Workshop facilitated by Maria J Grant, Editor-in-Chief of the Health Libraries and Information Journal at the 2012 Health Libraries Group conference, 12-13 July 2012, Glasgow: http://www.uhl-library.nhs.uk/hlg2012/

1. Overcoming
Challenges
When Writing
for
Publication
@MariaJGrant
Editor http://bit.ly/9RMH6S

2. Enhancing Your
Chances of Your
Manuscript
Being Accepted
@MariaJGrant
Editor http://bit.ly/9RMH6S

3. A Bit About Me…
• Editor of the Health
Information and
Libraries Journal
• First publication in
1998
• Peer support writers
group since 2006

4. How Many of You Write?
http://bit.ly/Na7VRj

5. What Do We Mean by
‘Write’?
• Mark (letters,
words, or other
symbols) on a
surface, with a
pen, pencil, or
similar implement
• Compose (a text
http://amzn.to/LDA7Ng
or work) in writing

6. Writing for publication perceived to be
different from other forms of writing
(Grant et al 2010)

7. Different Forms of
Writing for Publication
• Twitter
• Facebook
• Blogs
• Newsletters
• Book reviews http://bit.ly/pgUxaH
• Journal articles
• Practitioner accounts

8. Writing Academic Papers
Is Different
• Level of rigour when writing is higher
• Expected to support statements with
references
• Contextualise what is known about the
subject and any gaps in the evidence
• The manuscript adds to the body of
knowledge

9. What Are the Common http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
Challenges When Writing?
Finding Time Having an Idea Knowing
When to Stop
http://bit.ly/M8BJ1E http://bit.ly/NcaVQM http://bit.ly/OcL8pk

10. Finding Time…
http://bit.ly/M8BJ1E

11. Making Time…
http://bit.ly/M8BJ1E

12. Having an Idea
http://bit.ly/NcaVQM

13. Working Titles
1. Brainstorming a range
of draft working titles
2. Think creatively
3. Rate your titles
4. Shortlist no more than
six http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
(Race 1999)

14. Enhancing Your Chances of Your
Manuscript Being Accepted
http://bit.ly/NhZRBm

15. Enhancing Your Chances of Your
Manuscript Being Accepted
1. Message 5. Published Papers
2. Audience 6. Setting the
3. Guidelines Context
7. Experienced
4. Editorial Team
Colleagues
http://bit.ly/Odoj4G

16. What is the ‘Take Home’
Message?
• Not only what you
want to say
• What can the
readers of your
manuscript usefully
apply to their own
http://bit.ly/nS9QxS
practice?

17. Consider Your Audience
• Academic vs.
Practitioner
publications
– HILJ vs. HLG Newsletter
• Journals each have
defined and unique
scope
• Imagine an individual http://bit.ly/qhUSlq
you are writing for…

18. Author Guidelines
• Read the guidelines…
and then follow them
• Guidelines will help
you determine:
– In scope
– Structured abstract
– Structure of the
manuscript
– Word count
http://bit.ly/cv7S6j
– Referencing style

19. Editorial Team
• Not sure if your
manuscript fits the
scope of a journal…

20. Looks at Past Issues
• Learn from people
who have already
been through the
process
http://bit.ly/qOaJWR

21. Setting the Context
• Literature review
– What is known about
the subject area?
– What are the gaps
identified in the
literature?
– How does your
manuscript address this http://bit.ly/n8ed3j
gap?
– International context

22. Experienced Colleagues
• Learn from
colleagues with
publishing
experience
– Writing together
– Editing and advising

23. Writing http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
• Write for 5 minutes about
the working title you
ranked as the most
important
• Don’t self edit
• Don’t re-read
• If you don’t know what to
write then write “I don’t http://bit.ly/N4gUGY
know what to write”
• Keep your pen or pencil
flowing

24. Sandwich Filling http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
• Take turns to share your
writing idea with the
person sitting next to
you
• Ask questions to clarify
your understanding http://bit.ly/N4gUGY

25. Writing Sandwich http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
• Re-visit your five
minutes of writing
• Rework it in light of the
questions your partner
asked http://bit.ly/N4gUGY

26. What is Peer Review?
‘Peer review is the process by which
reports of, or proposals for, research are
scrutinised by other researchers.’
(Committee of Publisher Ethics 2011)

27. What is the Purpose of Peer
Review?
• To ensure that only the best quality
manuscripts are published
• To provide constructive feedback on how a
manuscript can be further developed

28. What Are the Potential
Outcomes of a Peer Review?
• Four potential outcomes
– Accept
– Minor revisions
– Major revisions
– Reject
http://bit.ly/qKLDRq

29. Outcome 1: Accepted
• A cause for
celebration!
• I’ve never known a
peer reviewed
manuscript be
accepted at first
submission
• Usually a journey…
http://bit.ly/o80w2e

30. Outcome 2: Minor Revisions
“A recommendation of
minor revision should
be made if the
manuscript is likely to
be of interest to the
HILJ readership but http://bit.ly/n3Uowg
typographical errors or
incomplete references
are present.”
(S1M 2011)

31. Outcome 3: Major Revisions
“A recommendation of a
major revision should be
made if the manuscript is
likely to be of interest to
the HILJ readership but
requires a reworking in
terms of structure or the
inclusion of additional
materials.”
(S1M 2011)

32. What To Do When You Receive
Referee/s Comments?
• Take a deep breath
– Read the comments
– Put the manuscript aside
– Discuss them with your co-
author/s
– Respond positively to each
point raised
• Remember, very few
manuscripts are accepted http://bit.ly/LBT2Ja
without any revisions

33. Outcome 4: Rejected
“A recommendation to
reject a manuscript should
be made if the manuscript
is unlikely to be
relevant/of interest to the
HILJ readership or is not
sufficiently rigorous to be
suitable for publication in http://bit.ly/pT2Ess
an academic journal.”
(S1M 2011)

34. Reasons a Manuscript
Might Be Rejected
• Out of scope
– Topic area or format
• Insufficiently
developed
– Bullet points
– May show promise…
• Plagiarism http://bit.ly/pT2Ess
• Not responding to
referee/s comments

35. Plagiarism
• “Take (the work or
idea of someone
else) and pretend it
is one’s own.”
(Fowler, Pocket OED 2002)
• “Direct quotes” or
in your own words
http://bit.ly/ne6p4U
but the source must
be acknowledged

36. Research, Evaluation & Audit
Key Steps in Demonstrating Your Value
• Chapter 11: Writing for
Publication
• Co-written with Graham
Walton, Editor, New
Review of Academic
Librarianship
(Grant et al Forthcoming) http://bit.ly/MXt6LT

37. One Sentence… http://bit.ly/NhZRBm
http://bit.ly/RVf3Gc

38. Writing Ideas Generated (1)
• An Investigation into the Information-Seeking Behaviour of F1 and F2 Doctors. To
investigate the information-seeking behaviour of F1 and F2 doctors in an Acute Trust
in order to ensure their needs are being met and improve the existing knowledge on
this subject.
• Changing the Future Now. Using innovations to plan forward for a successful life
audit for now and beyond…
• Does Social Media Raise the Impact of Current Awareness Days? Measuring the
impact of current awareness days in light of social media compared to before relying
only on TV, radio and newspaper coverage.
• Evaluating Uni Work of OLS in a Large Acute Trust on Patient Care. [No abstract]
• From Conference First-Timer to Seasoned Networker. [No abstract]
• Going for Gold. Encouraging more NHS staff & students to register for NHS Athens
accounts during the 2012 Olympics.
• [Untitled] Creating a long-term conditions NHS implementation service using a zero
cost approach in collaboration with third sector organisations.

39. Writing Ideas Generated (2)
• [Untitled] Library anxiety is an important issue for placement students that hospital
librarians should understand and support through better collaboration with
academic librarians.
• [Untitled] My experience of the HLG 2012, in particular the Innovate or Wait session
from Day 1, for the HLG Newsletter.
• [Untitled] The research seeks to establish the availability of medical information
resources in resource limited settings, the level of access and the utilization of the
information.
• What Are The Challenges of Providing Health Information to Patients Via Email? An
article to address the challenges of responding appropriately to an email enquiry for
health information by an NHS information service.
• What Do Searches of Trials Registers Add to the Systematic Review Evidence Base?
Searches of trails registers may add essential evidence to the SR process and
compensate for potential bias, therefore we should search them despite challenges
of basic search interfaces, lace of specificity & reference management issues.
• “Where Do I Go From Here” A reflective discussion of the next step on the career
ladder for an academic librarian.

40. Knowing When to Stop
http://bit.ly/MNVdx0

41. References
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Written evidence submitted by the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (PR 34).
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/w
ritev/856/m34.htm
• Fowler FG, Fowler HW (eds) Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002, 9th ed
• Grant MJ, Sen B, Spring H (Eds) Research, evaluation and audit: key steps in
demonstrating your value, London: Facet Publishing, forthcoming.
• Grant MJ, Munro W, McIsaac & Hill S. Cross-disciplinary writers group
stimulates fresh approaches to scholarly communication: a reflective case
study within a higher education institution in the north west of England New
Review of Academic Librarianship in press.
• Race P, 1999, Tips for Lecturers, London: Routledge Falmer. Chapter 8.
• S1M. Health Information and Libraries Journal on ScholarOne Manuscript.
2011 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hilj

42. Contact Details
Maria J. Grant
Editor – HILJ
m.j.grant@salford.ac.uk
+44 (0) 161 295 6423
@MariaJGrant @HILJnl