Transcript Document

Introduction To Writing A
Research Article:
Thomas B. Casale, M.D.
How to beat the publish or perish credo!
Rule #1: Pride in Data
• Be Proud of Data
• Convince Reader of Importance
of Findings
• Correct Attitude is Essential
Rule # 2: Do A Thorough
Literature Review
• Should do before starting a project
• Re-check before writing papers
• Essential information to have:
- What is known about topic
- What gaps in literature (knowledge) filling
• Use as resource for referencing paper
- Quote the right studies
- Use the correct format
Analyzing the Data
• Should be done using a priori chosen tests.
• May have to adjust based on experimental
factors.
• Review all data for unexpected or novel
facets:
- Sometimes more important than those
based on original hypothesis
• Check with statistician to verify correct
analysis.
Summarize the Findings
• Identify key findings
• Rate importance of findings
• List significance of findings
Selecting the Journal: Very
Important Part Of The process
• Importance of data
• Target audience
- Specific to specialty/unique group
- General appeal
• Inst for Scientific Information: journal
list
Selecting the Journal (contd.)
• Review Journal Specifics
- Scope
- Circulation
- Time for decision/publication
- Acceptance rate
- Impact factor
Impact Factors
• Measure of frequency the “average article” in a
journal has been cited in a particular year or
period.
• Ratio:
Number of Current Year Citations
Source items published in previous 2 yrs
Impact Factors
• Immediacy index: How quickly the “average
article” in a journal is cited (in same year).
• Provides a way to evaluate or compare a
journal’s relative importance to others in the
same field.
• Used as a measure of academic evaluation.
Impact Factors of Selected Journals
• General Basic Research Journals:
- Cell
32.4
- Nature
25.8
- Science
23.9
• General Medical Journals:
- New Engl J Med
29.5
- JAMA
15.4
- Ann Internal Med
9.8
• Specialty Journals:
- J Allergy Clin Immunol
7.7
- Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol
2.0
Bottom Line About Journal Selection
• Choose the journal with the greatest
combination of the following:
- Best reachable target audience
- Impact factor
- Academic prestige
- Likelihood of acceptance
• 1 good paper better than 2 mediocre papers
• Don’t be afraid to “aim high”
- Rejection is a part of academic life
Manuscript Format
• Choose correct venue:
- Full length/original publications
- Rapid publication/Cutting edge
- Letters/brief communications
• Follow instructions to authors:
-Format
-Graphs
- Abbreviations
-Length
-References - Units of Measure
Authorship
• Credit for authorship requires substantial
contributions including:
- Conception and design, or analysis and
interpretation of data
- Drafting of article or critical revision for
important intellectual context
- Final approval of the version to be
published
Authorship
• Order of Authors: The key Positions:
- 1: did most work
- 2&3 : citations (but could also be
equivalent contributors)
- Last: head of research group
- Rest: meaningful contributions
Manuscript Segments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title page
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
(Conclusion)
Title Page
• Choose a concise/descriptive title:
- not declarative!
- should describe main findings or
purpose of study.
• List authors, degrees, affiliations.
• Corresponding author (usually 1st or last).
• Funding sources.
Abstract
• Background: What is the major
problem/question that prompted the study?
• Objective: What is the purpose of the study?
• Methods: How was the study done?
• Results: What are the most important findings?
– Clear summary
• Conclusion: What is the most important
conclusion drawn? (and what is the clinical
relevance of the results?)
– State clearly with essential qualifications—Avoid
Overstatements!!!
• Total words: 200-250
Introduction
• Journal/Target audience specific
• Briefly summarize what is known about the
disease or problem that prompted the study
– Define question to be addressed
• Establish the study’s importance and
novelty
• For most medical journals, keep the
introduction short and focused (~400 words)
• Strictly pertinent references
Introduction:
Content and Organization
1. Adhere to journal style for length, content
2. In first paragraph, concisely state question
and why it matters
3. Next, review essential literature:
– Be selective! Summarize background to
explain:
a) choice of question/hypothesis
b) claim to novelty and significance
– Save detailed comparisons with pervious
studies for Discussion
Introduction:
Content and Organization (contd.)
4. In final paragraph, briefly describe:
– Study questions or hypothesis
– Design
– Sample
– Methods
Methods
• Reagents/equipment and sources
• Study groups: people/animals/cells,etc.
• Procedures: Sufficient detail so understandable
and reproducible by others
- Rationale
- Diagrams/instructions for complex methods
- Give more detail where methods are novel, less
where previously published
• Reference established methods
• Total words: ~ 500
Methods (contd.)
• Review Boards: IRB/IACUC
• Statistical methodology with
appropriate references:
- Detail how analyzing primary,
secondary and descriptive variables
Materials and Methods: Strategies
• Keep it simple and brief
• Define key variables, use names
consistently
• Use headings for clarity and easy
reference
• Literature references here should focus
on methods
Results
• If clinical study: Demographics (Table)
• If clinical trial: Study flow chart (Figure)
- Number enrolled
- Number eligible
- Number dropped (reasons)
- Number completed
Flow Chart Example
NEJM,2004
Results (contd.)
• Tell the story: important findings
- Logical order to data presentation (clinical
trials)
- Progression of thought process for
experiments (basic research)
• Give prominence to strongest findings
• Subsections as needed
• Avoid using descriptive terms (e.g.
markedly, prominent)
Results (contd.)
• Adhere to describing comparisons as
significant or not.
• Indicate whether summary data are
means/medians +/- SD/SEM/CI.
• For every piece of data there should be a
method listed in Methods Section.
Results: Data Presentation
• 3 ways to present results:
- Written description: stick to facts---keep simple &
focused
- Table: title and abbreviations (if specific numbers
are essential)
- Figure: title and legend (to show relations
between data sets)
• Restrict tables and figures to those needed to
explain a key point and to assess its support.
• If you choose a figure or table: do not restate the
data - Highlight and interpret key points in text
Results: Strategies
• Present results systematically; generally
use same order throughout paper
• Keep like things alike:
a) label variables consistently
b) use similar formats for tables/figures
and statistical notations
• Answer all research questions; include
negative findings
Results: Strategies (contd.)
• Let the data speak for themselves:
a) Presentation should indicate trend
in your reasoning, BUT
b) Generally avoid interpretation of
results
c) Strictly avoid broad conclusions
and speculations
Results: Strategies (contd.)
 Most people never read a paper
completely – look at the pictures!!
• How you present the data can be as
important as what you present!
Which Would You Rather Eat??
Same Food-Different Presentation
Raw Data Table
Descriptive Data (column statistics)
Active Tx group
D0
D7-14
D21-28
D35-42
Line and Scatter Plot
Placebo Treatment
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Day 0
Day 7-14
Day 21-28
Day 35-42
Line and Scatter Plot
Active treatment
Placebo
The Axis Should Match!!
Line and Scatter Plots, Mean +/- SEM
(Axis Disparity)
40
Pl
Active Treatment
35
30
25
20
15
Day 0
60
Day 7-14
Day 21-28
Day 35-42
Day 7-14
Day 21-28
Day 35-42
Act
50
40
30
20
10
0
Day 0
Multiple Line and Scatter Plot,
Mean +/- SEM
Nasal Challenge, M ean +/- SEM
35
Placebo
Percent Decrease in Nasal Volume
30
25
20
15
Active
10
5
0
Day 0
Day 7-14
Day 21-28
Day 35-42
Multiple Line and Scatter Plot,
Mean +/- SD
Nasal Challenge, M ean +/- STD
35
Placebo
Percent Decrease in Nasal Volume
30
25
20
Active
15
10
5
0
Day 0
Day 7-14
Day 21-28
Day 35-42
Combined Bar Graph
35
Nasal Challenge Data
Mean +/- SEM
Percent Reduction in Nasal Volume
30
Omalizumab
Placebo
*** p<0.001
25
***
***
20
***
15
10
5
0
Day 0
Day 7-14
Day 21-28
Day 35-42
40
Omalizumab
30
20
***
***
***
10
0
Day 0
Day 7-14 Day 21-28 Day 35-42
Percent Reduction in Nasal Volume
Percent Reduction in Nasal Volume
Separated Bar Graph
40
Placebo
30
20
***
10
0
Day 0
Day 7-14 Day 21-28 Day 35-42
Representative Data
Bottom Line About Data Presentation
Express data multiple ways and pick the
figure/table that:
• Best shows the main concluding points
• Honestly represents the data
• Visually efficient
Discussion
• Journal/Target audience specific
• Make it brief but informative!
- ~20% of total text
- Don’t restate all the results
Discussion (contd.)
• Do discuss the importance of the
findings: e.g. Data show that:
- Drug X might be an important new
treatment because…..
- This is a critical molecule/cell involved
in pathogens of disease Y because…..
Discussion (contd.)
• First state the answer to the question
posed in the Introduction.
• Provide evidence in support of answer.
• Describe conflicting results and reasons
for such differences.
• Establish newness of findings.
• Relate observations to other relevant
findings.
Discussion:
Content and Organization
• Begin and end with most exciting,
convincing and novel results:
– Put in the middle what is debatable,
complicated or boring
• Organize mid-section systematically (e.g.
follow order of Results)
• Avoid speculations, recommendations, and
suggestions for future studies until the end
Discussion:
Content and Organization (contd.)
• Discuss other studies in order to:
– Compare previous results with your
findings
– Clarify complex issues raised by your
results
• Don’t repeat literature review from
Introduction!
– There you establish study’s importance and
novelty
– Here you use previous reports to confirm,
question, or clarify your results (or theirs)
Discussion:
Content and Organization (contd.)
 Discuss limitations as well as strengths
• Design weaknesses: cluster in a paragraph
before conclusions
• Methodological problems: discuss in the
context of specific findings
• Serious problems: indicate how much they
undermine confidence in validity of results
(i.e., spin to minimize the damage)
Discussion:
Content and Organization (contd.)
End with a summary of key findings
and brief interpretation of their
significance
• Clearly label speculations and
recommendations that go beyond data
• Propose specific future studies if
suggested by novel results (not needed
for simple confirmatory studies)
Discussion: Strategies
• Highlight key findings and forestall
criticisms
• Relate conclusions to original
hypotheses
• Seek balance in interpreting results:
a) Over-statement can be fatal, but
b) Under-statement may hide the
importance of the study
Discussion: Strategies (contd.)
• Be selective! Discuss only results that
deserve comment
• Don’t disparage or attack previous
studies; do try to explain differences
• Separate conclusions/speculations
from interpretations of results
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consultations
Statistical analyses
Assays
Materials
Manuscript preparation
Review
Review the Paper As A Reviewer
•
•
•
•
Novelty and originality
Importance of the topic
Quality of the abstract
Strength of experimental design and
statistical analysis
• Clarity and quality of writing
• Adequacy of references
• Relevance and priority of information to the
Journal’s readership
(JACI)
Get Other Opinions
• Co-Authors (essential)
• Collaborators/Consultants
• Colleagues Familiar with the Subject Matter
Submission Process
• Title
• Corresponding Author
• Keywords
• (Section Preference)
• Suggested Reviewers:
- Look at reference list
- OK to pick someone you know feels your
work/data is important
- Not OK to pick close friends, collaborators or
colleagues from same institutions
• Reviewers to Exclude:
- Don’t ignore this option
- Should have good reasons – state them
Assurances
Manuscript must be accompanied by the following written
statement and signed by all authors:
• The undersigned author(s) transfer all copyright ownership
of the manuscript (title of article) to publisher in the event
the work is published.
• The undersigned warrant(s) that the article is original, does
not infringe upon any copyright or other proprietary right of
any third party, is not under consideration by another journal,
and has not been previously published.
• The authors confirm that they have reviewed and approved
the final version of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
• Title page lists author’s affiliations and
funding sources
• Authors also required to disclose any commercial
associations that might pose a conflict of interest:
- Consultant/Advisory Board arrangement
- Stock or other equity ownership
- Patent /licensing arrangements
- Payments for conducting or publishing study
- Lecture fees
- Industry sponsored grants
Peer Review Process
• After receipt, papers are assigned to
Deputy/Section Editor whose expertise is
considered appropriate:
- Two or more reviewers are chosen
• Deputy/Section Editor makes a decision
based on reviewers’ comments
• To improve your manuscript writing skills –
become a reviewer!
JGIM Manuscript Management Process
JGIM, March,’06
What Do Reviewers Look For?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Creativity and originality
Scientific importance
Relevancy to readership
Study design
Interpretation
Clarity and brevity
Likely significance after revision
Ranking
Response to Review
• Even if your paper is rejected, focus on the
critiques and address them in a revision for a
different journal.
• In the revision for the same journal:
- State each entire and exact comment followed by
your reply
- Point-by-point response to the comments made
- Indicate where changes have been made in the
manuscript
- Explain why you disagree with a comment or why
you feel suggested changes are not necessary
Process of Writing Papers
Teaches Many Important Points
• Allows you to put your data in perspective with
data from peers
• Often generates new ideas:
- Novel interpretation of findings
- Future course of investigation
• Humility – “aim high” but be prepared to be
“shot down”
- Don’t take it personal!!
Successful Publication Process:
Summary
•
•
•
•
Analyze and present data appropriately
Review relevant literature
Choose correct journal
Tell a convincing, concise story stressing the
novelty and importance of the findings
• Format the paper as per journal specifications
• Get a pre-review
Ultimate Publication Victory
• It’s not where you published!
• It’s where it’s quoted, and whether your
family saw it quoted!
- Newspaper
- TV
- National Enquirer!! –The Big Time!!
Resources
• Constance D. Baldwin, PhD., Dept
Pediatrics, UTMB/Galveston.
• Robert A. Day. How to write and publish
a scientific paper. 5th ed. Oryx press,
Phoenix, AZ, 1996.
• www.word-medex.com.au. How to
write good manuscripts.