Transcript Dia 1 - University of Tampere

Criteria for good scientific writing
Elina Hemminki
STAKES National Research and
Development center for Welfare and
Health
First joint seminar of Research Schools in Public Health on Scientific
writing and global determinants of health Lammi 13-14 Sept. 2008
Outline
15.15- 15.45 EH
- how the next 2.5. hours are structured
- general on scientific articles as part of research and PhD
degree
15.45-16.15 EH
- structure of an article and common problems
- abstract, structure, common problems
- use of references
- writing process
16.15-17.00 MP
- common problems in the structure
- typical language problems
17.1-17.15 group work on….MP
17.15.18.00 dinner
18.00-18.30 feed-back from the group work
General: scientific articles as
part of research
"Everyone has to write and publish, but no
one has time to read" (Carol Norris 2008)
Selling your writing, understanding the
business of publishing
Publishing and interests
• Getting knowledge >< letting others to know
• Transferring results to other researchers has
been a key of academic research
• Getting knowledge: commercial and military
research.
• Transferring information: traditionally publishing
("so detail that others can repeat/ check the quality")
• More complicated: 1) in academic research also
other interests to publish, 2) other ways of
transferring results
Other interests than transferring
information to other researchers
• personal merits (researcher career, China!)
• institutional merits (what has been made)
• feed-back to financers (what the money has been
used for)
• payment for work (compensation with money would
collapse the system)
• publishers' interests (big business): not same as
research world (what sells, what interests (impact factors)
• establishment's interests (e.g. specialist
associations, science associations).: advancement of
their case
Different interest groups: simplified
• researchers: their results published in the
form they prefer, quickly, without costs, for
wide audience
• institutions: -"- , in a respected forum
• gate-keepers: protect science + censor
dissident or competing papers
• publishers: selection by content and form,
useful for their purposes (e. case of CMJ: owners'
interests threatened by articles published); varies who is
the publisher
Variation
• Policies of the journals vary
• Some rules and practices apply to most
journals
• Always study the journal pages, and if
possible, consult others
Group and publishing, traditions
Biomedicine
1. divided group work
2. writing = reporting
3. facts
4. impersonal
5. short papers valued
6. speed: being first
7. commercial aspects
8. open libraries, early
IT-use
9. many researchers
Social sciences
1. individual/ joint
2. writing = the work
3. style
4. personal
5. books valued
6. final outcome
7. 8. commercial
publishers
9. few
Biomedical journals have been
active
Editors of major medical journals have been
initiators / facilitators of many major
changes in research reporting, including
• authorship
• registration of research /publication bias,
all results published)
• ethics pre-review
• open access publishing
Additional information
• International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors (ICMJE) www.icmje.orgns
Vancouver-rules
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org.uk
Changes in publishing, e.g.
Escalating number of researchers, projects
and journals
Escalating costs of journals
Changes in reporting requirements (space)
Changes in primary audience
New technology (especially internet)
--> open access journals
--> "blogs", own publishing/ institute series in
web
Referee burn-out
Typical process, as it still often is
Writing the report; decision of language
Selection of journal; journal format
Language check if not your native language
A. Sending the article
• used to be a letter, several copies
• web-Based, Scholar-one etc, note: fire-walls and
disappearance
Immediate response: thank you, thank you no (editors, on
the basis of topic usually)
Referee round: searching referees, getting their
acceptance, getting their reports, getting good reports
Editor's decision (via associate editors): yes, modify, no
New submission, same or different journal, starts from A
Choice of journal
"Choice of journal: most difficult part of
(interdisciplinary) research"
How to find:
• studies cited, their reference lists, Medline:
related articles
• Medline (Pubmed) journals database; EBSCO
• potential journals: study previous issues, read
advice to authors, read advice to referees
• asking others, learning from own experiences
• journal citation index
• costs (open access)
Peer review process
• The key of scientific publishing
• Editors, groups to think of: owners,
scientific community, authors,
(advertisers), referees
• Review work: without payment;
competition of good referees, overloaded
• --> keeping them well, avoiding too much
work
Editor's typical process
Receiving an article (processes depend on the
size etc. of the journal); usually web-based
Immediate response:
• thank you no (on the basis of topic usually); big
journals
• thank you, will go to editors' consideration
• thank you, searching referees,
Finding referees, getting their reports, getting good
reports
Editor's decision: yes, modify, no, (more categories
usually)
Revised versions, their handling, with or without
referees
Editors' experiences
•
•
•
•
•
Too many articles
Too many (potentially) good articles
Too many half finished papers
All authors do not read instructions
Some think they have "subjective right" if
their paper is good (or think it is good)
• Finding referees may be hard (reputation
of the journal) and is getting harder
• Have to think impact on citation index
Rejection
• Common reason: better articles, wrong
journal
• Not indication of the quality of the paper
itself
• Standard papers safer to accept than
novel ones (referees)
• Balance between unfair rejection and extra
work of revisions
• NJEM accepts 1.5%, SJPH ~30%, i.e.
most are rejected at least once
Rejection, what to do
•
•
•
•
•
•
No protest (usually); no subjective right
Read the comments, if any: useful?
Correct selectively
Think: was it the right journal?
Consult your co-authors, colleagues
Try again… and again (iron paper)
Revision to same journal
read the cover letter (how near acceptance
the paper is)
• take everything seriously
• show the changes, answer the comments
(need not to repeat the new text but
indicate what has been made and where)
• often the same referees are used (my
experience "could less care")
• what service from the journal in editing?
Revision to other journal
• Does the paper need revision? The new
journal may have different views.
• Look at the comments received critically
• Change the format if needed
Still:
•
•
•
•
above: play
still: good writing helps
saddest: good research, poor writing
(trash in a nice package: dangerous; not
usually student problem)
Structure of an article
• Look at the journal you think of
• In biomedical field, usually straight forward
and easy for empirical studies
• Difficulties in other type of articles, e.g.
editorials, analysis, clinical review,
practice, case reports, letters, personal
view
Structure of an article 2
Note: referees and readers are unlikely to read
your report in the order you write them
My usual order:
• summary conclusions
• summary methods
• tables/ figures
• methods (main characteristics)
• the rest
--> readers do not have the information in the
other sections
Typical structure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
title page
abstract, key-words
introduction
methods (with sub-headings)
results
discussion/ conclusions
additional things: acknowledgements,
appendix, boxes
• note: possibilities provided by electronic
version/ electronic only
Common problems
• Underestimation of the Abstract
• Introduction too long and loose, too wordy,
too many side-issues ("gradu style");
• Not searching previous literature well, not
integrated to own study findings
• Purpose of the study/ article not clear or
not consistent with rest of the paper
• Statistical methods either too superficial or
filled with details ("lay-language"); not
appreciating the multi-professionalism of
readers (in public health)
Common problems 2
• Tables and figures not possible to read
independently, technical skill getting
worse? (computer production)
• Distinction between Methods and Results
• Distinction between Results and
Discussion (new results in D, comments in
R)
• Main message not clear, around (see BMJ
Boxes what was known before, what after)
Common problems 3
• "Finns tend to view their readers as
informed colleagues who will work hard to
understand a text" (Carol Norris 2008)
Abstract structure
• Varies from a journal to another --> study
the advice/ journal
• Most important part of the article --> put
time and thinking
• Most readers read only the abstract/
decide about further reading on its basis
Abstract structure, BMJ
• ensure that the structured abstract is as
complete, accurate, and clear as possible
• but not unnecessarily long
• and has been approved by all authors.
• We may screen original research
articles by reading only the abstract.
• For randomised controlled trials
please provide all the information required
for a CONSORT style abstract.
BMJ structured abstract
• objectives - a clear statement of the main aim of the study and the major
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
hypothesis tested or research question posed
design - including: prospective, randomisation, blinding, placebo control,
case control, crossover, criterion standards for diagnostic tests etc
setting - include the level of care eg primary, secondary; number of
participating centres. Be general rather than give the name of the specific
centre, but give the geographical location if this is important
participants (instead of patients or subjects) - numbers entering and
completing the study, sex, and ethnic group if appropriate. Give clear
definitions of how selected, entry and exclusion criteria
interventions - what, how, when and for how long. This heading can be
deleted if there were no interventions
main outcome measures - those planned in protocol, those finally
measured (if different, explain why)
results - main results with (for quantitative studies) 95% confidence
intervals and, where appropriate, the exact level of statistical significance
and the number need to treat/harm.
conclusions – primary conclusions and their implications, suggesting
areas for further research if appropriate. Do not go beyond the data in the
article. Conclusions are important because this is often the only part
that readers look at.
BMJ Qualitative research article
•
•
•
•
•
•
objective
design
participants
setting
results
conclusions
Common problems in abstract
• too little thinking put into it
• too general, essential features of the
design lacking
• odd details picked; p values given without
supporting data
• main results not properly described
• difficult to select the key results (qualitative
especially)
Use of references
• To do proper search; also those not
available electronically (review and Medline reference)
• Changed worse
• Read the reports you cite
• If number restrictions --> web-appendixes
• Introduction vs Discussion
• technicalities: reference managers
(easier?)
Common problems
•
•
•
•
only easily available studies are included
only studies from own discipline/ country
uncritical (context)
too lengthy citation --> pooling strategy (in
drafting stage table forms)
• own findings not reflected against previous
reports
_________
Citation indexes and evaluation: importance!
Writing process
Each has her/ his own; no best style
Find you own
If problems in producing text, suggestions:
• write without details, fill afterwards (correct text if
needed)
• make table of contents + sub-titles (to be deleted
later)
• make help-tables of your results
• make help-tables of previous literature
• take an example article and imitate the items, or
detailed journal advice
• first version: put all important things there, do not
try perfect in the first round (many rounds)
• in your native language?
Course in Helsinki University
• Carolyn Norris: Academic writing in
English