Publishing in MedicineCharles N Bernstein, MD

Distinguished Professor of MedicineDirector, University of Manitoba IBD Clinical and

Research CentreHead, Section of GastroenterologyBingham Chair in Gastroenterology

Start of Study• When you start your study consider whether

it will be publishable• What will reviewers take issue with• Even if you can derive a set of analyzable

data will reviewers/readers be interested in the results

• Discuss authorship especially if collaborating with new people

Start of Writing

• Begins when you write your proposal-better job here makes manuscript writing easier

• Less is more

The Introduction• Should be short• Shorter than the Discussion• Make the case for why the study should be

done and what the study’s objectives are• Save the review of all that has been done

before your study, for the Discussion

The Methods

• More is better• Make sure the reviewers have all the

information they need to understand what you have done and make sure they have enough detail to be convinced that you know what you are doing

The Results• Set out all your results in tables and figures• Decide what is really important-base this on

what you think are most novel messages or the messages you want to get out

• Pick 6 or 7 tables and figures in combo.• Extra results that you think are interesting may

be summarized in text (or supplement)• Make sure your tables or figures can stand

alone- enough info in titles and legends

The Results• You likely have to cut some results from the

manuscript

• Get over it

The Discussion• Start with the key results• Review the literature and where your results

fit as concisely as possible• Point out limitations of your study• Point out strengths of your study• Summarize results and messages in final

paragraph

The Wording

• You like the way another author has summarized a topic…..cite them

• Change some of their words anyway so the paragraph is not identical

• When you review, always be thinking; “is there some way I can shorten this sentence”

The Abstract• Often limited to 250 words• Difficult, but forces you to decide what is

most important in this study• This is what editor is reading before he/she

decides if they are going to read on/and send out for review

The Title• Catchy is good for an editorial but you can

make a case for your punchline in the title even in original research

• For original research can be best to include a method and the subject matter and possibly the population under study

The title• “Are we telling patients the truth about

dysplasia surveillance in ulcerative colitis”• “How well does the Web answer patients’

questions about IBD. ”• “5-aminosalicylate is not chemoprophylactic

for colorectal cancer in IBD: A population based study. ”

Authorship• Be inclusive• Including research associates (nurses, techs)

can gain allegiance and interest• Either a collaborator or a consultant (getting

authorship or getting paid). May need to pay a collaborator for some services

• Remember how you were annoyed when senior staff wanted authorship on your work when you become senior staff

Coauthors input• Some are passengers• Some are passionate-they are a help; listen

to their comments and revise BUT• Someone needs to be the final say..this is the

first author and/or the senior author• If you know your coauthors and they are

notoriously late give them a deadline for response and move on when it passes

Picking a journal• Be honest-where does it belong..typically you

strike out with first journal

• Ask senior people where it belongs-they may have a sense of which journals are interested in what kind of work