© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Writing for publication

Workshop byHans Thulesius (SJPHC/EGPRN)

& Jelle Stoffers (EJGP/EGPRN)

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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)

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Start

• Who has ever submitted a manuscript to a medical journal?

• And published?

• Who more than 5 papers?

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Presentations: the audience

• What do you want to get out of this conference? To take home?

• What do you consider a ‘good’ presentation?

• And a ‘bad’ one?

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Presentations: the presenter

• What do you want to get out of this conference? What do you want to tell at home?

• When do you consider your presentation a success?

• And when do you feel dissatisfied?

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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?

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Journals

• What kind of journals/articles do you (like to) read?

• For what purpose do you read them?

• And why do you like them?

Writing … Why? Why by YOU?

• …

• …

• …

• …

• …

• To become famous; that’s okay, but:– publicationethics.org

– www.icmje.org/index.html

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

What do you find difficult in writing(to be published)?

• …

• …

• …

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Editors

• Editors = readers

• Editors = experienced authors

• Editors = peers

• ‘PEER REVIEW’

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Editors lead the ‘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

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Editor and Author(Editor versus Author?)

• Collaboration (from both sides)– Responsibility

– Respect

• ‘Universal’ rules presentation, structure– ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to

Biomedical Journals’

– International Committee of Medical Journal Editors(ICMJE, former ‘Vancouver’ group)

• Specific context:

– ‘Scope’ of the journal content

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Editorial decisions

• Author Editor Author: – ‘No!’: immediate rejection (you are ‘out’)

– ‘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 (you are ‘out’)

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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

Most important parts of a paper –ranked by science journalist and writing teacher

Tim Albert @ Tim Albert Training

TITLEABSTRACT

Last sentence(s) of Introduction

First paragraph of Discussion

Last paragraph of Discussion

Result highlights - TABLES

Method highlights© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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?

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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!

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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 presented

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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?

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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?

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Content/Structure: Results, Tables and Figures(What did you find?)

• Report on data collection and recruitment (response rates, etc.)

• Describe participants (demographic, clinicalcondition, 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

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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?

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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. …

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

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Summary: The four W’s

Why did you start?

What did you do?

What did you find?

What does it mean?

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Guidance

• Ask experienced peers

• Journal’s Instructions for Authors

• www.Equator-network.org

• http://publicationethics.org

• http://www.icmje.org/index.html

• Editorial by T. V. Perneger and P. M. Hudelson in Int J Qual Health Care (2004) 16 (3): 191-192

• Series on ‘Effective writing’ in J Clin Epidemiol2013;66 359e360 and following issues

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 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?#

• Covering letter ##

• Open access

• Language ###

• Presentation

• How to deal with revisions?• http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ejgp

Helena LiiraNational editor, Finland

Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care

How to write scientific English

Write an interesting title

Keep the structure clear

Write as short as possible

Title

• Think about the target audience = the editor and reviewers first

• Make the title interesting - but again checkthe journal’s style of titles

• Be concise and brief, use key words

• #

Structure

• Structure is easy in a scientific paper: - just checkInstructions to authors!

• Every journal has its rules: AND it is crucial to followthem!

Language

Short sentences are usually better than long

Use verbs with care

Avoid passive, instead use active voice whenpossible ”We found” instead of ”This studyshowed”

Be consistant regarding tense – past tensethroughout

Edit the English before submitting

Style

– Every journal has its style for Tables, References, you name it!

– Editors love manuscripts that followinstructions

Style

– Avoid long sentences, superlatives and more thanone adjective

– If you can choose between two words – one long and the other short – describing the same thing –use the short word!

First write – then edit and revise

• Don’t write, edit and revise at the same time

• To write an introduction should take no more thanhalf an hour!

• If you write, edit and revise at the same time you willsuffer writer’s block!

• Writing comes first

• Editing and revising comes later

Write, edit, revise…

writing takes a number of versions!

The Cover Letter

Getting the letter right – how to approach the editorial board

Hans Thulesius

SJPHC National Editor, Sweden

Outline

What a cover letter is

How to write it

A cover letter is

…the editors first encounter with your manuscript(ms).

…the place to state the novelty and importance ofyour findings and the reason why it merits publication.

…a chance to distinguish your ms from othersubmissions

…a sales pitch

… you want to sell your ms convincing the editorial board ofits fit to the journal and its readers

…move the ms status from ”rejected without review” to”sent out to review”

…possibly mentioning referenced articles from the journal you are submitting to (impact factor frenzy…)

How to write it:

In the first paragraph…

…include the title of your paper, the authors’ names and type of submission.

…state type of ms, using the journal’s own submission typenames. (Check Guidelines for Authors)

i.e “Original Article” or ”Short Report”.

If you are submitting more than one file, list each part of the submission; for example, “There are three files in all: the main

manuscript file, a Figures file (containing 4 figures) and a Tables file(containing 2 tables).”

make a good firstimpression…

…write a short, concise and convincing letter preparingeditors to read your work.

…specify name and title of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, and the journal’s name

…avoid long descriptions

…summarize findings, their relevance and application in ONE paragraph

therefore…

• …write carefully the paragraph summarizing findings, theirrelevance and application

…avoid numbers and statistics

…English should be good, preferably error-free

don’t hesitate to…

…make bolder claims than in the ms

…highlight important results and conclusions

…mention if your ms builds on articles published in that journal

don’t forget the formalities

”Previously unpublished, original research”

”Not considered for publication elsewhere”

”No conflicts of interest”

How to find a journal? SUGGESTED by Tobias.Freund@med.uni-heidelberg.de

• Text similarity engines offer opportunity tofind journals that fit your topic

– ETBlast http://etest.vbi.vt.edu/etblast3

– JANE http://www.biosemantics.org/jane

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

Journals likely to publish your paper…

…to be screened!! *

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

© Stoffers & Thulesius, Oct. 2013

AUTHORS/REVIEWERS:

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ejgp

READERS/USERS:

http://informahealthcare.com/gen

Ejgp-jstoffers@maastrichtuniversity.nl

AUTHORS/REVIEWERS:

http://www.manuscriptmanager.com/sjphc/

READERS/USERS:

Sjphc.org or

http://informahealthcare.com/toc/pri/31/3

hansthulesius@gmail.com