Transcript Literature Review

Writing Discussion Section
Payam Kabiri, MD. PhD.
Epidemiologist
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
School of Public Health
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
How to Write Discussion
3
The function of the Discussion is:
To write Briefly & summarize your
principal finding
Implications of your results for other
researchers
Interpret findings in light of the literature
Reconcile findings with the literature
Limitations of your study
Conclusions
4
Mechanics of Writing- Discussion
 Construct parallel to results
 Interpretation of data
 Relate your results to the findings of other
investigators
 Summary paragraph at end - include
significance of results
 Avoid redundancy with results and
introduction sections
Discussion
 Do your results provide answers to your
testable hypotheses?
 If so, how do you interpret your findings?
 Do your findings agree with what others
have shown?
 If not, do they suggest an alternative
explanation or perhaps a unforeseen design
flaw in your experiment (or theirs?)
Discussion
 Given your conclusions, what is our new
understanding of the problem you
investigated and outlined in the
Introduction?
 4. Explain weaknesses, shortcomings. Be
fair: this will build trust. Don’t over-criticize
yourself, don’t go to unnecessary details.
Discussion
 If warranted, what would be the next step in
your study, e.g., what experiments would you
do next?
Discussion
 Reverse of Introduction (pyramid)
Discussion
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.
Discussion
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]".
Good discussions …
 Address every key finding of the study
 Present the finding in terms of what is known
 State why this study is different
 State why the results concur/ disagree with
current knowledge
 Justify differences
 Point out future directions/ continued
knowledge gaps
Style
 Use the active voice whenever possible in
this section.
 Be concise and make your points clearly.
 Use of the first person is okay, but too much
use of the first person may actually distract
the reader from the main points.
 2-3 paragraphs, <450 words
13
Paragraphs in Disscussion
 1st paragraph
 Introduce broad area
 State major findings
 2nd paragraph
 Explicit rationale
 Last paragraph
 Conclusion
 Sugesstions
Some notes
 How would you change your experiment to
make it better?
 What new questions did this experiment
make you think of?
 If you made mistakes in your experimental
design, did you discuss them and how to fix
it for next time.
15
! ‫ بزنيد‬Email ‫اگر ميل داشتيد‬
[email protected]
References
 Aim for about 30 references
 Use recent review papers where appropriate to
decrease the number
 Get a hard copy of every reference in the
manuscript and make sure the referenced paper
says what you say it does! Don’t use abstracts!
 Proof-read the reference list especially carefully as
one of your reviewers may be cited!
 Use End Note or other bibliographic software
 Use the Internet
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
Main Important Referencing
Styles
1. Author-Date Style
(Harvard Style)
2. Numeric Style
(Vancouver Style)
Harvard system
In Text citations
 Cite your sources within your text by giving
the author’s surname(s), year of publication,
and (when appropriate) page numbers:
 Examples:


Contrary to popular perception, violent crime has
been shown to be decreasing (Johnson 2004, p.7)
James and Peters (2003, p.73) have argued that…
Harvard system
Reference List Bibliography
 Citations in the text refer to a full reference in the bibliography
 All references are listed in author/date order: Example:




HOLLAND, M., 2002. Guide to citing Internet sources [online]. Poole:
Bournemouth University. Available from:
http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/library/using/guide_to_citing_internet_s
ourc.html [Accessed 4 November 2002].
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, 1989. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
UNESCO, 1993. General information programme and UNISIST. Paris:
UNESCO, (PGI-93/WS/22).
WISEMAN, S., ed., 1967. Intelligence and ability. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Numeric system
In Text Citations
Each citation in the text is given a number in
brackets:
Example:

Ericson (1) and Milne (2) take the view that… but
other authorities (3) argue that…
References are listed in number order in the
bibliography, & cited by that number each
time they are referred to in the text.
Numeric system
Reference List Bibliography
Example:
1. ERICSON, E.E., 1991. The apocalyptic vision of Mikhail
Bulgakov's ‘The Master and Margarita'. New York: Edwin
Mellen, p.153.
2. MILNE, L., 1977 . ‘The Master and Margarita’: a comedy of
victory. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, pp.62-3.
3. BARRATT, A., 1987. Between two worlds: a critical
introduction to ‘The Master and Margarita’. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, p.96.
NB Each reference number points to a single reference only
APA Style
Now 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)
References
Alpay, 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” Style
Now 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
References
1. Alpay L, Russell A. Information technology training in primary
care: the nurses' voice. Comput Inform Nurs. 2002;20(4):136142.
2. Balen RM, Jewesson PJ. Pharmacist computer skills and needs
assessment survey. J Med Internet Res. Mar 29 2004;6(1):e11.
The Title Page
 On the title page, the main title is typed in
uppercase and lowercase letters.
 If the main title is more than one line, use a
double space between the lines.
 An abbreviated version of the title is called
a running head(er), which may be used for
identification of the report on subsequent
pages.
The Title Page
 The name of the author appears on a
separate line beneath the title.
 The final line of the title page information
should be the date on which the paper was
submitted.
The Title Page
 Author, course, and datelines should be singlespaced.
 Example:
The Final Breath of a Second-Hand Smoker
Suzie Q. Student
HS212/Law and Ethics
January 1, 2008
•Title
•Running title
•Authors
•Affiliations
•Organization
Corresponding author:
•Name
•Affiliation
•Organization/Department
•Postal Address
•Phone
Fax
•E-mail
•Date
The Abstract
 The function of the abstract is to provide an
overview of the paper.
 The overview should present the main story and a
few essential details of the paper for readers who
read only the abstract and should serve as both a
clear preview and a clear, accurate recapitulation of
the main story for readers who read the paper.
 Thus, the abstract should make sense both when
read alone and when read with the paper .
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
Abstracts
 The abstract should be neither vague and
general on the one hand nor fussily
detailed on the other. It should be specific
and selective.
 As its name suggests, al1 abstract (ab, out
+ trahere, to pull) should select (pullout)
the highlights from each section of the
paper.
Abstracts
The abstract of a results paper should state concisely:
 the question that was asked,
 what was done to answer the question,
 what was found that answers the question,
and
 the answer to the question.
Abstracts
 Most journals limit the length of the abstract
(usually to 250 words or less) “Uniform
Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Biomedical Journals”
 For un-structured abstracts, limit the abstract to
150 words or less.
 If no limit is stated, make your abstract no
longer than the abstracts in recent issues of the
journal.
In summary:
•The abstract should provide an overview
of the main story and a few essential details.
•The abstract should be clear both to
readers who read the paper and to readers
who do not read the paper.
Abstract Writing
 Write the abstract as one paragraph.
 Use the techniques of continuity to
make the paragraph flow. Use signals
to indicate the parts of the abstract:
 Signal what you found by "We found
that" or something similar.
Abstract Writing
 Signal the answer by "We conclude that" or
"Thus" or something similar. Signal implications
by "We suggest that" or something similar.
 The question and what was done can usually be
written in one sentence in " the form "To
determine X, we. ..." If the question and what
was done are in separate sentences, use signals
such as "We asked whether. .." (question) and
"To answer this question, we. .." (what was
done).
Abstract Writing
 Use present tense verbs for the question and the
answer.
 Use past tense verbs to state what was done and
what was found.
 Use a cautious present tense verb for implications
(for example, "may mediate").
 Be careful not to omit the question, not to state the
question vaguely, and not .'"" to state an
implication instead of the answer .
Abstract Writing
 To ensure that the question is specific rather
than vague, check the question against the
answer: use the same key terms for the
independent and dependent variables; keep
the same point of view; and, to anticipate
the answer , use the same verb in the
question as in the answer .
 If you give a p value, also give data (for
example, mean(SD) and the sample size (n).
Abstract Writing
 Write short sentences.
 Avoid noun clusters.
 Use simple words. Avoid jargon. Avoid
abbreviations. Keep the abstract short.
 Omit less important information (experimental
preparation, confirmatory results, comparisons
with previous results, data for less important
variables, definitions, background,
implications).
Abstract Writing
 Omit details [unnecessary details of
methods, exact data (give percent
change), p values, "significantly"].
 Avoid repetition (use a category term
in what was done and name the
variables in what was found; state
"mean ::t SD" only once).
 Use active voice instead of passive
voice.
Abstract Writing
 Omit unnecessary words (use "Thus" instead
of "We conclude that"; use an adjective or an
apostrophe instead of an "of' phrase: for
example, "ductal rings" instead of "rings of
ductus arteriosus," "rings' sensitivity"
instead of "sensitivity of the rings"; but do
not omit "a," "an," or "the" when they are
necessary).
Exceptions
 If the journal to which you are submitting a
paper requests a different form for the
abstract, follow the requested form.
Indexing Terms
 Select terms that you would look up to find your own
paper and that would attract the readers you hope to reach.
 Select current, specific terms, preferably medical subject
headings (MeSH), that name important topics in your
paper .
 Use phrases as well as single words.
 If the journal asks you to supply only terms that are not in
the title of the paper, do so
 If necessary, include a term as an indexing term even if
the term does not appear in your paper .
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
Publication Process
Payam Kabiri, MD. PhD.
Epidemiologist
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
Publication Process






Double space
Each section on a separate page
Use subheadings (in methods, results)
Page numbers on the right (bottom..or top)
Make sure font size and type consistent
Format the documents 1 to 1.5 inch form the top,
bottom, sides
 Follow instructions to authors. Consult Uniform
Requirements.
Final Preparations for Submission
 Proof-read, proof-read, proof-read!
 Make sets of figures for submission but also keep
a set of original figures for your files
 Make copies of the submitted manuscript,
including the figures, for every author
 Write a cover letter, short and direct, addressed to
the editor
 Make a list of suggested reviewers, if this is
requested by the journal
Covering Letter
Polite
Why Journal chosen
Importance of paper
Concessions
Brief
Submission Letter
 Identify the paper
 Describe the paper
 Repetitive publication and duplicate
submission
 Conflict of interest
 Corresponding author
 Suggest reviewers
Dr. Michael Holtzman,
American Journal of Respiratory Cell
and Molecular Biology,
Editorial Office
American Thoracic Society
1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019-4374
Tel 212-315-6440
Fax 212-315-6456
Dear Dr. Holtzman,
Please find enclosed an original manuscript entitled, “……………………...” by
[authors]. The material presented in this paper is original and has not been submitted
for publication elsewhere. No part of the research presented in this manuscript has
been funded by tobacco industry sources. We verify that all the authors have read the
manuscript and approve its submission. To aid the review process, may we suggest
the reviewers listed on the following page.
We hope that you will find our manuscript acceptable for publication in the
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely
…….
…….
Corresponding author
List of Potential Reviewers
1) Dr. Joe Smith
Duke University Medical Center
Cell Biology
438 Nanaline Duke/Box 3709
Durham, NC 27710
Phone: 919-684-8040
Fax: 919-684-8106
e-mail: [email protected]
2)Dr. Virginia Jones
Vanderbilt University
Pathology
1310 24th Ave S.
Nashville, TN 37212-2637
Phone: 615-327-4751 X 5499
Fax: 615-321-6305
e-mail: [email protected]
3)Dr. Tony D. Soprano
Southampton General Hospital
Child Health
Level G (803) Center Block
Tremona Rd.
Southampton, SO16 6YD United Kingdom
Phone: 44-23 8079 6161
Fax: 44-23 8079 6378
e-mail: [email protected]
4) Dr. David Mitchell
Department of Pediatrics
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
H085 Hospital
Hershey, PA 17033
Phone: 717-531-5925
Fax: 717-531-8985
e-mail: [email protected]
5)Dr. Arnold Smith
University of Missouri-Columbia
Department of Molecular Microbiology and
Immunology
M616 Medical Sciences Building DC 04400
Columbia, MO 65212
Phone: 573-882-8989
Fax: 573-882-4287
e-mail: [email protected]
‫جناب آقاي دکتر عزيزي‬
‫سردبير محترم مجله پژوهش در پزشکي‬
‫تاريخ‪:‬‬
‫با سالم‬
‫محترمآ‪ ،‬به پيوست يک نسخه از مقاله اي تحت عنوان »اعتبار سنجش هاي تن سنجي‬
‫در تشخيص نوزادان کم وزن« جهت چاپ در آن مجله ارسال‬
‫مي گردد‪ .‬خواهشمند است دستور فرماييد پس از بررس ي هاي الزم اينجانب را از نتيجه‬
‫مطلع نمايد‪.‬‬
‫ضمنآ اين مقاله منحصرآ جهت چاپ در آن مجله نوشته شده و تاکنون در جايي به‬
‫چاپ نرسيده يا جهت چاپ دردست بررس ي نمي باشد و تا دريافت پاسخ حضرتعالي‬
‫قصد انتشار آن را در ساير نشريه هاي ادواري ندارد‪.‬‬
‫قبل از بذل توجه حضرتعالي سپاسگزارم‪.‬‬
‫با احترام دکتر محمد نجاري‬
‫استاد ايمونولوژي‬
‫نامه ارسالي به مجله‬
‫•‬
‫•‬
‫•‬
‫•‬
‫•‬
‫•‬
‫معرفي مقاله‬
‫تشريح مقاله‬
‫انتخاب مجله‬
‫انتشار قبلي و تحويل مکرر مقاله‬
‫شرايط انتشار‬
‫حق مولف‬
‫• آنچه نبايد در نامه ذکر کرد!‬
Submitting the Paper
 Frequently done on-line via PDF files
 If required, send the number of hard copies of the
manuscript and figures required by the journal
 Send a disk with files for the manuscript and
figures, if required
 Get the copyright form used by the journal signed
by all authors, if required
 Send all of this material by a reliable method, so
that your precious manuscript is not lost in the
mail!!
‫روشهای ارسال به مجله‬
‫• ارسال با پست هوايي‬
‫• ارسال با پست الکترونيکي‬
‫• ارسال از طريق ‪Online Submission‬‬
Peer review
 Articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals
(manuscripts) are reviewed by experts who
advise the editor on whether they should be
published and what changes are necessary.
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
Editorial decision
 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?
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
Peer Review - Functions
 To Protect
i) The author from publishing &
ii) The subscriber from reading
Material of insufficient quality
Problems with peer review









Slow
Expensive
A lottery
Ineffective
Biased
Easily abused
Can’t detect fraud
Works for improving studies not selecting which to publish
Can’t detect fraud
Dealing with the Journal’s Response
 Absolute Rejection




Don’t take it personal
Don’t write or call the editors (unless you know them
well !)
Editorial rejection: send it out the next day to another
journal
Reviewers comments:




Fix the easy ones
Fix the glaring ones
Unlikely to get much better sitting on your desk
Send it out the next day
Dealing with the Journal’s Response
 Conditional acceptance (rejection)







It is yours to lose
First cool down (24-48 hours)
Within 1-2 weeks decide on responses
Make real changes, say you have done great
changes (describe, highlight,etc)
Look for clues from the editor as to the extent of
the revision needed.
Avoid arguments
Thank sincerely, but avoid being obsequious
Responding to reviews




Swallow your pride!
You don’t have to accept all, but don’t over-reject
Ask editor about conflicting comments
However unreasonable the reviewers may seem: be
polite!
 Distinguish conditional acceptance from offer to
reconsider (and from rejection of course!)
 Appeals (for rejection)
Resubmission Letter
Dr. Brian F. McCabe
Editor, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery
The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics
Iowa City, IA 52242
Dear Dr. McCabe,
Please find enclosed a revised manuscript entitled, "Surfactant protein A in rabbit sinus
and middle ear mucosa" by……….
We have addressed the comments of the reviewers as detailed below:
1)We have changed the title of the paper as suggested by the reviewer.
2)We have expanded the description of the animals used in the study (page 4,
paragraph 1). All the animals except the pathogen-free, were naturally infected
with Pasteurella multocida. The antibiotic treated animals were chosen
randomly. The infections were observed postmortem and pathogen was
identified by culture by the Animal Care Unit.
3)The lengths of the micron bars in Figures 5-8 have been added to the legends. A
magnification bar has been added to Figure 10.
We hope that you will now find our manuscript suitable for publication in the Annals
of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. Thank you very much for your prompt
review.
Sincerely,
Prof HFJ Hendriks
Alcohol Research Office
TNO Nutrition and Food Research
P.O.Box 360
3700 AJ Zeist
Netherland
20 August 2003
Dear prof. Hendriks
Thank you very much for your letter and reviewers`
comments dated 19th may 2003 regarding Ms. No. 03/028
“Association between total and beverage – specific alcohol
intake and obesity and fat distribution : a population – based
study in Hong Kong”. The changes in the revised
manuscript according to reviewer`s comments are as
follows.
Reviewer 1
This is an excellent paper.
I wonder if the total length of the paper could be reduced
somewhat (10-20%), e.g. by making the results section
more comprehensive and by decreasing the number of
references.
Would the authors be able to spend a few words on the
power of their study? Was the population large enough to
detect the (largest) effects reported in other studies.
Reply: We have acted on the suggestions made by the reviewer
I and reduced the total length of paper.
Reviewer 2
This is an interesting and well written paper.
I suggest that the authors attend also the following points:
1. Page 5 second section: please explain the line: a total of
7730 eligible household (= presenting 7730 eligible
subjects aged 25-74) were contacted and completed
interviews ; and 2900 of them attended the hospital. Does
this mean that the response rate is 37.5% or was only a
part of the eligible households/subjects invited to
participate in this specific study. If the response rate is
37.5% indeed, is the sample also representative with
regards to other characteristics than age structures only?
Reply: We agree with the suggestion made by the reviewer and
have added the following in the discussion: “Although the
response rate of attendees to the hospital was lower than
ideal, it should be noted that the prevalence of drinking of
the attendees did not differ materially from those in the
total sample, lending support to the representativeness of
our sample of attendees. Furthermore, our analysts on the
other aspects of data (Lam et al, 2000; Lam, et al, 1999;
Janus, et al, 1997) gave us confidence that data quality is
sufficient for this type of study and that our results com
provide useful additional evidence on the relationship
between alcohol consumption and obesity”.
2. Page 6 . A definition of “ Social drinking is laking.
Reply: We believe social drinkers is not an appropriate term to be used have deleted the
term social drinker and using the term “ drink less than once a month “.
3.
Page 7.The who cut off point for overweight and obesity were used . However, recent
studies among people such as Polynesians, Indonesians, Ethiopians, black and
Chinese have shown a universal cut off point for obesity may not be appropriate. In
this study the proportion of overweight and obese subjects might be underestimated.
This issue should be taken into account.
Reply: (TH please consider this comment)
4.
Page 11, line 29 : Food consumed while drinking rice wine may affect the obesity and
fat distribution. This is also the case for other alcoholic drink, or are there reasons to
believe that this pattern is different for rice wine versus other drinks?
Reply: We reanalyzed the data and found types of beverages was not a significant
predicator of BMI or WHR after controlling other variables in regression model. So ,
we re-written the discussion section.
Yours truly :
……………………
Dr.Nasser Simforoush
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran
National Center for Scientific Research
1188 Engelab Ave
Tehran 13158
July 28 , 2004
Dear Prof. Simforoush
Please find enclosed four copies of a paper entitle “RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
AGE, GENDER, SITE OF MYCOCARDIAL INFARCTION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF PAIN” for publishing in Medical Journal of the Islamic
Republic of Iran. I confirm that neither the manuscript submitted nor any part of it
has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere.
Would you please consider it for publication and let me know your decision.
Thank you very much in advance.
Sincerely yours:
M. Smith , Phd
Prof. of Epidemiology
General Tips
 Write for readers and not to please peer
reviews
- readers read to learn; reviewers, to
improve
 Avoid self plagiarism
 Update the literature review
 Have a clinical colleague read your draft
 Seek out criticism
Questions
! ‫ بزنيد‬Email ‫اگر ميل داشتيد‬
[email protected]