Scientific Writing: Getting Started

transcript

Arash Etemadi, MD PhD

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

aetemadi@tums.ac.ir

Why Publish? contributes knowledge ensures scientific rigor allows feedback (improves work) Promotes career

document productivity document impact on field/reputation Advertises your lab for future trainees

improves chances of funding fulfills an obligation (public monies)

Evaluating a CV- Paper Emphasis

number of papers rate of publication quality of journals length of papers position in list of authors focus

Publish or Perish!

TUMS workshops on scientific writing

Level 1: Basics Level 2: Focus on international publications Level 3: Practice in writing

An overview

The traditional IMRaD Introduction Methods Results Discussion

Introduction: Why did you start? Methods: What did you do? Results: What did you find? Discussion: What does it all

A full paper consists of:A full paper consists of: Title Authors and Affiliation Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgments (optional)

References

Title Authors and Affiliation Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgments (optional)

References

How to write a paper

Most papers are not that exceptional

Good writing makes significant difference

Better to say little clearly, than saying too much unclearly

Types of Medical articles

Editorial Original Article Review Article Short Communication (short papers) Case Reports Letter to Editor Personal Views

Letter Stick to the point State the problem, issue or hypothesis Give the context Outline your comment, solution, viewpoint Give a strong conclusion Note limitations

Editorial Write for your readership (broad?) Be controversial and thought provoking Being subtle is often more powerful

Short communication Increasingly common Concise introduction Present data and discuss it shortly Only a few tables or figures Number of words limitations

Is your paper a paper, a brief or a research letter? Easier to get letters & briefs accepted

(space). They are indexed! Decide whether you should submit it as a

brief or letter

Case Reports

Medical history of a single patient in a story form. Lots of information given which may not be seen

in a trial or a survey. Often written and published fast compared to

studies e.g. Thalidomide

Secondary Studies

The Hierarchy of EvidenceThe Hierarchy of Evidence

1. Systematic reviews & meta-analyses

2. Randomised controlled trials

3. Cohort studies

4. Case-control studies

5. Cross sectional surveys

6. Case reports

7. Expert opinion

8. Anecdotal

Start Here!

Planning the study

Identifies the problem Formulates the hypothesis Thinks about the design of the study

Design of the study

Involve a methodologist Study type Sample size Interventions Outcomes Ethics

Politics first!

Authorship Decide on authors, and their order, as early

as possible Preferably before starting the project

Authors should only include those who made substantive intellectual contribution to the project reported, and can defend the data and conclusions publicly.

Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and

design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

and 3) final approval of the version to be published.

Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.

Choosing a journal Choose an appropriate journal (not always the

most prestigious). Check which journals have an interest in the

particular topic. This will probably be apparent from the references you have already read in the field, but sometimes editorials identify topics that the journal would like to cover more deeply.

Diabetes Care vs. Diabetologia vs. Diabetic Medicine

How do I decide where to publish?Is it the right

Is my paper appropriate to the journal?

Does it reach the right audience?

Publishing in good journals

Read a few recent papers from that journal for ideas of the style of the papers. Are they provocative? Or are they Short and pithy? Or long and detailed?

Importantly… Read and follow the journal’s instructions.

What else should I check? The editor and their reputation The speed of publication – how long will it

take to publish my paper? Links to societies Coverage in A&I databases

Target your paper at a particular journal Familiarise yourself thoroughly with potential

journals what sort of papers do they publish?

(original articles, briefs, reviews, commentaries, iconoclastic pieces?)

What is the “culture” of the journal? National or international focus? Write for that journal

The editorial process

Author

Submission Rejection Revise! Revised Proof

Editor(Associate editor)

Manuscript Report Style Proof

Reviewer Technical editor Printer

TimePublication

Editorial decision

1. Accepted as it is (rare)

2. Accepted on the condition of certain amendments (back to cycle)

3. Reconsidered if reviewers’ comments met (back to cycle)

4. Rejected

Rejection rate: 15% (pay journals) to 60% (specialist journals) to 90% (NEJM, The Lancet)

How long does it take? (Choice of journal) BMJ: 70 days JAMA: 117 days Iranian journals?

RULES OF THUMBS

bad research is almost always rejected sensational research usually accepted -

even if badly written BUT most papers are neither: in gray

Questions journals ask

Is the research question important? Is it interesting to our readers? Is it valid? A scientifically sound study.

What editors look for

Short, clear, precise title Good abstract Good design and methods Clear conclusions Brevity Follow instructions

What reviewers look for

Good design and methods Simple tables and figures Logical organisation Brevity Balance Appropriate statistics Their papers

What reviewers look for

Good design and methods Simple tables and figures Logical organisation Brevity Balance Appropriate statistics Their papers

1. Design well2. Decide politics3. Choose journal4. Read instructions to authors/papers5. Set framework6. Prepare drafts7. Distribute8. Polish9. Submit

Order of writing?1. Results

2. Methods

3. Introduction

4. Discussion

5. Abstract

6. References

Order of writing?1. Methods

2. Results

3. Introduction

4. Discussion

5. Abstract

6. References

More reading Hall GM, ed. How to write a paper. London: BMJ Publishing

Group.

Peat J. Scientific Writing Easy when you know how. BMJ

Publishing Group. 2002.

The Vancouver Group. Uniform requirements for

manuscripts submitted to biomedial journals.

www.icmje.org

Title First thing that readers and editors see and

read. Key elements that advertises the paper’s

contents Informative and Specific

Maybe helpful to choose the title when the paper is complete

Title Short and simple State subject, not conclusion Include study design Include time and place if necessary Begin with a keyword Avoid abbreviations Remove empty phrases such as “ A study of…” Use Subtitles (notice number of words) “Exercise

and Coronary Heart Disease: Framingham Offspring Study”

Introduction

General, concise description of problem background to the work previous research

where that work is deficient how your research will be better

State the hypothesis

Inverted pyramid

Oxidative stress plays an important role in....

When LDL particles are oxidized ...

Antioxidants are important...

...Paraoxonase...

Don’t make it a review article Don’t put down every all previous studies Don’t explain pathophysiology irrelevant to

your study Define specialized terms or abbreviations

you want to use

Introduction

Methods

Allows reader to judge the quality of the work

Identifies weaknesses Allows repetition of the study State the study design

Methods WWWWWH Define variables Patient inclusion Dates Randomisation Ethics/ consent Treatments Outcomes and endpoints Statistical methods power

METHODS Provide Details Enough to permit replication; or to assess

validity of findings; quality of study Tell the story: “To assess xyz, we did the

hoodgie-wadjie procedure, using Blatz technique (3)”

if new measures or procedures, describe in detail in appendix, or from authors

A note on ethicsA legal obligation

Most editors refuse to publish without approval by IRB

Consents: informed/oral

Check list for title

Does the title reflect the topic? Is the tone objective? Are special features mentioned?

Check list for Introduction

Is it clear why you did the study? How does your study add to knowledge? Is criticism justified and gentle? What can be left out?

Check list for Methods (1)

Study design mentioned? Who, what, where, why, how, when? Inclusion/exclusion criteria? (chrono)logical order? Measurements appropriate? justified?

detailed? referenced?

Sample size justified? Transformations and stats analyses clear? Any special features? New techniques validated properly?

Could the reader reproduce your study from the details provided?

Results

Be enthusiastic Be logical Provide numbers and variability

ResultsSimple complex

Describe the population Establish how comparable your groups were Use a mixture of text, tables and figures Mention units of measurement Mention what numbers, brackets, etc. refer to

9+4, 854 (12.3) Bring and explain P values

ResultsProvide only enough interpretation to

lead the reader from one experiment to the other Avoid lengthy analysis and comparison to

the work of others

No need to follow chronology of study Rather, provide a logical progression and

tell a story

Results “Stand alone” tables Make sure totals add to 100% Do not repeat the Tables and Figures in

text Summarize: eg, there were no significant

associations… Describe: eg there was a three fold increase in

the risk of ..

Tables and Figures

Title text - brief Convey max. amount of information Placed and punctuated uniformly

Legend Fully self -explanatory

Tables and figures must be mentioned at least once in the body of the text

Explain abbreviations as footnotes

Figures

Professionally produced Clearly labelled axes, lines etc Informative legend Appropriate plots

Figure 1. Effect of total alkaloid fraction of methanolic extract on mean survival time

Figure 1. Effect of total alkaloid fraction of methanolic extract of unripe fruit of Solanum pseudocapsicum on mean survival time (MST) in tumor bearing mice

Check list for Results Baseline data provided? Primary and other endpoints clear and

complete? Does the text complement figures and

tables? Are measures of uncertainty mentioned?

(SD, SE, CI)

Discussion

Arash Etemadi, MD PhD

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of

Medical Sciences

aetemadi@tums.ac.ir

Function

1. To interpret your results in light of what was already knownwhat was already known about the subject of the investigation.

2. To explain our new understanding of the problem after taking your results into consideration.

1.1. Do your results provideDo your results provide answers to your testable answers to your testable hypotheses?hypotheses?

If so, how do If so, how do youyou interpret interpret your findings? your findings?

2.2. Do your findings agree Do your findings agree with what others have with what others have shown?shown?

If not, do they suggest an If not, do they suggest an alternative explanation or alternative explanation or perhaps a unforeseen design perhaps a unforeseen design flaw in your experiment (or flaw in your experiment (or theirs?)theirs?)

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

4. Explain weaknesses, 4. Explain weaknesses, shortcomings. shortcomings.

Be fair: this will build trust. Be fair: this will build trust.

Don’t over-criticize yourself, Don’t over-criticize yourself, don’t go to unnecessary don’t go to unnecessary details.details.

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

Discussion

Reverse of Introduction (pyramid)

1. Organize the Discussion to address each of the experiments or studies for which you presented results.

2. discuss each in the same sequence as presented in the Results, providing your interpretation of what they mean in the larger context of the problem.

Do not waste entire sentences restating your results; if you need to remind the reader of the result to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation:

"The slow response of the lead-exposed neurons relative to controls suggests that...[interpretation]".

Do not introduce new Do not introduce new results in the Discussionresults in the Discussion

Although you might occasionally Although you might occasionally include in this section tables and include in this section tables and figures which help explain figures which help explain something you are discussing, something you are discussing, they must not contain new data they must not contain new data (from your study) that should (from your study) that should have been presented earlier. have been presented earlier.

Allowed Tablets and Figures in the Discussion

1.1. Flow diagramsFlow diagrams2.2. Accumulation of data from the Accumulation of data from the

literature, literature, 3.3. Or, something that shows how one Or, something that shows how one

type of data leads to or correlates with type of data leads to or correlates with another, etc. another, etc.

Abstract Summarizes the major findings in the

broad context of the work Consists of two or three sentences of topic

introduction Selected results (not all but the most

important) Concludes with implications of work

Check list for Abstract

Background, methods, results, discussion? Key features mentioned? Anything that does not appear in full text? Results in words? Conclusion: justified? objective? Meaningful interpretation Follows the guidelines

References

Appropriate format Don’t over self-cite Avoid conference abstracts Select carefully — balance authors used Only 1 or 2 references per point Use recent review articles Avoid textbooks

APA StyleNow is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.(Alpay & Russell, 2002) Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.(Balen & Jewesson, 2004)

ReferencesAlpay, L., & Russell, A. (2002). Information technology training

in primary care: the nurses' voice. Comput Inform Nurs, 20(4), 136-142.

Balen, R. M., & Jewesson, P. J. (2004). Pharmacist computer skills and needs assessment survey. J Med Internet Res, 6(1), e11.

“Vancouver” StyleNow is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.1 Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.2

References1. Alpay L, Russell A. Information technology training in

primary care: the nurses' voice. Comput Inform Nurs. 2002;20(4):136-142.

2. Balen RM, Jewesson PJ. Pharmacist computer skills and needs assessment survey. J Med Internet Res. Mar 29 2004;6(1):e11.

معاهدة تهران

شرايط مطلوب مقاالت ارسالي براي نشريات علوم پزشكي ايران

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. (citation)

References- Bibliographic citation-

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. (citation)

References- Bibliographic citation-

Research Paper

Stack ofReferences:Journal articlesBook chaptersWeb sitesMonographs

Endnote Library of References

POLISH

revise, revise, and revise for:

accuracy, brevity, clarity, grace accuracy: spelling, figures differ in tables

and text; too many decimals brevity: empty phrases and words;

excessive weak verbs and connectives clarity: first person; basic grammar grace: choice of words; vary sentences

Scientific Writing: Getting Started

Documents