Getting Published: A Guide to Publishing Research

Getting your research published
Dr Joseph McVeigh
@mcveigh_joe
j.mcveigh@ulster.ac.uk

1. The manuscript
2. Submitting your paper
3. The editorial process
4. Dealing with peer review
5. Questions and answers
Getting your research published

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

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
 IMRaD
1. Methodsw
2.Results
3.Discussion
4.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
 Is it new and novel?
 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
 What is the gap in the literature?
 Justify your research question.

Introduction
 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
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

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

Discussion
Aim
Key results
Discuss in context
Implications for practice
Implications for future research
Describe 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

Submission
 Journal selection - why are you publishing?
 Audience
 Impact factors / Open access /Acceptance rates
 Research impact
 Letter to the editor
 Suggested reviewers
 Authorship – ICMJE

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 Fowler
American 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/

Thank you
j.mcveigh@ulster.ac.uk
@mcveigh_joe

Getting Published: A Guide to Publishing Research

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Ähnlich wie Getting Published: A Guide to Publishing Research

Ähnlich wie Getting Published: A Guide to Publishing Research (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Getting Published: A Guide to Publishing Research