getting your research published
TRANSCRIPT
1. The manuscript2. Submitting your paper3. The editorial process4. Dealing with peer review5. Questions and answers
Getting your research published
Why publish?
Why publish? Update the scientific community Improve patient care / clinical practice Enhance reputation Career advancement Improved funding opportunity Ethical responsibility to publish Essential for PhD Continuing professional development Enhance AHPs standing
Why publish? Update the scientific community Improve patient care / clinical practice Career advancement Enhance reputation Improved funding opportunity Enhance the profession Ethical responsibility to publish Essential for PhD Continuing professional development
What to publish Systematic reviews meta-analysis Randomised controlled trials Controlled studies Cohort studies Focus groups Case study Narrative review Clinical updates Book reviews Letters to the editor Blogs
What to publish Systematic reviews meta-analysis Randomised controlled trials Controlled studies Cohort studies Focus groups Case study Narrative review Clinical updates Book reviews Letters to the editor Blogs
The manuscript IMRaD Introduction – why ask the question? Methodsw – what did you do? Results – what did you find? and Discussion – what does it mean? Abstract / Title
If you want your paper rejected DON’T follow the author guidelines
Writing the paper IMRaD1.Methodsw 2.Results 3.Discussion4.Introduction 5.Abstract / Title
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals http://www.icmje.org/
Introduction Why did you undertake your investigation? What is the background and context? So what and who cares? Is it new and novel? - Journal Systematic review?
A strong manuscript has a clear, useful and important message
Introduction Why did you undertake your investigation? What is the background and context? So what and who cares? Is it new and novel? Systematic review?
Sir Iain Chalmers “Do you think researchers should find out what is already
know about a subject before doing further research?” “Should they publish these findings?”
Introduction Why did you undertake your investigation? What is the background and context? So what and who cares? Is it new and novel? Systematic review? What is the gap in the literature? Justify your research question.
Introduction Why did you undertake your investigation? So what and who cares? Is it new and novel? Systematic review? What is the gap in the literature? Justify your research question.
Pitfalls: trying to impress the editor; confusion;inadequate review - critical references absent;
hasn’t justified the research; not ‘new’ or ‘novel’.
Introduction‘Funnel’
What is the problem, who does it affect?
‘Big’ problem affects relatively few people
‘Small’ problem affects lots of people
Evid for Rx – who gets what?
Gaps in lit - limitations?
Justification
Aims
Methods What did you do? Can study be replicated? Study design Recruitment Randomization Inclusion / exclusion criteria Outcome measures Statistical analysis Sample size Ethics / registration – COPE, ICMJE, NRES
Follow reporting guidelines
Results Present key results, logical sequence Organised around your research question Basic descriptive data Present only key Tables and Figures Present exact p values, CI, effect sizes Report negative results
Pitfalls: Don’t interpret data; avoid unnecessary data / dredging; be brief
Tables and Figures Display data simply, accurately and clearly Label rows and columns concisely and accurately Use legends to explain the data being illustrated Error bars should be used to convey variability Maximize the data in each chart Present data consistently
Tables and Figures Display data simply, accurately and clearly
Littlewood C, Malliaras P, Mawson S, May S, Walters SJ. Self-managed loaded exercise versus usual physiotherapy treatment for rotator cuff tendinopathy: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Physiotherapy. 2014 Mar;100(1):54-60.
Tables and Figures Display data simply, accurately and clearly
Tables and Figures Display data simply, accurately and clearly
Tables and Figures Display data simply, accurately and clearly
Tables and Figures Display data simply, accurately and clearly
Tables and Figures Display data simply, accurately and clearly
Fig. 2 (a) Mean (95% CI) ankle circumference (cms) was significantly reduced by elastic stockings within four weeks and throughout the study. The range of ankle movements, (b), was also improved by ES at four and eight weeks.
Muhammad J. Sultan , Adam McKeown , Iain McLaughlin , Nasser Kurdy , Charles N. McCollum, Elastic stockings or Tubigrip for ankle sprain: A randomised clinical trial, Injury, Volume 43, Issue 7, 2012, 1079 - 1083
Tables and Figures
Tables and Figures
Tables and Figures
Discussion
AimKey results
Discuss in context Implications for practice
Implications for future researchDescribe the limitations of the study
Be brief and circumspect in your conclusions
Inverted ‘funnel’
The Abstract Often the only part of the paper that is read
(200 -300 words) Structured ‘mini paper’ - get your message
across Editorial decision based on abstract Reviewers may initially see the abstract only
The title PICO P – participants I – intervention C – comparator O - outcome Type of study
The title PICO P – participants – men with ‘man flu’ I – intervention – bed rest C – comparator – normal activity O - outcome – return to work Type of study – RCT
The title PICO P – participants – men with ‘man flu’ I – intervention – bed rest C – comparator – normal activity O - outcome – return to work Type of study – RCT
The effectiveness of bed rest compared to normal activity in improving return to work in men suffering from ‘man flu’: a randomised controlled trial
The title PICO P – participants – men with ‘man flu’ I – intervention – bed rest C – comparator – normal activity O - outcome – return to work Type of study – RCT
The effectiveness of bed rest compared to normal activity in improving return to work in men suffering from ‘man flu’: a randomised controlled trial
Submission Journal selection - why are you publishing? Audience Impact factors / Open access /Acceptance rates Research impact Letter to the editor Suggested reviewers Authorship – ICMJE
Peer review
Peer review
Editorial decision Accept Accept with minor revision Major revision required Revise and resubmit Reject
Responding to peer review Do’s Respond within deadlines Respond completely Respond politely Disagree if you feel justified Respond with evidence
Polite, appreciated
Point by point response
Where in text
Evidence
Responding to peer review Don’ts Ignore reviewers comments Take things personally Argue / be rude Give up Rejection is part of the process!
Famous rejections Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone – rejected by 12
publishers.
Catch-22: “I haven’t the foggiest idea about what the man is trying to say…it is really not funny on any intellectual level.”
Animal Farm: “It is impossible to sell animal stories in the USA.”
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold: “You’re welcome to le Carré – he hasn’t got any future.”
Final thought
Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead.
Gene FowlerAmerican journalist, author and dramatist (1890 – 1960)
References Johnson TM. Tips on how to write a paper. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Dec;59(6):1064-9.
Provenzale JM. Ten principles to improve the likelihood of publication of a scientific manuscript. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 May;188(5):1179-82.
Singer AJ, Hollander JE. How to write a manuscript. J Emerg Med. 2009 Jan;36(1):89-93.
Williams HC. How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Jul;51(1):79-83.
http://www.equator-network.org/ www.clinicaltrials.gov/ http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ http://www.consort-statement.org/
