More Related Content Similar to Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013) (20) Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)2. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Writing for publication
Workshop
By
Tobias Freund, Greg Irving, Harris Lygidakis (VdGM)
&
Jelle Stoffers (EJGP/EGPRN)
3. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Introduction
• Welcome
• Who are we?
• Who are you?
• Why are you here?
• Content of this workshop:
– Suggestions to improve your writing and to enhance the
chance of acceptance of your paper
– Understanding of what happens at the Editor’s desk (and
why)
4. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Start
• Who has ever submitted a manuscript to a
medical journal?
• And published?
• Who more than 5 papers?
• Then, let’s start at A or B
5. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
A Let’s start here and now:
Presentations
• What do you want to get out of this
conference? To take home?
• What do you consider a ‘good’ presentation?
• And a ‘bad’ one?
6. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Papers
• Compare ‘papers’ with ‘presentations’:
– What is similar?
– What is different?
• What do you consider a ‘good’ paper (when
do you tell your colleagues about it?)
• And what do you consider a ‘bad’ one?
8. B … or start here:
Writing … Why? Why by YOU?
• …
• …
• …
• …
• …
• To become famous
– http://publicationethics.org
– http://www.icmje.org/index.html
©Jelle Stoffers 2013
9. What do you find difficult in writing
(to be published)?
• …
• …
• …
©Jelle Stoffers 2013
10. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Editors
• Editors = ‘(pre-)readers ’
• Editors = experienced authors
• Editors = peers
• ‘PEER REVIEW’
content
presentation,structure
Is it clear?
yes no
Does it matter?
yes
no
Is it new?
yes
no
Is it true?
yes
no
11. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Editor and Author
(Editor versus Author?)
• Collaboration (from both sides)
– Responsibility
– Respect
• Specific context:
– ‘Scope’ of the journal content
• ‘Universal’ rules presentation, structure
– ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Biomedical Journals’
– International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
(ICMJE, former ‘Vancouver’ group)
12. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Editorial decisions
• Author Editor Author:
– ‘No!’: immediate rejection
– ‘No, you first should …’: reject and resubmit
– ‘Yes!’: immediate acceptance
• Au Ed Reviewer(s) Ed Au:
– Yes!: acceptance
– ‘Yes, but …’: minor revision
– ‘Maybe’: major revision
– (‘No, you first should ’: reject and resubmit)
– ‘No!’: rejection
13. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Typical STRUCTURE of a (research) manuscript
• Title page incl. Authors and affiliations
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• References
• Tables and Figures
• Acknowledgements
• Conflict of Interest
• Covering letter
14. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Shall we discuss the following elements?
• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
– Tables and Figures
• Discussion
• References
• Authors and affiliations
• Conflict of Interest
• Acknowledgements
• Covering letter
15. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Let’s discuss the Introduction
(Why did you start?)
• What would you write in this section?
• Structure?
• What could be comments of reviewers/editors
on this section?
16. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Content/Structure of the Introduction
(Why did you start? Does it matter? Is it new?)
• State why the problem you address is
important
• State what is lacking in the current knowledge
• State the objectives of your study or the
research question
• Presentation: be concise!
17. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Common mistakes: Introduction
(Does it matter? Is it new? Is it clear? )
• The Introduction is an extensive review of the
literature
• The stated aim of the paper is
– tautological (e.g. ‘The aim of this paper is to
describe what we did’), or
– vague (e.g. ‘We explored issues related to X’)
• The research question is not specified
18. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Let’s discuss the Methods
(What did you do?)
• What would you write in this section?
• Structure?
• What could be comments of reviewers/editors
on this section?
19. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Content/Structure of the Methods
(What did you do?)
• Specify the study design
• Describe the context and setting of the study
• Describe the ‘population’ (patients, doctors, hospitals,
etc.)
• Describe the sampling/selection strategy
• Describe the intervention/procedure (if applicable)
• Describe data collection instruments and procedures
• Identify the main study variables
• Outline analysis methods
20. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Common mistakes: Methods
(What did you do? Is it clear?)
• Elements are missing
• Methods, interventions and instruments are
not described in sufficient detail
• No definitions of variables
• Statistics unclear
21. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Let’s discuss the Results, Tables and Figures
(What did you find?)
• What would you write in this section?
• Structure?
• What could be comments of reviewers/editors
on this section?
22. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Content/Structure: Results, Tables and Figures
(What did you find?)
• Report on data collection and recruitment
(response rates, etc.)
• Describe participants (demographic, clinical
condition, etc.)
• Present key findings with respect to the central
research question
• Present secondary findings (secondary outcomes,
subgroup analyses, etc.)
• Only highlight results in tables/figures in text
23. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Common mistakes: Results, Tables and Figures
(What did you find? Is it clear?)
• Results are reported selectively (e.g.
percentages without frequencies, P-values
without measures of effect)
• Detailed tables are provided for results that do
not relate to the main research question
• Table is not ‘self explanatory’
• The same results appear both in table and text
24. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Let’s discuss the Discussion
(What does it mean?)
• What would you write in this section?
• Structure?
• What could be comments of reviewers/editors
on this section?
25. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Content/Structure of the Discussion
(What does it mean?)
• State the main findings of the study
• Analyse the strengths and limitations of the study
• Discuss the main results with reference to
previous research
• Discuss policy or practice implications of the
results, and/or offer perspectives for future
research
• Formulate a conclusion
26. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Common mistakes: Discussion
(What does it mean? Is it true? Is it clear?)
• The Discussion is not structured
• The Discussion misses elements
• The Discussion does not provide an answer to
the research question (Conclusion)
• Limitations are not acknowledged
• The Discussion overstates the implications of
the results
27. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Other common mistakes
• References:
– In the Introduction and Discussion, key arguments
are not backed up by appropriate references
– References are out of date or cannot be accessed
by most readers
• ‘grey’ literature
• http://...
• www. …
28. Other common mistakes II
• General
– The structure of the paper is chaotic, e.g.
• Methods are described in the Results section
• No consistency
– The manuscript does not follow the journal’s
instructions for authors
– The paper much exceeds the maximum number of
words allowed
– The paper is written in poor English
©Jelle Stoffers 2013
30. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Other topics …
• Title
• Abstract
• References
• Authorship
– Authors and affiliations
– Conflict of Interest
– Acknowledgements
But also:
• Where/when do I begin?
• How to choose a journal?
• How to collaborate?
• Covering letter
• Open access
• Language
• Presentation
• How to deal with revisions?
31. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Other topics …
• Title
• Abstract
• References
• Authorship
– Authors and affiliations
– Conflict of Interest
– Acknowledgements
But also:
• Where/when do I begin?
• How to choose a journal?
• How to collaborate?
• Covering letter
• Open access
• Language
• Presentation
• How to deal with revisions?
32. How to find a journal?
SUGGESTED by Tobias.Freund@med.uni-heidelberg.de
• Text similarity engines offer opportunity to
find journal that fit your topic
– ETBlast http://etest.vbi.vt.edu/etblast3
– JANE http://www.biosemantics.org/jane
©Jelle Stoffers 2013
35. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Other topics …
• Title
• Abstract
• References
• Authorship
– Authors and affiliations
– Conflict of Interest
– Acknowledgements
But also:
• Where/when do I begin?
• How to choose a journal?
• How to collaborate?
• Covering letter
• Open access
• Language
• Presentation
• How to deal with revisions?
40. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
Guidance
• Ask experienced peers
• Journal’s Instructions for Authors
• www.Equator-network.org
• Editorial: T. V. Perneger and P. M. Hudelson
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2004;
Volume 16, Number 3: pp. 191–192
• Series on ‘Effective writing’ in J Clin Epidemiol
2013;66 359e360 and following issues
• http://publicationethics.org
• http://www.icmje.org/index.html