Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Writing for Publication: A Joint VdGM/EGPRN/EJGP Workshop (2013)

1,363

Published on

Peer reviewed medical journals are important media for the publication of articles relevant to Primary Health Care and General Practice, such as research papers, reviews of literature, clinical …

Peer reviewed medical journals are important media for the publication of articles relevant to Primary Health Care and General Practice, such as research papers, reviews of literature, clinical lessons, and opinion papers. They are the means to disseminate original research results and educational information, discuss available evidence and share experiences.

This workshop aims to give participants knowledge about successfully preparing a manuscript for medical journals

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,363
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Writing for publication Workshop Wonca 2013 Prague
  • 2. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Writing for publication Workshop By Tobias Freund, Greg Irving, Harris Lygidakis (VdGM) & Jelle Stoffers (EJGP/EGPRN)
  • 3. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Introduction • Welcome • Who are we? • Who are you? • Why are you here? • Content of this workshop: – Suggestions to improve your writing and to enhance the chance of acceptance of your paper – Understanding of what happens at the Editor’s desk (and why)
  • 4. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Start • Who has ever submitted a manuscript to a medical journal? • And published? • Who more than 5 papers? • Then, let’s start at A or B
  • 5. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 A Let’s start here and now: Presentations • What do you want to get out of this conference? To take home? • What do you consider a ‘good’ presentation? • And a ‘bad’ one?
  • 6. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Papers • Compare ‘papers’ with ‘presentations’: – What is similar? – What is different? • What do you consider a ‘good’ paper (when do you tell your colleagues about it?) • And what do you consider a ‘bad’ one?
  • 7. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Journals • What kind of journals/articles do you (like to) read? • For what purpose do you read them? • And why do you like them?
  • 8. B … or start here: Writing … Why? Why by YOU? • … • … • … • … • … • To become famous – http://publicationethics.org – http://www.icmje.org/index.html ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
  • 9. What do you find difficult in writing (to be published)? • … • … • … ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
  • 10. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Editors • Editors = ‘(pre-)readers ’ • Editors = experienced authors • Editors = peers •  ‘PEER REVIEW’ content presentation,structure Is it clear? yes no Does it matter? yes no Is it new? yes no Is it true? yes no
  • 11. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Editor and Author (Editor versus Author?) • Collaboration (from both sides) – Responsibility – Respect • Specific context: – ‘Scope’ of the journal  content • ‘Universal’ rules  presentation, structure – ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals’ – International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, former ‘Vancouver’ group)
  • 12. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Editorial decisions • Author  Editor Author: – ‘No!’: immediate rejection – ‘No, you first should …’: reject and resubmit – ‘Yes!’: immediate acceptance • Au  Ed  Reviewer(s)  Ed  Au: – Yes!: acceptance – ‘Yes, but …’: minor revision – ‘Maybe’: major revision – (‘No, you first should ’: reject and resubmit) – ‘No!’: rejection
  • 13. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Typical STRUCTURE of a (research) manuscript • Title page incl. Authors and affiliations • Abstract • Introduction • Methods • Results • Discussion • References • Tables and Figures • Acknowledgements • Conflict of Interest • Covering letter
  • 14. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Shall we discuss the following elements? • Title • Abstract • Introduction • Methods • Results – Tables and Figures • Discussion • References • Authors and affiliations • Conflict of Interest • Acknowledgements • Covering letter
  • 15. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Let’s discuss the Introduction (Why did you start?) • What would you write in this section? • Structure? • What could be comments of reviewers/editors on this section?
  • 16. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Content/Structure of the Introduction (Why did you start? Does it matter? Is it new?) • State why the problem you address is important • State what is lacking in the current knowledge • State the objectives of your study or the research question • Presentation: be concise!
  • 17. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Common mistakes: Introduction (Does it matter? Is it new? Is it clear? ) • The Introduction is an extensive review of the literature • The stated aim of the paper is – tautological (e.g. ‘The aim of this paper is to describe what we did’), or – vague (e.g. ‘We explored issues related to X’) • The research question is not specified
  • 18. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Let’s discuss the Methods (What did you do?) • What would you write in this section? • Structure? • What could be comments of reviewers/editors on this section?
  • 19. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Content/Structure of the Methods (What did you do?) • Specify the study design • Describe the context and setting of the study • Describe the ‘population’ (patients, doctors, hospitals, etc.) • Describe the sampling/selection strategy • Describe the intervention/procedure (if applicable) • Describe data collection instruments and procedures • Identify the main study variables • Outline analysis methods
  • 20. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Common mistakes: Methods (What did you do? Is it clear?) • Elements are missing • Methods, interventions and instruments are not described in sufficient detail • No definitions of variables • Statistics unclear
  • 21. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Let’s discuss the Results, Tables and Figures (What did you find?) • What would you write in this section? • Structure? • What could be comments of reviewers/editors on this section?
  • 22. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Content/Structure: Results, Tables and Figures (What did you find?) • Report on data collection and recruitment (response rates, etc.) • Describe participants (demographic, clinical condition, etc.) • Present key findings with respect to the central research question • Present secondary findings (secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, etc.) • Only highlight results in tables/figures in text
  • 23. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Common mistakes: Results, Tables and Figures (What did you find? Is it clear?) • Results are reported selectively (e.g. percentages without frequencies, P-values without measures of effect) • Detailed tables are provided for results that do not relate to the main research question • Table is not ‘self explanatory’ • The same results appear both in table and text
  • 24. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Let’s discuss the Discussion (What does it mean?) • What would you write in this section? • Structure? • What could be comments of reviewers/editors on this section?
  • 25. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Content/Structure of the Discussion (What does it mean?) • State the main findings of the study • Analyse the strengths and limitations of the study • Discuss the main results with reference to previous research • Discuss policy or practice implications of the results, and/or offer perspectives for future research • Formulate a conclusion
  • 26. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Common mistakes: Discussion (What does it mean? Is it true? Is it clear?) • The Discussion is not structured • The Discussion misses elements • The Discussion does not provide an answer to the research question (Conclusion) • Limitations are not acknowledged • The Discussion overstates the implications of the results
  • 27. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Other common mistakes • References: – In the Introduction and Discussion, key arguments are not backed up by appropriate references – References are out of date or cannot be accessed by most readers • ‘grey’ literature • http://... • www. …
  • 28. Other common mistakes II • General – The structure of the paper is chaotic, e.g. • Methods are described in the Results section • No consistency – The manuscript does not follow the journal’s instructions for authors – The paper much exceeds the maximum number of words allowed – The paper is written in poor English ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
  • 29. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Summary: The four W’s Why did you start? What did you do? What did you find? What does it mean?
  • 30. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Other topics … • Title • Abstract • References • Authorship – Authors and affiliations – Conflict of Interest – Acknowledgements But also: • Where/when do I begin? • How to choose a journal? • How to collaborate? • Covering letter • Open access • Language • Presentation • How to deal with revisions?
  • 31. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Other topics … • Title • Abstract • References • Authorship – Authors and affiliations – Conflict of Interest – Acknowledgements But also: • Where/when do I begin? • How to choose a journal? • How to collaborate? • Covering letter • Open access • Language • Presentation • How to deal with revisions?
  • 32. How to find a journal? SUGGESTED by Tobias.Freund@med.uni-heidelberg.de • Text similarity engines offer opportunity to find journal that fit your topic – ETBlast http://etest.vbi.vt.edu/etblast3 – JANE http://www.biosemantics.org/jane ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
  • 33. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
  • 34. Journals likely to publish your paper… …to be screened!! ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
  • 35. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Other topics … • Title • Abstract • References • Authorship – Authors and affiliations – Conflict of Interest – Acknowledgements But also: • Where/when do I begin? • How to choose a journal? • How to collaborate? • Covering letter • Open access • Language • Presentation • How to deal with revisions?
  • 36. How to collaborate? ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 http://www.researchgate.net
  • 37. How to collaborate? ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 http://www.orcid.org
  • 38. How to collaborate? ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 http://www.mendeley.com
  • 39. Online Metrics ©Jelle Stoffers 2013
  • 40. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 Guidance • Ask experienced peers • Journal’s Instructions for Authors • www.Equator-network.org • Editorial: T. V. Perneger and P. M. Hudelson International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2004; Volume 16, Number 3: pp. 191–192 • Series on ‘Effective writing’ in J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66 359e360 and following issues • http://publicationethics.org • http://www.icmje.org/index.html
  • 41. ©Jelle Stoffers 2013 AUTHORS/REVIEWERS: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ejgp READERS/USERS: http://informahealthcare.com/gen Ejgp-jstoffers@maastrichtuniversity.nl

×