Unfortunately, Semmelweis was committed to and died in an insane asylum. Widely accepted scientific explanations for his theories were proposed years after his death, thanks to the discoveries of Louis Pasteur on germs.[5] We reported three innovations from three great physicians that we still use in our everyday practice and that should be a lesson for modern surgeons. However, we could have reported on many other scientists who have contributed to the evolution of medicine into the modern science it is today. Medicine and surgery could not have developed without the changes made by scientists who wanted to go beyond common and stable dogmatic knowledge. Advancement and development have required revolutionary changes based on observation rather than blind adherence to dictum and more likely require, in modern times, evidence-based results to obtain acceptance over long-established doctrines. We agree with the suggestion by Rohrich and Sullivan to embrace changes for advancement of our specialty and use failures as teachable lessons.1 Niccolò Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” Yi Xin Zhang, M.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China Davide Lazzeri, M.D. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.

Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper

LETTERA DEL DIRETTORE

Editorial: Case reports in heart surgery: 2023

Heresy, Criticism, and Changes in Science

International Orthopaedics – instructions for authors, English expression, style and rules

Tips and tricks for writing a scientific manuscript

How to write an article: An introduction to basic scientific medical writing

Credit for Truly Novel Ideas? A Critical Approach to the Intellectual Authorship in Surgery

From Data to Manuscript: A Strategy for Young Oncologists to Write a Scientific Paper

Medical norms and ethical principles: thoughts and dilemmas of an oncology surgeon

Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon

Tips and tricks for writing a manuscript to publish in a biomedical journal

Academic Surgery Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Perspective of the Present and Future Challenges

Essentials of Scientific Manuscript Review

[Writing and publication of a clinical case report]

How to Overcome the Barriers Behind Writing Case Reports for Beginners and Young General Physicians

The SCARE statement: consensus-based surgical case report guidelines

Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference

Writing Manuscripts Better: Part I (The introduction, methods, results, and discussion format)

[The scientific videotape with digital processing in surgery. The new opportunities offered surgery for videotape recording and postprocessing with the use of information and digital technologies]

Undeserved authorship in surgical research: an underestimated bias with potential side effects on academic careers