WRITING FOR PUBLICATION - EDITORS' WORKSHOP @ EGPRN MALTA 2013

Writing for publication
Workshop by
Hans 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)

Start
• Who has ever submitted a manuscript to a
medical journal?
• And published?
• Who more than 5 papers?


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?


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?

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?

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

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


Editors
• Editors = readers
• Editors = experienced authors

• Editors = peers
•  ‘PEER REVIEW’

Editors lead the ‘PEER REVIEW’
Is it clear?
Yes

Does it
matter?
Is it new?
Is it true?

No

Presentation,
Structure

yes
no
yes

Content

no
yes

no

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

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’)

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

TITLE
ABSTRACT
Last sentence(s) of Introduction
First paragraph of Discussion
Last paragraph of Discussion
Result highlights - TABLES
Method highlights

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

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?


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!


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

Let’s discuss the Methods
(What did you do?)

• Structure?
on this section?


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

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


Let’s discuss the Results, Tables and Figures
(What did you find?)

• Structure?
on this section?


Content/Structure: Results, Tables and Figures
(What did you find?)
• Report on data collection and recruitment
(response rates, etc.)
• Describe participants (demographic, clinical
condition, 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

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

Let’s discuss the Discussion
(What does it mean?)

• Structure?
on this section?


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

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


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

Summary: The four W’s
Why did you start?
What did you do?
What did you find?
What does it mean?

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 Epidemiol
2013;66 359e360 and following issues

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


How to write scientific English
Helena Liira
National editor, Finland
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care

 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 check
the journal’s style of titles
• Be concise and brief, use key words
• #

Structure
• Structure is easy in a scientific paper: - just check
Instructions to authors!
• Every journal has its rules: AND it is crucial to follow
them!

Language
 Short sentences are usually better than long
 Use verbs with care
 Avoid passive, instead use active voice when
possible ”We found” instead of ”This study
showed”
 Be consistant regarding tense – past tense
throughout
 Edit the English before submitting

Style
– Every journal has its style for Tables,
References, you name it!
– Editors love manuscripts that follow
instructions

Style
– Avoid long sentences, superlatives and more than
one 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 than
half an hour!
• If you write, edit and revise at the same time you will
suffer 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 of
your findings and the reason why it merits
publication.
 …a chance to distinguish your ms from other
submissions

…a sales pitch
 … you want to sell your ms convincing the editorial board of
its 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 type
names. (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 first
impression…
 …write a short, concise and convincing letter preparing
editors 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, their
relevance 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 to
find journals that fit your topic
– ETBlast http://etest.vbi.vt.edu/etblast3
– JANE http://www.biosemantics.org/jane


Journals likely to publish your paper…

…to be screened!! *

AUTHORS/REVIEWERS:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ejgp

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

READERS/USERS:
http://informahealthcare.com/gen

READERS/USERS:
Sjphc.org or
http://informahealthcare.com/toc/pri/31/3

Ejgp-jstoffers@maastrichtuniversity.nl

hansthulesius@gmail.com


WRITING FOR PUBLICATION - EDITORS' WORKSHOP @ EGPRN MALTA 2013

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie WRITING FOR PUBLICATION - EDITORS' WORKSHOP @ EGPRN MALTA 2013

Ähnlich wie WRITING FOR PUBLICATION - EDITORS' WORKSHOP @ EGPRN MALTA 2013 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

WRITING FOR PUBLICATION - EDITORS' WORKSHOP @ EGPRN MALTA 2013