Department of Pulmonology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden University Medical Center Klaus F....

Department of PulmonologyLeiden University Medical Center

LeidenUniversityMedicalCenter

Klaus F. Rabe MD, PhD

Getting the Message Across in Print - How to write a Scientific Article -

Istanbul May 2010

The Joys of Publishing

Why is my supervisor putting so much emphasis on publishing our data?

Where does my paper fit into the scientific journals arena?

What should I check before writing the paper?

How do I actually start writing my paper? introduction methods results discussion...

How do I handle reviewer’s comments?

How to cope with rejection, and how to celebrate acceptance?

Why Such Emphasis on Publishing?

presents data

level of interactio

n

global access

chance of

citation

Poster ++ +++ + -

Oral + + - -

Article +++ - +++ +++

Who Will be My Customer, When Writing Things Up?

Clinicians Scientists

How do I know who else is doing really good work in

my field?

How do I stay

clinically up-to-date?

What do I Need to Consider Before Writing the Paper?

The data novel or confirmative? strengths and weaknesses no duplicate publication

The authors only those who have done work or writing statement of interest

The journal specialty or general? fast acceptance? open access?

http://content.nejm.org/current.shtml

Impact Factor for 2010

Total number of citations in all scientific journals

during 2010, of papers from journal X published

during 2008 and 2009

____________________________________

Total number of papers published in journal X

during 2008 and 2009

Impact Factors of Journals in Our Field

Respiratory 2005

Am J Respir Crit Care Med

8.69

Thorax 6.15

Chest 4.01

Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 3.99

Eur Respir J 3.95

Am J Physiol Lung 3.47

J Appl Physiol 3.04

Sarcoidois Vasc Dif 2.72

Resp Res 2.68

Respir Med 1.66

Pediatr Pulmonol 1.59

Pulm Pharmacol Ther 1.58

J Allergy Clin Immunol 7.67

Allergy

J Immunol 6.39

Allergy 4.12

Clin Exp Allergy 3.55

Impact Factors of General Medical Journals

Journal 2005

N Engl J Med 44.0

Science 30.9

Nature 29.3

Nature Med 28.9

Lancet 23.4

J Clin Invest 15.1

Plos Biology 14.7

Plos Medicine 8.39

Where do I get Information on (my) Citations and Impact

Factors?

http://portal.isiknowledge.com

Citations: Web of Science

Impact factors: Journal Citation Reports

http://portal.isiknowledge.com/

The Essentials: a Checklist

Title, authors, institute Abstract Background/rationale Hypothesis/question Aim Endpoints Subjects (in-excl) Design

Intervention Measurements Analysis (+ stat. power) Results Tables and figures Discussion Conclusion References

Title, authors, institute Abstract Background/rationale Hypothesis/question Aim Endpoints Subjects (in-excl) Design

Intervention Measurements Analysis (+ stat. power) Results Tables and figures Discussion Conclusion References

The Essentials: a Checklist

References

Tables and figures

Discussion

Results

Methods

Introduction

Abstract

RationaleHypothesis

Study-designMethods

Resultswith data

ConclusionImplication

ABSTRACT

Generalbackgroundabout thedisease

Thespecificdilemma

Why isthis still

unresolved?

My ideato resolve it:Sell it as the

obvious approach

Hypothesisor question

Aim

Introduction

The Introduction funnels from something known, to something unknown, to the question the paper is asking

The Introduction may end with the question or may go on to state the experimental approach used to answer the question

How to Write a Scientific ArticleThe Introduction


The Funnel:

A Known,

B. Unknown,

C. Question,

D. Experimental Approach

Function of the Introduction:

Establish the context of the work being reported. This is accomplished by discussing the relevant Primary research Literature (with citations) and summarizing the current understanding of the problem you are investigating.

State the purpose of the work in the form of the hypothesis, or problem you investigated

Briefly explain your Rationale and approach and, whenever possible, the possible outcomes your study can reveal.


Style of the Introduction:

Use the active voice as much as possible.

Some use of the first person is okay, do not overdo it.

Some journals prefer the first person not to be used


Begin your Introduction by clearly identifying the subject area of interest


Establish the context by providing a brief and balanced review of the pertinent published literature that is available on the subject


What literature should you look for in your review of what we know about the problem?


Be sure to clearly state the purpose and /or hypothesis that you investigated


Provide a clear statement of the rationale for your approach to the problem studied


How to Start Writing my Paragraphs?

Split the thinking from the writing!

Make a flow chart of paragraphs

Give each paragraph a single label a single message (5 words) a bridge to the next paragraph

Add the references to each paragraph

1. 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.

4. 4.

5. 5.

- GINA 2006GINA 2006- Busse NEJM 2001Busse NEJM 2001- Rabe JACI 2004Rabe JACI 2004

- Tattersfield AJRCCM 1999Tattersfield AJRCCM 1999- O’Byrne AJRCCM 2001O’Byrne AJRCCM 2001

- Friedlander JACI 2005Friedlander JACI 2005- Johnston BMJ 1995Johnston BMJ 1995- GrGrünberg AJRCCM 2001ünberg AJRCCM 2001- Wark J Exp Med 2005Wark J Exp Med 2005

- Alcami Immol Today 2002Alcami Immol Today 2002- Krenn J Virol 2005Krenn J Virol 2005- Turner Paediatric Ann 2005Turner Paediatric Ann 2005

HypothesisWe postulated......

Our aim was to test this in........Therefore, we did......

Anti-viralMessage: effective in animalsBridge: why not in asthma?

MechanismsMessage: viral, specific inflammation

Bridge: better targets?

ExacerbationsMessage: prevalent, hazard

Bridge: despite current therapy

AsthmaMessage: Chronic, requires regular therapy

Bridge: High medical burden

What do I Need to Consider Before Writing the Paper?

The data novel or confirmative? strengths and weaknesses no duplicate publication

The authors only those who have done work or writing statement of interest

The journal specialty or general? fast acceptance? open access?

Competing interest normal and healthy, daily human

experience objectives, wishes, desires

Scientific result

A result I like

Conflict of Interest: What is it?

Scientific result

A better result


Competing interest normal and healthy, hourly human


A better publication




Scientific result

Admiration




Scientific result

A better carreer




Scientific result

Conflict of Interest: For Whom?

Investigators

Authors

Institutes

Sponsors

Editors

Reviewers

Readers

Conflict of Interest: How Common is it?Investigators

0

10

20

30

40

Bekelman et al. JAMA 2003;289:454-465, Bhandari et al. Can Med Ass J 2004;170:477-480

%

Conflict of Interest: How Common is it?Study- and Institutional Level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Study funding Stocks/shares 6 months pubdelay

Denied accessto data

Bekelman et al. JAMA 2003;289:454-465, Stelfox et al. NEJM 1998;338:101-106

%

Conflict of Interest: Does it have Impact?Odds Ratio 3.60 (2.6-4.9)

Bekelman et al. JAMA 2003;289:454-465

What is Meant by Disclosure?

Personal academic links rivalry sympathy/antipathy

consulting advisory board speaking attending symposium stocks/shares

any links with tobaccoindustry

Institutional study funding partnerships stocks/shares

any ties with tobacco industry

Designwhatwhen

how often

Subjectsincl, excl

subgroupsethics

Measurementsparameters

unitsvalidity

Interventiondose

complianceadverse effects

Analysistransformations

stat testsstat power

Methods

Baseline(sub)groups

cross-sectionaltable 1

Main questionfigures / tables

data in textreadable

Secondaryquestions

idem

Unexpectedobservations

very short

Results

Red linemain result(s)

messageimplication

Comparison withearlier studies

what is differentwhat is new!

Weakness/strengthdesign/methodsbias, stat-power:

be honest

InterpretationMechanisms

what is solved?and what is not?

Clinicalinterpretation

medicalrelevance

Conclusionwith

ImplicationSuggestion

Discussion

How to Write a Scientific ArticleThe Discussion

The function of the Discussion is to interpret your results in light of what was already known about the subject of the investigation, and to explain our new understanding of the problem after taking your results into consideration

Fundamental questions to answer include:

1.) Do your results provide answers to your testable hypotheses? If so, how do you interpret your findings?

2.) Do your findings agree with what others have shown? If not, do they suggest an alternative explanation or perhaps a unforeseen design flaw in your experiment (or theirs?)


Fundamental questions to answer include:

3.) Given your conclusions, what is our new understanding of the problem you investigated and outlined in the Introduction?

4.) If warranted, what would be the next step in your study, e.g., what experiments would you do next?


Style:

Use the active voice whenever possible.

Watch out for wordy phrases; be concise and

make your points clearly.

Use of the first person is okay, but too much

use of the first person may actually be

distracting


Relate your work to the findings of other

studies, including previous studies you may

have done and those of other investigators


Strength and Weakness of the study:

Not a very popular part of the discussion…

BUT: Necessary to report and discuss what the

strengths and shortcomings of your study are


Conclusion(s):

The discussion should end up with one or more

conclusions.

Authors are sometimes very cautious:Our

findings suggest, or Our preliminary results

indicate that, etc. Always try to find a very

positive finding and state this clearly


References

Tables and figures

Discussion

Results

Methods

Introduction

Abstract

The Revision: Reviewer’s Comments

Take your reviewer seriously

Take your reviewer seriously

Make a point-by-point list of replies, with headings referring to the issue of concern

Be honest, concise, and accurate

Try to accommodate most points in the manuscript, and tell the reviewer where you did

Tell the editor if and why you could not comply with some of the reviewer’s requests

Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results

Follow Up of Applications Submitted to Two Institutional Review boards

Dickersin K et al., JAMA 1992;267:374-378

Significant Results (Yes, No)

Clinical Trial (Yes, No)

Sample Size (>100, <100)

External Funding (Yes, No)

Sites (>1, 1)

No. of Study Groups (>1, 1)

PI Sex (M, F)

PI Degree (MD, not MD)

PI Rank (Professor, not Professor)

MEDPH

0.1 0.5 1 10 20 30

Odds Ratio

…..Submitted manuscripts are more likely to be published if they have high methodological quality, RCT study design, desriptive or qualitative analytical methods, and disclosure of any funding source, and if the corresponding author lives in the same country as that of the publishing journal. Larger sample size may also increase the chance of acceptance……… MJA 2006; 184:621-626

BMJ – Lancet – Annals of Internal Medicine

MJA 2006; 184:621-626

Association Between Characteristics of Submitted Manuscripts and Publication

Multivariate Analysis

Your Paper: Rejected?

Don’t panic

It is not you, it is your paper

Journals make a positive selection rather than a negative one

Reconsider the best suitable journal

Do not copy-paste the paper to another journal

Revise your paper according to the reviewer’s suggestions

And the fun starts all over again

Your Paper: Accepted?

Shout it out!!

But after one night...., the joy is over

Don’t panic

Your keybord is waiting for the next one !

Department of Pulmonology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden University Medical Center Klaus F....

Documents

Transcript of Department of Pulmonology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden University Medical Center Klaus F....