How to publish your research? Workshop at NAAFH

• Professor ABDULAZIZ ALKAABBA
Professor of Family Medicine and Bioethics, AL-Imam University - College of Medicine
Board member of the Saudi Healthcare Ethics Society
• Dr. Ghaiath Hussein
Assistant professor of Bioethics and Community Medicine
Board member of the Saudi Healthcare Ethics Society
• Dr. Abdullah Adlan
Consultant Biomedical Ethics and Health-care Governance, Adjunct Assistant Professor,
KSAU-HS
Head of the Biomedical Ethics Department, King Abdullah International Medical Research
Center (KAIMRC), Riyadh, KSA

• Describe the Research
Publication Cycle
• Describe the steps in
constructing, revising, editing
and submitting a manuscript
for publication in a peer-
reviewed journal
• Explain the IMRAD structure
approach of scientific
publications
• Define reference management
software (RMS)
• List examples of the main RMS
• Install and apply the basic
functions of Mendeley
• Describe and apply criteria of
choosing journals for
publication
• List the reasons for rejecting
the submitted manuscripts
1 2

Date & time Topics Speaker
Day 1: Prepare your manuscript
8.00 - 8.30 Registration
8.30 – 9.00 The research-publication cycle
- The Knowledge Management Cycle
- Overview on research steps from idea to
publication
Prof. Alkabba
9.00 – 9.30 How to structure your paper? IMRAD: Part I
- Title, Abstract and Keywords
- Introduction, Methods and Results
Dr. Adlan
9.30 – 10.10 How to structure your paper? IMRAD: Part II
- Discussion and Conclusions
- Figures and tables
- Acknowledgments and References
Dr. Ghaiath
10.10 – 10.20 Coffee break
10.20 – 11.00 Formatting your manuscript
- IMRaD structure
- Author’s guidelines
- Online submission systems
Dr. Adlan
Dr. Ghaiath
11.00 – 11.30 Ethical considerations in scientific publications
- Authorship and authors' responsibilities
- Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism
Prof. Alkabba
11.30 – 12.00 Tips for using reference management
software (Mendeley)
- What is the RMS?
- How RMS can help in your research
& publication?
- Practical tips to Mendeley
Dr. Ghaiath
Dr. Adlan
12.00 – 1.00 Prayer & lunch break
1.00 – 4.00 Practical sessions: groups will have the
following tasks
- Critically read a publication (does it
follow IMRaD structure?)
- Outline a (mock) manuscript you
developed from your research report
- How to search and cite using
Mendeley?
Prof. Alkabba
Dr. Ghaiath
Dr. Adlan
4.00 – 4.20 Work group presentations Groups
4.20 – 4.30 Wrap-up and tasks for Day 2 Prof. Alkabba
Dr. Ghaiath
Dr. Adlan
1 2

Day 2: Publish your manuscript
8.30 – 9.00 Selecting a journal & submitting your paper for publication Prof.Alkabba
9.00 – 9.30 What do journal editors want? Dr. Adlan
9.30 – 10.00 Cover letters and supplementary documents for manuscript submission Dr. Adlan /Dr. Ghaiath
10.10 – 10.20 Coffee break
10.20 – 11.00 Understanding peer review process & Journal decisions - I Dr. Adlan
11.00 – 11.30 Understanding peer review process & Journal decisions - II Dr. Ghaiath Hussein
11.30 – 12.00 Reference management and manuscript preparation) Dr. Abdullah Adlan
Dr. Ghaiath Hussein
12.00 – 1.00 Prayer & lunch break
1.00 – 4.00 Practical sessions- groups will have the following tasks:
- Critically read a published article – if you were a reviewer, what would
you suggest?
- Respond to a (mock) reviewer’s comments on their manuscript.
Prof. Abdulaziz Alkabba
Dr. Ghaiath Hussein
Dr. Abdullah Adlan
4.00 – 4.20 Work group presentations Groups
4.20 – 4.30 Wrap-up and end of workshop (certificates)

The Research-
Publication Cycle
Prof. Abdulaziz Alkabba
The Knowledge Management Cycle
Overview on research steps from
idea to publication

“Good” research: Good Science & Good Ethics
“Good” Evidence: near-top to hierarchy of
Evidence
Evidence-Based Healthcare: Better
practice that is based on best evidence
Better health status
Why do we need research?

Research planning - implementation cycle
Planning
Conducting
Data
Management
ReportingDissemination
Evidence
synthesis
New research
questions

Generation
Dissemination
SynthesisUtilization
Assessment
Statistics
Research in Context
Evidence-based
Guidelines
Evidence-informed
policy
Knowledge
Management
Cycle

Research Life Cycle
Credit: https://images.app.goo.gl/NR6Fa9Y82JyErUHf9

• Contribute to the body of knowledge
• To become a recognized expert in your field
• To help develop or improve on existing practice or policy
• To advance your career (promotions)
• Gain inner satisfaction
https://simplyeducate.me/2013/07/20/why-publish-research-findings/

What are
the
you faced
when you
tried to
publish?
• Group A • Group B
Tasks:
1. Divide yourselves into two groups.
2. Share your experiences about scientific publications
3. What are the main challenges you faced when you tried to publish?

Essential Research Skills
Before conduct (Prepare) During conduct (Do) After conduct (Disseminate)
Review of literature Research methods (Q&Q) Reference management
Proposal writing Designing data collection tools Scientific writing
Grant writing (and hunting) Data analysis (Quan. & Qual.) Writing for publication
Research ethics Plagiarism Publication ethics
Cross-cutting skills:
• Critical thinking
• Leadership skills
• Project management
• Presentation (communication) skills
• Resource (Time) management
• Scientific writing

How to structure your paper? IMRAD: Part I
Dr. Abdullah Adlan
- Title, Abstract and Keywords
- Introduction, Methods and Results
Source: https://www.enago.com/academy/

What to
read an article?
• Reflect on your latest online literature search …
• What made you stop at a specific article to click it?

Titles matter!
Nicola Di Girolamo and Reint M. Reynders (2016) found
that:
• Titles in the Altmetric Top 100 were 102.6 characters
long, included 3.4 uncommon words, and 29.6% were
declarative
• Declarative titles having lesser uncommon words were
significantly more represented in the Altmetric Top 100
• Declarative titles had 2.8 times the odds in the top list
• For every extra uncommon word used in the title, there
was a 1.4 increase in the odds to be non-Altmetric Top
100 article
• The conclusion of the study showed that an
informative and easy to understand title might help in
bridging the gap between scholarly and social media
dissemination.

• Declarative
State the main conclusions.
Example: Mixed strains of probiotics improve
antibiotic associated diarrhea.
• Descriptive
Describe the subject.
Example: Effects of mixed strains of
probiotics on antibiotic associated diarrhea.
• Interrogative
Use a question for the subject.
Example: Do mixed strains of probiotics
improve antibiotic associated diarrhea?

Tips for an
Attractive Title
•Be concise
• Convey the main topics
• Highlight the importance
• Be concise
•Be descriptive
•Use a low word count (5-15
words)
•Check journal guidelines
•Avoid jargon and symbols

Why did it
become #1?
https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/06/Nicola-Di-Girolamo.pdf

Problematic Titles
• Does Vaccinating Children and Adolescents with Inactivated
Influenza Virus Inhibit the Spread of Influenza in
Unimmunized Residents of Rural Communities?
This title has too many unnecessary words.
• Influenza Vaccination of Children: A Randomized Trial
This title doesn’t give enough information about what makes
the manuscript interesting.
• Effect of Child Influenza Vaccination on Infection Rates in
Rural Communities: A Randomized Trial
This is an effective title. It is short, easy to understand, and
conveys the important aspects of the research.
TIP: Write down a few possible titles, and then select the best to
refine further. Ask your colleagues their opinion. Spending the
time needed to do this will result in a better title.Photo Credit

Abstracts and Keywords … What & Why?
• An abstract is a self-contained, short, and precise summary that
describes a larger work.
• Components vary according to discipline (IMRaC ± Limitations)
• The abstract is an original content rather than an excerpted passage.
Why write an abstract?
• Selection and Indexing:
• To allow readers who may be interested in a longer work to quickly decide
whether it is worth their time to read it.
• many online databases use abstracts to index larger works.
• Therefore, abstracts should contain keywords and phrases that allow for easy
searching.
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/abstracts/

Abstract format
• Depending on the author guidelines of the
journal, it can be:
• The structured abstract
• has distinct sections with headings(objective,
methods, results, and conclusion), which
enables a reader to easily find the relevant
information under clear headings
• Think of each section as a question and provide
a concise but detailed answer under each
heading.
• The unstructured abstract
• is a narrative paragraph of your research.
• It is similar to the structured abstract but does
not contain headings.
• It gives the context, findings, conclusion, and
implications of your paper.

Good abstract should be
• A summary of the content of the journal manuscript
• A time-saving shortcut for busy researchers
• A guide to the most important parts of your manuscript
• Able to stand alone (the only part of your article that appears in indexing)
• Helping to speed up the peer-review process.
• Answering these questions about your manuscript:
• What was done?
• Why did you do it?
• What did you find?
• Why are these findings useful and important?
TIP: Journals often set a maximum word count for Abstracts, often 250 words,
and no citations. This is to ensure that the full Abstract appears in indexing
services.

All abstracts include:
• A full citation of the source, preceding the
abstract.
• The most important information first.
• The same type and style of language found in
the original, including technical language.
• Key words and phrases that quickly identify
the content and focus of the work.
• Clear, concise, and powerful language.
Abstracts may include:
• The thesis of the work, usually in the first
sentence.
• Background information that places the
work in the larger body of literature.
• The same chronological structure as the
original work.
How not to write an abstract:
• Do not refer extensively to other works.
• Do not add information not contained in the
original work.
• Do not define terms.
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/abstracts/

Keywords
• Keywords are a tool to help indexers and
search engines find relevant papers.
• If database search engines can find your
journal manuscript, readers will be able to find
it too.
• This will increase the number of people
reading your manuscript, and likely lead to
more citations.
• They should:
• Represent the content of your manuscript
• Be specific to your field or sub-field

Examples of Keywords
• Manuscript title: Direct observation of nonlinear optics in an isolated carbon
nanotube
Poor keywords: molecule, optics, lasers, energy lifetime
Better keywords: single-molecule interaction, Kerr effect, carbon nanotubes,
energy level structure
• Manuscript title: Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid
administration
Poor keywords: neuron, brain, OA (an abbreviation), regional-specific neuronal
degeneration, signaling
Better keywords: neurodegenerative diseases; CA1 region, hippocampal; okadaic
acid; neurotoxins; MAP kinase signaling system; cell death
• Manuscript title: Increases in levels of sediment transport at former glacial-
interglacial transitions
• Poor keywords: climate change, erosion, plant effects
• Better keywords: quaternary climate change, soil erosion, bioturbation

Give your
study an
attractive
and
effective
• Group A • Group B
Tasks:
1. Divide yourselves into two groups.
2. Share your titles
3. Classify your title
4. Write 3 – 5 keywords that best describes your study

What is an ?
• The section that introduces your
research in the context of the knowledge
in the field.
• First introduce:
• the topic including the problem you are
addressing,
• the importance of solving this problem, and
• known research and gaps in the knowledge.
• Then narrow it down to your research
questions and hypothesis.
https://www.enago.com/academy/top-three-tips-for-writing-a-good-introduction/

Tips to an effective
introduction
• Give broad background
information about the problem.
• Write it in a logical manner so that
the reader can follow your
thought process.
• Focus on the problem you intend
to solve with your research
• Note any solutions in the
literature thus far.
• Propose your study as solution to
the problem with reasons.

Refer to the notes section below for guidelines
on this topic.

• It is the section whose purpose is to explain the meaning of the
results to the reader.
• It helps in answering the following questions:
• Did you achieve your objectives?
• How do your results compare to other studies?
• Were there any limitations to your research?
• Before writing the Discussion, consider the following:
• How do your results answer your objectives?
• Why do you think your results are different to published data?
• Do you think further research would help clarify any issues with your data?
How to Write an Effective Discussion, Dean R Hess . [Respir Care 2004;49(10):1238–1241

Structure of
• Set out the context and main aims of the study
• Do this without repeating the introduction
• Discuss findings, compare to other studies
• How findings compare to other studies
• Limitations
• Practical implications: what they mean for the field
• Talk about the major outcomes of the study.
• Be careful not to write your conclusion here.
• Merely highlight the main themes emerging from your data

Include
 It is not a literature review.
Keep your comments relevant
to your results.
 Interpret your results.
 Be concise and remove
unnecessary words.
 Do not include results not
presented in the result
section.
 Ensure your conclusions are
supported by your data.
√ State the study’s major
findings
√ Explain the meaning and
importance of the findings
√ Relate the findings to other
studies
√ Alternative explanations of
the findings
√ An explanation for any
surprising, unexpected, or
inconclusive results
√ Acknowledge the study’s
limitations
√ Make suggestions for further
research
 Overpresentation of the
results
 Unwarranted speculation
 Inflation of the importance of
the findings
 Tangential issues
 The “bully pulpit”
 Conclusions not supported by
your data
 New results or data not
presented previously in the
paper
 Inclusion of the “take-home
message”; save this for the
conclusions section
How to Write an Effective Discussion, Dean R Hess . [Respir Care 2004;49(10):1238–1241
https://www.enago.com/academy/discussion-conclusion-know-difference-drafting-manuscript/

SHOULD
 State what you set out to
achieve.
 Tell the reader what your
major findings were.
 How has your study
contributed to the field?
 Mention any limitations.
 End with
recommendations for
future research.
 Restate your hypothesis or
research question
 Restate your major findings
 Tell the reader what
contribution your study has
made to the existing
literature
 Highlight any limitations of
your study
 State future directions for
research/recommendations
 Introduce new arguments
 Introduce new data
 Fail to include your research
question
 Fail to state your major results

Example of a
good
conclusion

Display items (Tables & Figures)
• The quickest way to communicate large amounts of complex information.
• Many readers will only look at your display items without reading the main
text
• Display items are also important for attracting readers to your work.
• High-quality display items give your work a professional appearance.
• Readers will assume that a professional-looking manuscript contains good
quality science
• Which of your results to present as display items consider the following
questions:
• Are there any data that readers might rather see as a display item rather than text?
• Do your figures supplement the text and not just repeat what you have already stated?
• Have you put data into a table that could easily be explained in the text such as simple
statistics or p values?
https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/writing-a-journal-manuscript/figures-and-tables/10285530

Tables & figures
• What is wrong with this table?
Men Group 1 men group 2 Rats
Serum Protein
A
100 158 -
Blood glucose
(mmol/L)
102 160 154
Weight
(average)
138.8989 150.8 1.6588887
Activity level 0 5 8
Data on different responses

Tables
• Concise and effective way to present large amounts of data.
• Design them carefully to clearly communicate your results to busy
researchers.
Clear and concise legend/caption
Data divided into categories for clarity
Sufficient spacing between columns and rows
Units are provided
Font type and size are legible
Source: Environmental Earth Sciences (2009) 59:529–536

Figures (Images, Data plots, Schematics)
• Images:
• Include scale bars
• Consider labeling
important items
• Indicate the
meaning of
different colours
and symbols used
• Data plots
• Label all axes
• Specify units for
quantities
• Label all curves and
data sets
• Use a legible font
size

Figures
(Images, Data
plots,
Schematics)
Source: Borrego et al. Cancer & Metabolism 2016 4:9

Figures (schematics & maps)
In maps:
 Include
latitude and
longitude
 Include scale
bars
 Label
important
items
 Consider
adding a map
legendSource: Nano Research (2011) 4:284–289

Why do we need to cite ?
• To give credibility to statements made
• To give credit to other scientists whose findings are being cited
• For use by readers to find further information
• Establish where ideas came from
• Give evidence for claims
• Connect readers to other research
• Provide a context for your work
• Show that there is interest in this field of research
Smart P., Maisonneuve H. and Polderman A. (eds) Science Editors’ Handbook. European Association of Science Editors.
www.ease.org.uk

Reference Management Software (RMS)
• It is software for scholars and authors to use for recording and utilising
bibliographic citations (references).
• These software packages normally consist of a database in which full
bibliographic references can be entered.
• It can usually be integrated with word processors so that a reference list
in the appropriate format is produced automatically
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_management_software

RMS: What they do?
1. Import citations from bibliographic databases and websites
2. Allow organization of citations within the RM database
3. Allow annotation of citations
4. Allow sharing of the RM database with colleagues
5. Allow data interchange with other RMS through standard metadata
formats (e.g., RIS, BibTeX)
6. Produce formatted citations in a variety of styles
7. Work with word processing software to facilitate in-text citation
Source: (http://www.istl.org/11-summer/refereed2.html)

Examples of RMs
Reference Management Software
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_management_software)
Open source Retail Web-based
•BibDesk
•Docear
•Ilibrarian
•JabRef
•KBibTeX
•Pybliographer
•Referencer
•Wikindx
•Zotero
• Biblioscape
• Bookends
• Citavi
• Papers
• Qiqqa
• Sente
•BibSonomy
•Qiqqa
•Wikindx
•WizFolio
•Zotero

1. Install your RM of choice
2.Do your online search
3. Build a new database
4.Transfer the reference from the web to your
database
5.Use the references you imported in your document

What are Author’s Instructions?
• All journals have certain requirements for publication in them
• These requirements are detailed in the ‘Author’s Instructions’
• They are important because:
• Facilitates the acceptance of your submission
• Editors can/will refuse submissions not following the instructions
• They make life easier (or harder?) for the author
The good news: many journals have ready-to-use templates.

What’s usually included in the ?
• Scope and editorial policy
• Scope (areas of interest/focus), and types of submissions
• Ethical considerations:
• Ethical approval, Informed consent, authorship, conflict of interests
• Formatting:
• Font, Spacing, Numbers’ format
• Referencing style:
• Vancouver, Harvard, MLA,APA,
• There are templates in the main Reference Management Software (e.g. Endnote, Reference
Manager, etc.)
• Formatting guidelines
• Graphs and diagrams, accepted file types, photographic and scanned images, maps, etc.
Usually required to follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals
(International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE).

What’s usually included in the ?
• Reporting of specific types of studies
Reporting format Usage and guidance
reports of randomized trials (http://www.consort-statement.org)
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials
(http://www.consort-statement.org/Evidence/evidence.html)
reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (http://www.strobe-
statement.org)
meta-analysis of observational studies
(http://www.consortstatement.org/News/news.html#moose)
for studies of diagnostic accuracy (http://www.consort-
statement.org/stardstatement.htm )
reports of non-randomized evaluations of interventions
(http://www.trend-statement.org/asp/trend.asp)

Publication Ethics
Ethical considerations in scientific publications
- Authorship and authors' responsibilities
- Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism

Who is an ?
• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the
work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for
the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important
intellectual content; AND
• review manuscript drafts and approve the final version to be
published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
• An author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual
contribution
• All authors should One author should take primary responsibility
for the whole work
• Authors should describe each author’s contributions and how
order was assigned to help readers interpret roles correctly
• The funding and provision of technical services, patients,
materials alone are not sufficient
ICMJE Guidelines | Harvard Medical School

Unethical forms of authorship
Authorship
misconduct
Definition
Ghost
Authors who contributed to the work but are not listed, generally to hide a conflict of
interest from editors, reviewers, and readers.
An author is paid to write an article but does not contribute to the article in any other way.
Guest
Individuals given authorship credit who have not contributed in any substantive way to the
research but are added to the author list by virtue of their stature in the organization.
Orphan
Authors who contributed materially to the work but are omitted from the author list
unfairly by the drafting team.
Forged/Gift
Unwitting authors who had no part in the work but whose names are appended to the
paper without their knowledge to increase the likelihood of publication.
https://www.internationalscienceediting.com/authorship/

How to
authorship ?
• Talk early and often about authorship
and authorship order for each
project’s manuscript(s)
• When gathering input about
contributions, ask everyone to put in
writing
• Create a culture of transparency and
collaboration and revisit the issue of
specific authorship periodically
• If a disagreement arises, make every
effort to resolve the dispute locally Harvard Medical School

Research Misconduct (FFP)
Definition: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting
them.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes,
results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
• Research misconduct includes the destruction of, absence of, or
accused person's failure to provide research records accurately
documenting the questioned research.

Research Misconduct (FFP) – Wrongful Acts
Definition or research Misconduct:
is significant misbehaviour that improperly appropriates the intellectual property or
contributions of others, that intentionally impedes the progress of research, or that
risks corrupting the scientific record or compromising the integrity of scientific
practices. (US Commission on Research Integrity (1996) )
A wrongful act is defined as any act that may subvert the integrity of the review
process which includes, but not limited to the following:
• Submitting a fraudulent application, offering or promising a bribe or illegal
gratuity, or making an untrue statement.
• Submitting data that are otherwise unreliable due to, for example, a pattern of
errors, whether caused by incompetence, negligence, or a system-wide failure to
ensure the integrity of data submissions.

Other forms of
scientific misconduct
• Undeclared redundant publication or
submission
• Disputes over authorship
• Failure to obtain informed consent
• Performing unethical research
• Failure to gain approval from an ethics
committee

Definition of Plagiarism
• … plagiarism to include both the theft or
misappropriation of intellectual property (IP) and the
substantial unattributed textual copying of another's
work.
• … the unattributed copying of sentences and
paragraphs which materially mislead the ordinary
reader regarding the contributions of the author.
• The theft or misappropriation of IP includes the
unauthorized use of ideas or unique methods
obtained by a privileged communication, such as a
grant or manuscript review.
Office of Research Integrity (ORI)’s

Why care about the
choice of the journal?
Your thoughts?

Getting your research and
work to be published
The journal publishing process
Writing a paper
Ten rules for success

Deciding whether to publish
• Why publish?
• to add knowledge to your field
• to advance your career
• to see your name in print!
• It is my job as researcher
• For my promotion
• Have I got something worth publishing?
• Does the work add enough to existing knowledge?

Deciding where to publish
• Conference proceedings, book chapters and
journals
• 26,000 journals – how to choose?
• Different strategies
• topic and journal coverage (check website)
• Is it peer-reviewed?
• Most appropriate readership
• Length of time from submission to publication
• Highest ‘impact’
• Journal impact factors

How to
choose the
right journal?
Oxford Handbook of Clinical and Healthcare Research

What are the Scholarly Metrics?
• Scholarly metrics are away for the impact of an article, author, or
journal to be measured quantitatively.
https://www.lib.uwo.ca/files/scholarship/6-imtg-understanding_scholarly_metrics-final_en_0WL.pdf
Metric Definition
the impact factor represents the average number of
citations per article the journal received during the previous two years
Journals with high impact factors–where there are a high average number
of citations is considered to have greater impact and importance in that
field of study
focuses specifically on the individual researcher, quantifying the output
and impact of his or her work.
the calculation is cumulative and based on the distribution of citations
across the number of publications of an individual researcher.

What are impact factors?
• An impact factor attempts to provide a measure of
how frequently papers published in a journal are
cited in the scientific literature.
• Calculated as the average number of times an article
published in the journal in previous 2 years has been cited in
all scientific literature in the current year.
• So, if there were an average of 1000 citations in 2018 for 100
articles published in a journal in 2016 and 2017, the impact
factor would be 10.
• Most journals have impact factors that are below 2.
• e.g. Nature = 34,07, J. Applied Ecology = 4.5,
• Saudi annals 0.8

• Developed by Eugene Garfield in the 1950s
• Reflects average of number of citations to recent articles published in journals JCR tracks
• Proxy measure for importance of journal in the field
• Impact Factor
• Current and 5-year IFs
• Immediacy Index ( the journal it is cited for only one ans same year )
• Cites in 2012 to items published in 2012
Impact Factors and Immediacy
Formula
A = the number of times that articles published in that journal in
2006 and 2007, were cited by articles in indexed journals during
2008.
B = the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in
2006 and 2007.
2008 impact factor = A/B.

• Important notes
Any journal with an
impact factor is a good
journal.
• Social science journals
rank lower in impact
than science journals.
The higher the IF, the
more valued the journal.
Impact Factors
Of the 67 journals ranked in Health
Policy & Services, the top ranked
journal is Milbank Quarterly at 4.644,
the lowest is Sciences Sociales Et
Sante at 0.176.

What editors look for in a
manuscript
• Quality
• good science: well planned, well executed study
• good presentation
• Significance and originality
• Consistent with scope of journal
• Demonstrated broad interest to readership
• Will it cite?
• Well written ‘story’
• Author enthusiasm

Writing the paper: key points
• Strong Introduction
• Engage the reader
• Set the scene, explain why the work is important, and
state the aim of the study
• Clear, logically organised, complete Methods
• Provide enough information to allow assessment of
results (could someone else repeat the study?)
• Results
• Be clear and concise; avoid repetition between text,
tables and figures
• Relevant Discussion
• Start strongly – were aims achieved?
• Discuss significance and implications of results

Attracting the editor/reader
• There are lots of opportunities for rejection!
• Remember: your paper is competing with many others for the
attention of editors and readers
• Title
• Brief, interesting and accurate
• Abstract
• Attract readers to your paper
• Aim for 4 sections: why, how, what and implications
• Include important keywords for searching
• Make it clear and easy to read

The IMRAD Format
for Scientific Papers
• Introduction: What was the question?
• Methods: How did you try to answer it?
• Results: What did you find?
• And
• Discussion: What does it mean?

A More Complete View
• (Title)
• (Authors)
• (Abstract)
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• (Acknowledgments)
• (References)

Before you submit
 Internal review
• Ask your peers to read it to get an alternative perspective
• Ask someone outside your field to read it
• Read the Notice to Authors
• Follow format and submission instructions
• Write a covering letter to the editor
• Should clearly explain (but not overstate) the scientific advance
• Submit with the consent of all authors and to only one journal

Submitting the Paper
• Traditional submission (by mail)—now rare
• Electronic submission
• Commonly via online submission system
• Sometimes as e-mail attachment
• Inclusion of a cover letter (conventional or electronic)
• Completion of required forms

Journal publishing process
Submission Refereeing
Reject
Revision Acceptance Publication
More revision
Reject Reject
Reject

Peer Review
• Evaluation by experts in the field
• Purposes:
• To help the editor decide whether to publish the paper
• To help the authors improve the paper, whether or not the journal accepts
it

The Editor’s Decision
• Based on the peer reviewers’ advice, the editor’s own evaluation,
the amount of space in the journal, other factors
• Options:
• Accept as is (rare)
• Accept if suitably revised
• Reconsider if revised
• Reject

Revising a Paper
• Revise and resubmit promptly.
• Indicate what revisions were made.
• Include a letter saying what revisions were made. If you received a list of
requested revisions, address each in the letter.
• If requested, show revisions in Track Changes.
• If you disagree with a requested revision, explain why in your
letter. Try to find a different way to solve the problem that the
editor or reviewer noted.

Understanding reviews: what makes a good
review
• Good reviews provide the editor with the information on which a
decision can be based
• The best are articulate and constructive
• They tell the editor:
• What is interesting about the paper ?
• How the results are significant?
• What contribution the paper makes to the field ?
• What can be done to improve the paper ?
• If the paper is not publishable and why

Detailed comments in the review
•A good review answers the following
questions and provides suggestions for
improvement:
• Does the introduction explain why the
work was done and the hypothesis being
tested ?
• Is the experimental/study design
appropriate?
• Are the methods clearly described to
enable full assessment of the results ?
• Is the analysis appropriate ?

Detailed comments in the review
• A good review answers the following questions
and provides suggestions for improvement:
• Are the results presented effectively ?
• Is the work discussed in the context of all relevant
literature ?
• Does the discussion make clear the significance and
wider implications of the work ?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

Responding to referees’ reports
• Read the editor’s letter first for instruction
• Take a deep breath: proceed to the reports
• Put them aside for a day, or two, a week…
• Re-read reports and discuss with coauthors …
• Revise paper and prepare response document
• Remember –
• Even comments that seem aggressive or ignorant can be helpful
• Always view this as a chance to improve the paper

Good response to referees’ reports are ….
• Well organised
• Address common themes at start
• Use a ‘quote and response’ OR numbering system of points raised by each
referee
• Informative
• Provide full explanations
• Do not overlook or ignore any points
• Assertive (and polite)

• Questions going through the editor’s mind:
• How good is the science in this paper?
• Is an important issue/area of study being addressed?
• Is the experimental design appropriate and adequate?
• Are the analyses appropriate and competently done?
• Has the study been put in context?
• Does the paper contribute significantly to the literature?
• Does the paper tell an interesting story?
• Will it be read and cited?
The decision:
accept, re-review, reject

The decision
• Remember –
• The editor will make a final decision based on how well the
referees’ reports have been dealt with, so …
• Revise with care
• Respond fully to each of the referees’ comments
• Present cogent and complete arguments if you have not followed a
referee’s recommendation
• Make the editor’s job as easy as possible!

Summary
•Writing for successful publication
means
• having a well designed, original study to write about
• selecting an appropriate outlet/journal
• knowing what you want to write
• writing clearly
• making the story interesting
• highlighting the significance of the results
• responding carefully and positively to referees’ reports

Ten rules for getting published (1)
1. Read many papers, and learn from both the
good and the bad ones.
2. The more objective you can be about your work,
the better the work will ultimately become.
3. Good editors and reviewers will be objective
about your work.
4. If you do not write well in the English language,
take lessons early; it will be invaluable later.
5. Learn to live with rejection.

Ten rules for getting published (2)
6. Understand what makes good science and what makes good
science writing: be objective about them.
7. Start writing the paper the day you have the idea of what
questions to pursue
8. Become a reviewer early in your career.
9. Decide early on where to try to publish your paper.
10. Quality (not quantity) is everything.

Further information
• Getting your work published (Podcast)
• http://www.jobs.ac.uk/careers/whitepapers/640/Getting_your_academic_
work_published
• PLOS Computational Biology – ‘Ten simple rules for getting
published’
• http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-
document&doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057&ct=1
• ‘How to get published in LIS journals: a practical guide’
• http://www.elsevier.com/framework_librarians/LibraryConnect/lcpamphlet
2.pdf

Understanding peer review
process

Henry Oldenberg (1619-1677)
• A German Natural Philosopher
• A founding Member of the Royal society in
1660
• Founder Editor of:
Philosophical Transaction of Royal Society

Peer reviewed
Scholarly Journal articles
Books
Thesis
Grey Publication
Website
Daily news papers
None documented anecdotes opinions
Videos, films, presentations, word of the
mouth etc.

The importance of PR
• It is a cornerstone of contemporary science
and current medicine
• It is mainly relying on expert opinion
• It is objective review
• It is ensure the quality of the papers they
publish.
• It is usually done by group of volunteers yet
they are experts

PR Stake holders
Journal staff – oversees the receipt of manuscripts, manages communications
with authors and reviewers and processes accepted manuscripts for publication
Scientific editors - make the final decision as to whether a specific manuscript
will be accepted for publication, returned for revisions, or rejected
Members of the editorial board – read and review papers, select reviewers and
monitor quality of reviews, and recommend actions to editor
Reviewers – provide reviews of manuscripts, make recommendations concerning
publication

What is expected of your peer
• Expertise in one or more areas of paper
• Objectivity
• No conflicts of interest
• Good judgment
• Able to think clearly and logically
• Able to write a good critique
• Accurate
• Readable
• Helpful to editors and authors
• Reliable in returning reviews
• Able to do the review in the allotted time frame

Done by experts
Rate your work among other peers
Example: Grants writing or call for
paper
Done by experts
Insure the highest quality for the
final manuscript
Insure the availability of enough data
for reproducibility of the results
Merits Review
Versus
Peer Review

• Which journal should you publish in? (covered by Prof. Alkabba)
• How can you ensure you have the best chance of being accepted?
• Do you really need to bother with a cover letter?
• How do you respond to reviewers?

Aim at the !
• Journal editors:
• evaluate all submitted manuscripts,
• select those which they consider to be suitable for the journal,
• send for peer review, and
• consider peer reviewers’ advice to make a final decision about
what gets published.
• When first faced with a manuscript they usually look at the
cover letter, abstract, conclusion and references.
• Journal editors want to publish good quality science that is
of interest to their readers.
Submission is more likely to be accepted if it:
• Is within the scope of the journal
• Is novel and describes research that advances the field
• Adds to an active research field
• Is carefully prepared and formatted
• Uses clear and concise language
• Follows ethical standards
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

Why do papers?
Technical reasons
• Incomplete data such as too small a sample size
or missing or poor controls
• Poor analysis such as using inappropriate
statistical tests
• Inappropriate methodology for answering your
hypothesis or using old methodology that has
been surpassed
• Hypothesis is not clear or scientifically valid, or
your data does not answer the question posed
• Inaccurate conclusions on assumptions that are
not supported by your data
• Editorial reasons
• Out of scope for the journal
• Not enough of an advance or of enough impact for the
journal
• Research ethics ignored (e.g. IRB approval of consent)
• Lack of proper structure or not following journal
formatting requirements
• Lack of the necessary detail for readers to fully
understand and repeat the authors’ analysis and
experiments
• Lack of up-to-date references or references containing
a high proportion of self-citations
• Poor language quality (hardly understood by readers)
• Difficult to follow logic or poorly presented data.
• Violation of publication ethics
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC
How to avoid them?

Document Details
Title page
Title
Authors—names, affiliations, addresses
Corresponding author’s contact details
Author roles
Conflict of interest statement
Funding sources if applicable
Manuscript
If the review is anonymous remember to include the manuscript title
The abstract should be at the start of the manuscript
Page numbers are essential
Line numbering may be useful
Tables Numbered and titled—tables should stand alone
Figures Numbered and titled—figures should stand alone
Covering letter
Addressed to the editor in chief
State the importance of the study without hyperbole.
Confirm that the work is original and not under consideration by another journal
Completed
copyright form
Table 27.5 example separate documents required for manuscript submission
Oxford Handbook of Clinical and Healthcare Research

The Title Page
The title page should contain the following contents:
• Main title and subtitle (if any).
• Authors (First Name, Middle Name, Family Name), listed in the order
in which they are to appear on the page of the published article.
• Highest qualification for each author.
• Institutional affiliation for each author.
• Financial support information.
• Short or ‘running’ title. Length should not exceed 58 characters.
• Name, address, number(s), and email address of the corresponding
author.

What is a Cover Letter?
• A letter you send to the editor to
‘sell’ your article along your
submission
• Your chance to introduce your
work to the editor AND explain
why the manuscript will be of
interest to a journal's readers.
• Make it persuasive!
• Is this a good letter?
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
I am sending you our manuscript
entitled “Large Scale Analysis of Cell
Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer” by
Researcher et al. We would like to have
the manuscript considered for
publication in Pathobiology.
Please let me know of your decision at
your earliest convenience.
With my best regards,
Sincerely yours,
A Researcher, PhD

What to include in the Cover Letter?
Where (in the letter)? What?
Beginning If known, address the editor who will be assessing your manuscript by their name.
Include the date of submission and the journal you are submitting to.
First paragraph: Include the title of your manuscript and its type of manuscript (e.g. review, research,
case study). Then briefly explain the background to your study, the question you sought
out to answer and why.
Second paragraph: Concisely explain what was done, the main findings and why they are significant.
Third paragraph: Indicate why the readers of the journal would be interested in the work, i.e. the
importance of the results to the field. Take your cues from the journal’s aims and scope,
Conclude State the corresponding author and any journal specific requirements that need to be
complied with (e.g. ethical standards).
Must include!
Cliché sentences
“We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under
consideration by another journal.
All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the
name of the target journal].”

What do reviewers assess in your article?
Do they clearly identify the need for this research, and its relevance?
Does it target the main question(s) appropriately?
Are they presented clearly and logically, and are they justified by the data
provided? Are the figures clear and fully described?
Does it justifiably respond to the main questions posed by the author(s) in
the Introduction?
Are they up-to-date and relevant?
Is it clear, correct and easy to read?

What to expect in a reviewer's response?
• Introduction: Mirror the article, state your expertise and whether
the paper is publishable, or whether there are fatal flaws;
• Major flaws;
• Minor flaws;
• Other, lesser suggestions and final comments.

How to respond to reviewers/editor?
• “Sleep on it” before starting to write your rebuttal. Take Your Time!
• Carefully read the accompanying letter
• Read the reviewers' comments again carefully and check the issues
raised by the reviewer
• Carefully discuss the comments – one by one
• The better you structure this, the easier it is for the editor and
reviewers to see what you have done.

Outline/framework for responding to editor
• Include a heading for every page with “Reply to the comments on
manuscript [title of your manuscript] [manuscript ID number]” and
“[your name] et al.”
• Write an introduction to your response to the comments and summarise
major changes you have made, and include this with this response or use
it for a separate cover letter for the Editor. Do not forget to thank the
editor and reviewers for their efforts.
• Organise the comments/questions from the editor and each reviewer
and your response, for example, as follows.
• 1) Comment 1.1. (for comment 1 from reviewer 1) followed by a copy–paste of the
comment or question, or a short summary of the point raised. If the reviewer's
comments are not numbered, split the review into individual comments. You can
use italics to highlight the comments from the reviewer.
• 2) Reply 1.1. (the reply to comment 1 from reviewer 1). This is why this is often
called a point-by-point reply to the comments.

Some ground rules for the content of your reply (1)
• Discuss the comments in detail in advance with your co-authors.
• Carefully read the requirements from the journal for submitting a revised
version (e.g. marked-up version).
• Realise that the reviewer has taken time to evaluate your manuscript and
aims to help you to improve it (although it may sometimes appear
otherwise).
• Be polite to the reviewer and editor, and do not be dismissive of their
comments.
• Always be very specific in your response and address all points raised
• an editorial comment or spelling error, you can answer “This has now been
amended”, “We agree” or “We apologise for this omission”.
• If more than one reviewer has raised the same point, refer to this (“this point has
been addressed in the reply to comment x of reviewer y”).

• Consider including additional information, data or figures for the
reviewer that were not included in the manuscript if it helps you to make
your point.
• If you cannot address a point raised by the reviewer, explain why. If you feel that
a certain comment is outside the scope of your study, please explain this.
• If you disagree with the reviewer (yes, this may happen) and/or think that an
additional experiment or analysis is not needed, explain why.
• Carefully consider also mentioning this in the Discussion, for example, in
the paragraph with limitations, since readers may share the reviewer's
opinion.
• Never claim to have made changes if you have not done so.

• If you have been asked to shorten some part of your manuscript, do so.
• Always indicate where you have made a change in your manuscript in
response to the question/comments: “This is now addressed in the
Discussion section of the revised manuscript on page x, line y.” If
appropriate, cite relevant references in your reply.
• Address your response and not to the Reviewers.
• You should write for instancto the Editor e “We agree with the reviewer
…”rather than “We agree with you”. Always refer to the reviewer in third
person.

Sample of response cover letter
Tuesday, May 12, 2019
Dear Mr. Jones,
Editor of BMC Medical Ethics
Re: Second Revision of the Manuscript reference No. METH-D-18-00176
It is our pleasure indeed to know that you consider our revised manuscript is potentially
acceptable for publication. Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript “Mention
of ethical review and informed consent in the reports of research undertaken during the
armed conflict in Darfur (2004-2012): a systematic review”, which we would like to resubmit
an updated and revised final version for publication in BMC Medical Ethics.
Please find, in the following pages, our point-by-point responses to each of the editorial
comments and those of the reviewers.
Revisions in the text are shown in details below with clear reference to where these changes
have taken place in the modified version of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions in the
manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript
suitable for publication in BMC Medical Ethics.
We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the authors
Ghaiath Hussein, PhD
Address: Slaman Farsi Rd., Khaleej Distr., Riyadh 7839-13224 , Saudi Arabia
Cell: +966-565565810
E-mail: ghaiathme@gmail.com
Editor Comments:
1. Please provide a list of all the abbreviations used in the manuscript. This list should be placed
just before the Declarations section. All abbreviations should still be defined in the text at first
use.
Response:
A list of abbreviations was added just before the Declarations section.
2. Please include a statement in the Authors' contributions section to the effect that all authors
have read and approved the manuscript, and ensure that this is the case.
Response:
The required statement is added.
3. Please ensure that the titles of each separate Table file are correct and that they are in
sequential order.
Response:
The tables were revised. This led to renaming adding the missing Table 4
4. At this stage, we ask that you submit a clean version of your manuscript and do not include
track changes or highlighting.
Response:
This will be done along the submission of the final version.
Reviewer reports:
1. Raffaella Ravinetto, PharmD, PhD (Reviewer 2): Thanks for a comprehensive and
accurate reply to our previous comments.
Concerning my previous remark that "Mortality and nutritional surveys may be primarily
undertaken for different purposes than research, e.g. exploratory assessments to further
plan field intervention, M&E of field intervention. When not conducted for a primary
research purposes, they still need to comply with essential ethical issues such as
consent, protection of privacy and confidentiality, etc. (by the way, is it possible that many
of the CRED studies belonged to the category?)", I wish to clarify that this was a
reflection on the fact that this kind of activity "should" comply with ethics requirements in
any case (even if not used for research). This was not at all an assumption that all
surveys "will" by default comply with ethics requirements.
Response:
We have added the following statement at the end of the “Possibility One”, which reads as:
“Moreover, it would be expected than even when these surveys are not done primarily for
research purposes may not need ethical approval; yet they would have complied with an
essential ethical requirement such as consent.”
2. Concerning the issue of pre-approved protocol, I wish to reiterate that for the MSF ERB
the pre-review of generic protocols still requires ethics approval of the final,
contextualized protocol, thus the relevant paper should still have mention of ethical
approval.
Response:
Under “Possibility Four”, we have added the following statement: “Moreover, the MSF ERB still
requires the ethical approval of the final protocols that used pre-reviewed generic
protocols. Thus, the studies under this category should have mention of ethical approval.”

The following section and all the slides therein are taken from www.mendeley.com

What is Mendeley
Organize your documents + references
Collaborate by joining + creating groups
Discover statistics + recommendations
Stay up to date + learn more
Store your data
Manage your career

Desktop Web
Mobile
Academic Software
Cross-Platform (Win/Mac/Linux/Mobile)
All Major Browsers

Adding Documents
Select a file or folder to
add from your computer
Watch a folder
Add reference by
manually entering
details
Import from another reference
manager, or BibTeX

Document Details Lookup
Enter the DOI, PubMed
or ArXiv ID and click on
the magnifying glass to
start lookup

Finding New Research
Mendeley Web Importer Mendeley Research Catalog

Organize
Managing Your Library

Manage Your Library
Use column
headings
to order your
references
Mark entries
read or unread
Entries with
attached PDFs
can be opened
with the PDF
Reader
Star items to
mark them as
favorites
All items in
your personal
library
Items added
in the last two
weeks
Access your
recently read
items
All items you’ve
starred in your
library
Items in need
of review

Create and Use Folders
References not added to a folder
will appear in ‘unsorted’
Your folders will be listed below.
Drag and drop to re-order them.
Use ‘Create Folder’ to enter a
new folder name.

Search Your Documents
Enter your search term
in the search field
The main view will be
filtered accordingly
Click on a specific folder
to search within it
Use the clear button to
remove the search filter
Mendeley’s search tool
will look at reference
metadata, but will also
search within the full text
of PDF papers.

Search Your Documents
Add tags to papers in your
library which share a common
theme
Use the Filter Menu to filter
your library view to only include
tagged items
You can also filter by Author,
Author Keywords and
Publication

PDF Viewer
Highlight and Annotate Documents

Read and work in the PDF Viewer

Cite
Using the Mendeley Citation Plug-In

The Citation Tool Bar Appears in Word Automatically
Windows
Mac

Generate In-Text Citations in Word

Collaborate
Join and Create Groups to Share References

Create Groups
See the groups
you created, joined
or follow.
Add documents to
a group by
dragging and
dropping.

Private Groups
Collaborate with Your Research Team
Share full-text
documents with
members of your
private group
Share highlights
and annotations
Each group member is assigned a different color for highlighting

Create your research profile
Connect with
colleagues
and join new
communities
Share your work
with other
researchers
Promote your
work and interests
to a global
audience
Receive personal
stats on how your
work is used

Showcase Your Publications
1. Add your own publications
2. Mendeley adds the PDFs to the
public database
3. Showcase them on your profile

Discover
New Research, Recommendations, and Impact

Literature Search
Search the
catalogue
If the full text is
available, you’ll
see a download
icon:
Save new
research to
your library
with one click

Search the Catalog Online
Conduct advanced searches or
browse by discipline
Find new research based on
what is popular or the most
recently added

Quickly Add New Research
If the article is freely
available, it’s a one-click
addition to your library
Or use Open URL to
locate the full text

Get Statistics
Social statistics help you
learn about others using
this paper

Related Documents
1. Select two or more articles
2. Click ‘Related Documents’
3. Receive customized recommendations

Resources
http://community.mendeley.com/guides

How to publish your research? Workshop at NAAFH

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to How to publish your research? Workshop at NAAFH

Similar to How to publish your research? Workshop at NAAFH (20)

More from Dr Ghaiath Hussein

More from Dr Ghaiath Hussein (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How to publish your research? Workshop at NAAFH