Transcript Corporate Profile

Sociální determinanty zdraví u sociálně a zdravotně znevýhodněných a jiných skupin populace
(CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0063)
How to write a
scientific paper?
Assoc. Prof. JP van Dijk MD PhD
How to write a scientific paper?
Assoc. Prof. JP van Dijk MD PhD
Department of Social Medicine
University Medical Centre Groningen
University of Groningen
The Netherlands
How to write a scientific paper?
Assoc. Prof. Jitse P. van Dijk MD PhD
Scientific Director
Graduate School
Kosice Institute for Society and Health
Medical Faculty
P. J. Šafárik University,
Košice
www.kish.upjs.sk
Outline
* Structure of a scientific paper
* The reviewer’s perspective
www.kish.upjs.sk
Structure of a paper
(Title page)
(Abstract)
1
Introduction
2
Methods
3
Results
4
Discussion
(References)
(Tables, Figures)
Title page
Title
Author + Co-author(s)
Affiliation(s)
Corresponding author
Introduction – 1
* opening phrase:
should be expressive; reader (= reviewer) should get the idea,
that what is following is important.
* general, broad context of the field
(what is already known, related to the variables you want to use)
* what is not known, or which problems exist
* your choice:
which of the remaining problems you will attack
* research question
Introduction – 2
Keep the attention of the reader
Do not put commonplaces from textbooks here;
use your own words
Realise:
Do not try to show by a very long introduction that
you read a lot about the subject!
Stick to your variables!!
Make a separation:
what in Introduction / what in Discussion
Introduction – 3
* Research Question
* As precise as possible;
* If possible:
• mention variables
• the direction between variables should be in the
text of RQ;
• (a →b; a←b; a↔b or other possibilities)
• as short as possible.
Introduction – 4
•The RQ defines the Methods section, and also the
possible answers in the Results section.
(temperature?
thermometer  degrees Celsius)
(political preference?
 survey  supposed election result)
Structure of a paper
(Title page)
(Abstract)
1
Introduction
2
Methods
3
Results
4
Discussion
(References)
(Tables, Figures)
Methods - 1
Structure:
* Sample
* Measures
* Statistical analyses
this whole section needs to be written in
sufficient detail to permit replication.
Methods – 2 (Sample)
Sample:
description of study population (including
controls!);
inclusion and exclusion criteria;
(if necessary) planned sample size and power
calculations.
Methods – 3 (Measures)
Measures:
description of the variables to be used
(well-being, use of alcohol, social support etc)
Describing a questionnaire
[some characteristic, like HRQoL] was assessed by [measure] [reference].
Give one or two questions as an example.
Mention subscales [if the total instrument has] [and if you use them].
Give answering categories.
Score is ranging between from x to y; higher scores indicate [worse / better
characteristic].
If a scale (questions from a questionnaire belonging together) give reliability in your
data (Cronbach’s alpha); if you use subscales, give their reliability.
Methods – 4 (Analyses)
Statistical analysis:
Describe the methods of statistical analysis,
preferably in the order of the steps the reader will
be confronted with them
First, we described the background characteristics of the sample.
Next, we performed ... . Then, we ... . Finally, we ... .
Methods – 5
* It is important to specify exactly how the persons / patients
were selected.
* The persons / patients should be characterized in detail, so as
to avoid confusion about uncontrolled variables.
* Control group(s) should be described as precisely as
experimental group(s).
* Describe statistical method when it is an uncommon method
(Lisrel, multilevel analysis etc)
Structure of a paper
(Title page)
(Abstract)
1
Introduction
2
Methods
3
Results
4
Discussion
(References)
(Tables, Figures)
Results – 1
1 Describe the respondents
* the reader needs to know some basic characteristics
* the reviewer wants to know whether there was
selection (only the younger, the females, the least
diseased etc)
2 Answer(s) to Research Question(s) in the
order of the RQ’s
* The use of a correlation matrix is not seen as
sufficient proof!
Results – 2
(a)sample size achieved / response rate;
(b) how many subjects were excluded or
withdrew, and the reasons; (make flowchart)
(c) demographic (and clinical) characteristics of
the study population, (including controls)
Results – 3
A) make clear what is the answer; be precise: use p-values,
standard errors etc.
the reviewer must have a clear idea that what you wrote
down, is true, because you tested the answer from different
sides.
Be the devil’s advocate, or ask the supervisor to be that.
B) illustrate with table or figure if necessary but:
the text should be understandable without referring to the
respective tables and figures
Structure of a paper
(Title page)
(Abstract)
1
Introduction
2
Methods
3
Results
4
Discussion
(References)
(Tables, Figures)
Discussion – 1
Structure:
1) RQ + Condensed findings
2) Discussion
3) Strengths & Limitations
4) Implications (for practice, for research)
5) [Conclusion]
Discussion – 2
Discussion
* compare and contrast the findings with previous
findings
* Show what is new, and how your results fit into the
broad field you described at the beginning of the
introduction
Discussion – 3
Strengths & Limitations:
Do not forget strengths!
Research not carried out yet is not a limitation!
The only relevant question is: were my findings biased?
Implications
What are practical implications of your own findings?
Make cautious speculations and suggest future research
Abstract - 1
Most journals:
structured abstract;
not more than 250 words, sometimes less.
Abstract - 2
Aim
the purpose of the study.
Methods
Concisely and systematically list the study subjects, the
measures and the analyses.
Results
basic results without any introduction
Conclusion
List conclusions in a short, clear and simple manner.
The reviewer’s perspective
The reviewer will check:
1 Are all elements present?
2 Is there a consistency between the introduction, the research
question, the methods section, the results and the discussion?
3 The value of the data:
* the design,
* inclusion / exclusion
* the sample
* is there any uncontrolled bias
* how are the data collected
 how many compromises were made?
4 Is the manuscript readable?
Thank you for your attention!
Questions
Questions???