title: Poor title--poor manuscript?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The title of a scientific article is important for several reasons. Does the title of a manuscript submitted for publication in a medical journal reflect the quality of the manuscript itself?
  
  
  METHODS
  We prepared criteria for poor, fair and good titles and tested them in pilot studies. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association during the period 1 September 2009-31 August 2011 as original articles (n = 211) or review articles (n = 110) were recorded. The quality of the titles was scored by two former editors. Primary outcome measures were rejection rates and odds ratio for rejection of manuscripts with a poor title compared to those with a good title.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For original articles, the rejection rate for manuscripts with a poor, fair or good title amounted to 88%, 73% and 61% (p = 0.002) respectively, and for review articles 83%, 56% and 38% (p < 0.001). The odds ratio for rejection of manuscripts with a poor title compared to those with a good title was 4.6 (95% CI: 1.7-12.3) for original articles and 8.2 (95% CI: 2.6-26.4) for review articles. In a logistic regression model, the quality of the title explained 14% and 27% of the variance in outcome for original articles and review articles respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study, a poor manuscript title was significantly associated with manuscript rejection. This indicates that the quality of the title often reflects the quality of the manuscript itself.
authors: Petter
authors: P
authors: Gjersvik
authors: Pål
authors: P
authors: Gulbrandsen
authors: Erlend T
authors: ET
authors: Aasheim
authors: Magne
authors: M
authors: Nylenna
mesh_terms: D035081:Editorial Policies; D006801:Humans; D008373:Manuscripts as Topic; D017712:Peer Review, Research; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D014956:Writing / Q000592:standards*