Thank you for approaching us with your question. We can understand how worried this must be making you. First of all, don’t panic. This was an oversight on your part, but journals understand that these mistakes can happen and generally try to accommodate corrections when possible (see also similar questions answered here and here).   It appears that your manuscript is not at a revision stage (which would have made the process a bit easier) but has already been published. Here are some steps to consider in your case:  1. Follow up promptly with the journal editorial office. Explain the situation clearly—that you inadvertently left out your grant number in the acknowledgments section and need to get it added. Most journals have a process for making post-publication corrections.  2. Get the exact grant number/funding source details you need to add. Double check with your supervisor or institutional grants office if needed.  3. Offer to provide the updated acknowledgments text exactly as it should be published in the correction. This makes it easy for the journal production team. Plus, you do not want to request another round of changes!  4. Thank them for their understanding and willingness to publish the correction. Most...

Most journals run a “technical check” to see if a manuscript is formatted correctly and complies with journal policies. This initial screening might be to check if the manuscript is written in an acceptable language; contains the required elements such as author details, abstract, and declarations; uses the required citation style; and is within the journal’s length limits.   Some journals may even run a plagiarism check. These checks happen before the manuscript reaches the editor or reviewers. If a manuscript passes these checks, the journal editor or managing editor will consider if the manuscript is worth moving ahead. If the editor is satisfied, they will initiate the peer review process by choosing and contacting appropriate peer reviewers to evaluate the work.  In this case, however, it appears that peer review has taken place, and the editor is yet to reach a decision. A technical check at this stage does seem unusual, but different journals have different workflows and assign different terms for the various stages in the workflow. Perhaps the editorial board is reviewing the decision and the manuscript, and a technical editor needs to check the manuscript and the reviewer comments to ensure that journal standards have been followed.  ...

Thank you for this critical question.  While using AI tools like ChatGPT to polish the English language quality of a manuscript is allowed by most journals, and you should always inform the journal about this, you should be cautious in working with such tools. Generative AI tools can “make up” information due to a process called “hallucination” — this happens when the tool doesn’t understand how two pieces of information relate. It fills in the gap by generating information to make the two ends meet without being sure about the accuracy. This can lead to the incorporation of misleading facts. Hence, you should always carefully review all the content that has been edited using AI tools before submitting your manuscript to a journal.  With the advent of various AI tools, understanding to what extent we can use them in academic publications often needs to be clarified. AI tools cannot be held accountable, so they cannot be provided authorship in manuscripts. Another issue with these tools is maintaining the confidentiality of the information the tool is supplied with. Some tools store input data for their training. This could be a severe concern in specific contexts. You can check an article here...

SD reflects sample variability, while SE is an estimate of how close your mean is to the true population mean. Both are useful measures, but your readers will need to know how much your data is dispersed from the mean. High variability suggests that individual data points deviate widely from the mean, indicating potential heterogeneity in the sample. This information helps readers gauge the reliability and generalizability of study findings. If a sample has low variability, the mean is a more robust descriptive statistic of the dataset. On the other hand, high variability may signal that the mean might not be as reliable, and that tests using means (e.g., t-tests) may not be appropriate. Hence, it is necessary to report SD along with means in your paper.Barde and Barde (2012) have explained the use of SD vs SE in detail. The SAMPL (Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature) guidelines explicitly recommend against using SE to indicate variability in a dataset. Would you like personalized guidance when using descriptive or inferential statistics? Talk to an experienced biostatistician under Editage’s Statistical Analysis & Review Services.

Thank you for your question!In academic manuscripts, the supplementary material is typically used to provide additional details or data that are not included in the main text. As for duplicating figures from the main text in the supplementary material, it is generally acceptable but may depend on the specific guidelines set by the journal or conference you are submitting to.Before duplicating figures, authors should consider the purpose of the supplementary material. If the figures are crucial to the understanding of the main findings or arguments presented in the paper, it is generally recommended to include them in the main text. However, if the supplementary material serves to provide additional supporting information or extensive data that might interrupt the flow of the main text, duplicating figures in the supplementary material can be appropriate.If authors decide to duplicate figures, there are a few best practices to keep in mind:They should clearly indicate in the figure captions and in the text that the figures are duplicated in the supplementary material. This helps readers easily locate the relevant figures in both the main text and the supplementary material.They must ensure that the figures in the supplementary material are of sufficient quality and resolution for...

We recommend using MANOVA (multivariate analysis) under these circumstances as there are multiple dependent variables as well as independent variables within the model which you may wish to test. MANOVA can be done using tools such as SPSS and STATA.

Dear author, thank you for writing to us. We understand how it can be overwhelming to start writing a proposal and assure you of our complete support in this regard. We had previously published a few resources on this topic and request you to go through the following:https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-the-background-of-your-studyhttps://www.editage.com/insights/how-do-i-write-a-problem-statementhttps://www.editage.com/insights/can-you-help-me-to-write-bacground-and-problem-statementhttps://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-a-problem-statement-for-my-research Having said that, in case you need more assistance, we have a Manuscript Writing service and you can share your query at request@www.editage.com or publication_support@www.editage.com in case you wish to avail this service. We hope to have satisfactorily answered your query and wish you all the very best with your research proposal. 

Dear Author,Thank you for your question.Please ensure that your introduction does the following:Describes why you have undertaken the studyExplains how the research will make a significant contribution to the fieldStates the research question clearlyProvides a background of the problem that your research aims to understand or resolveSummarizes what is currently known about the topic through existing literature and citing studies that are relevantTo know more about structuring your paper to convey your ideas impactfully, refer to Manuscript structure: How to convey your most important ideas through your paper.You may also refer to these articles to frame the perfect introductory section:What is the best way to write an effective introduction?The secret to writing the introduction and methods section of a manuscriptThe complete guide to writing a brilliant research paper 

Dear Author,Thank you for your question! As long as the target journal and author permit you to use a translated version of the scale (with a citation and a note that you've used a translated version), and the translation retains the intended meaning, this should be fine. All the best!

Dear author,Thank you for your question. The rationale of the study is clear, however, it would be better to highlight it further in your communication with the journal. You can mention1. That there is only one other study published on this topic,2. There have been no follow-ups to that previously published study,3. Why it is important to do this study (clinical/industrial significance, need for more information on this topic, etc.)4. How your study confirms/contradicts the work done in the previous study.5. How does your study add to what was previously published in the other study?It might not be enough to simply say that there's very less work done on this topic, it is important to justify why more work is required. Why is the topic important? Also, if the older study is very similar to yours, then it's important that you can differentiate your study in some way- have you performed othe experiments? Has your study added more information? All of these points will help convince the editor of the rationale of your study.I hope this helps frame a comprehensive response to the editor.