Before you start … Why publish? Exchange ideas globallyCommunicate with yourpeers on a global stage Your research is not complete until it is published! Establish track record Career advancement
Before you start … Reading improves manuscript writing Read often! Learn how native Learn manuscript Article and journal English speakers write structure and style quality Learn proper Get new ideas argument structure Discuss with colleagues
Before you start … Strategies for reading Read Title and Abstract first Self-assess knowledge of topic Have you read similar papers? Familiar with the terminology? Do you understand the relevance of the hypothesis
Before you start … Strategies for reading Read Title and Abstract first Self-assess knowledge of topic Read last paragraph of introduction for hypothesis/objectives Read Figures and Results Read Discussion for interpretation Refer to Introduction and Methods if necessary
Structuring your manuscript Telling a story Beginning ‘tell them what you did and why’ Middle ‘tell them how you did it and what you found’ End ‘tell them again what you did and what it means’.
Structuring your manuscript IMRaD Abstract Introduction The beginning Methods The middle Results and Discussion The end
Structuring your manuscript The ‘write’ order Methods Results During your research Introduction Discussion After selecting target journal Title Abstract Write last
Abstracts Important points Relevance of Importance of Validity of your your aims your results conclusions First impression of your paper Judge your Probably only part writing style that will be read
Abstracts General guide Background: why the study was done andwhat is the aim and nature of the study Methods: describe patients, techniquesand materials used Results: Most important findings, alwaysthe largest section of the abstract Conclusion: main conclusion and clinicalimplications
Abstracts Structured abstractRandomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherpay and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veinsBackground:This randomized trial compared four treatments for varicose great saphenous veins (GSVs). BackgroundMethods:Five hundred consecutive patients (580 legs) with GSV reflux were randomized to endovenous laserablation (980 and 1470 nm, bare fibre), radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy or Methodssurgical stripping using tumescent local anaesthesia with light sedation. Miniphlebectomies were alsoperformed. The patients were examined with duplex imaging before surgery, and after 3 days, 1 month and1 year.Results:At 1 year, seven (5·8 per cent), six (4·8 per cent), 20 (16·3 per cent) and four (4·8 per cent) of the GSVs werepatent and refluxing in the laser, radiofrequency, foam and stripping groups respectively (P < 0·001). One Importantpatient developed a pulmonary embolus after foam sclerotherapy and one a deep vein thrombosis aftersurgical stripping…Disease-specific quality-of-life and Short Form 36 (SF-36®) scores had improved in all findingsgroups by 1-year follow-up. In the SF-36® domains bodily pain and physical functioning, the radiofrequencyand foam groups performed better in the short term than the others.Conclusion:All treatments were efficacious. The technical failure rate was highest after foam sclerotherapy, but both Clinicalradiofrequency ablation and foam were associated with a faster recovery and less postoperative pain thanendovenous laser ablation and stripping. implications Rasmussen et al. (2011). British Journal of Surgery 98: 1079-1087.
Abstracts Check journal guidelines! Each journal will have its own guidelines forthe sections of a structured abstract Archives of Surgery has 8 sections! Objectives, Design, Settings, Patients, Interventions, Main Outcome Measures, Results and Conclusions Other journals (American Journal ofTransplantation) use unstructured abstracts
Abstracts Unstructured abstract Outcomes and Native Renal Recovery Following Simultaneous Liver-Kidney TransplantationWith the increase in patients having impaired renal function at liver transplant due toMELD, accurate predictors of posttransplant native renal recovery are needed to selectcandidates for simultaneous liver–kidney transplantation (SLK). Current UNOS guidelinesrely on specific clinical criteria for SLK allocation. To examine these guidelines and othervariables predicting nonrecovery, we analyzed 155 SLK recipients, focusing on a subset (n =78) that had post-SLK native GFR (nGFR) determined by radionuclide renal scans. The 77patients not having renal scans received a higher number of extended criteria donor organsand had worse posttransplant survival. Of the 78 renal scan patients, 31 met and 47 did notmeet pre-SLK UNOS criteria. The UNOS criteria were more predictive than our institutionalcriteria for all nGFR recovery thresholds (20–40 mL/min), although at the most conservativecut-off (nGFR ≤ 20) it had low sensitivity (55.3%), specificity (75%), PPV (67.6%) and NPV(63.8%) for predicting post-SLK nonrecovery. On multivariate analysis, the only predictor ofnative renal nonrecovery (nGFR ≤ 20) was abnormal pre-SLK renal imaging (OR 3.85, CI1.22–12.5). Our data support the need to refine SLK selection utilizing more definitivebiomarkers and predictors of native renal recovery than current clinical criteria. Levistsky et al. (2012) American Journal of Transplantation 12: 2949-2957.
Abstracts Unstructured abstractWith the increase in patients having impaired renal function at liver transplant due toMELD, accurate predictors of posttransplant native renal recovery are needed to selectcandidates for simultaneous liver–kidney transplantation (SLK). Current UNOS guidelines Backgroundrely on specific clinical criteria for SLK allocation.To examine these guidelines and other variables predicting nonrecovery, we analyzed 155SLK recipients, focusing on a subset (n = 78) that had post-SLK native GFR (nGFR) Patients/determined by radionuclide renal scans. The 77 patients not having renal scans received ahigher number of extended criteria donor organs and had worse posttransplant survival. Of Methodsthe 78 renal scan patients, 31 met and 47 did not meet pre-SLK UNOS criteria.The UNOS criteria were more predictive than our institutional criteria for all nGFR recoverythresholds (20–40 mL/min), although at the most conservative cut-off (nGFR ≤ 20) it had Importantlow sensitivity (55.3%), specificity (75%), PPV (67.6%) and NPV (63.8%) for predicting post- resultsSLK nonrecovery. On multivariate analysis, the only predictor of native renal nonrecovery(nGFR ≤ 20) was abnormal pre-SLK renal imaging (OR 3.85, CI 1.22–12.5).Our data support the need to refine SLK selection utilizing more definitive biomarkers andpredictors of native renal recovery than current clinical criteria. Conclusion Levistsky et al. (2012) American Journal of Transplantation 12: 2949-2957.
Abstracts Useful set phrases Here, we present… Here, we aim to… Here, we show… Here, we report… In this work, we introduce…
Abstracts Useful set phrases These results show… To test whether XX, we performed… To examine if XX, we YY We used XX to YY. Using this approach, we identified ZZ.
Abstracts Only include essential numbers and statistics Strategies for Multivessel Revascularization in Patients with DiabetesResultsThe primary outcome occurred in 352 patients (205 in the PCI group and 147 in theCABG group). The rate of primary outcome was lower in the CABG group that the PCIgroup (P=0.005 by the log-rank test), with divergence of the curves starting at 2years. At 30 days, the primary outcome had occurred in fewer patients in the PCIgroup than in the CABG group (26 vs. 42). However, 5-year event rates were 26.6% inthe PCI group, as compared with 18.7% in the CABG group, for an absolute differenceof 7.9 percentage points (95% CI, 3.3 to 12.5).AbstractThe primary outcome occurred more frequently in the PCI group (P=0.005), with 5-year rates of 26.6% in the PCI group and 18.7% in the CABG group. Farkouh, et al. (2012). New England Journal of Medicine (Epub ahead of print).
Coverage andCover LettersStaffing Plan High quality research Good design Original and novel Well executed What do journal editors want? Interesting to Clear and concise journal’s readership English
Coverage andCover LettersStaffing Plan Significance Why your work Relevance is important! Cover letter: Abstract: First impression for journal editors First impression for readers Recommend Level of English reviewers?
Coverage and Cover Letters Staffing Plan Bad example Not personal No information about Dear Editor-in-Chief, the manuscript I am sending you our manuscript entitled “Techniques to detect entanglement in cats” by Schrodinger et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Quantum Theory Frontiers. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience.Too short Sincerely yours, Albert Einstein, PhD
Coverage and Hints and tips Staffing Plan A good cover letterDear Dr Graeber,Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Amyloid-like inclusions in the brains of Huntington’s disease patients”, byMcGowan et al., which we would like to submit for publication as a Research Paper in Neurogenetics.Recent immunohistochemical studies have revealed the presence of neuronal inclusions containing an N-terminal portion of Give thethe mutant huntingtin protein and ubiquitin in the brain tissues of Huntington’s disease (HD) patients; however, the role ofthese inclusions in the disease process has remained unclear. One suspected disease-causing mechanism in Huntington’s background todisease and other polyglutamine disorders is the potential for the mutant protein to undergo a conformational change to a the researchmore stable anti-parallel β-sheet structure…To confirm if the immunohistochemically observed huntingtin- and ubiquitin-containing inclusions display amyloid features, weperformed Congo red staining and both polarizing and confocal microscopy on post-mortem human brain tissues obtained What wasfrom five HD patients, two AD patients, and two normal controls. Congo red staining revealed a small number of amyloid-like done and whatinclusions showing green birefringence by polarized microscopy, in a variety of cortical regions.... ….detected inclusions was foundobserved in parallel sections, suggesting that only a relatively small proportion of inclusions in HD adopt an amyloid-likestructure.We believe our findings would appeal to a broad audience, such as the readership of Neurogenetics. As a wide-reaching journal Interest topublishing original research on all aspects of neuroscience… journal’s readersPlease address all correspondence to….
Coverage and Cover Letters Staffing Plan General rules Address editor Manuscript title/ Backround, personally Publication type rationale, results General rules Why are your Corresponding “Must-have”findings important? author details statements
Coverage andCover LettersStaffing Plan General rulesOriginal and Not submitted Authors agree onunpublished to other journals paper/journal “Must-have” statementsNo conflicts of Source of Authorship interest funding contributions
Coverage andCover Letters RecommendingStaffing Plan reviewers From your reading and references Networking Aim for younger and mid-level scientists Provide reasons for recommending orexcluding a reviewer Editors have the final decision on reviewerchoice
Peer Review Peer Review Survey 2009 Sense about Science 93% of researchers think 91% felt that peer review peer review should improve did improve their last their manuscript manuscript 61% had rejected a peer #1 reason for rejection? review invitation in the Lack of expertise previous year
Peer Review Improves your manuscript Peer review is a positive process Improves science Recommend to get involved in the peerreview processhttp://www.springer.com/authors/journal+authors/peer-review-academy
Peer Review Point-by-point Respond to Be polite every comment Revision Refer to line and page numbers Easy to see Use a different color font changes Highlight the text
Peer Review Revision Conduct additional experiments and analyses as suggested If this is impossible, you must explain why You can disagree with reviewers, but provide evidence (cite references) Comply with deadlines
Peer Review The response – point-by-pointDear Dr. _____________: [address editor by name]Thank you for your consideration of our manuscriptentitled _____________ [insert manuscript title]. Wehave reviewed the comments of the reviewers and havethoroughly revised the manuscript. We found thecomments helpful, and believe our revised manuscriptrepresents a significant improvement over our initialsubmission.In response to the reviewers’ suggestions we have[summarize the key changes here]
Peer Review AgreementReviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosento use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In myopinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed.Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier tocompare to previous results.Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of theanalysis. Our tailored function makes it impossible to fully interpretthe data in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in itscurrent form it would be difficult to tell that this measurementconstitutes a significant improvement over previously reportedvalues. We have redone the analysis using a Gaussian fittingfunction.
Peer Review DisagreementReviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosento use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In myopinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed.Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier tocompare to previous results.Response: We agree with the reviewer that a simple Gaussian fitwould facilitate comparison with the results of other studies.However, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the datain terms of the Smith model [Smith et al, 1998]. We have addedtwo sentences to the paper (page 3 paragraph 2) to explain theuse of this function and Smith’s model.
Peer Review Understanding reviewer comments “The English needs to be improved” “Your writing is difficult to understand” Grammar and spelling Long, complex sentences and paragraphs Gaps in the logic Poor manuscript organization Too much information
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the science Incomplete Inappropriate data methodology Weak research motive InaccuratePoor analysis conclusions
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the science Inappropriate methodology Old, out-of-date techniques/models Not approved/unusual methods Not proper clinical trial design
Avoiding Rejection Clinical trial registration REQUIRED if: The interventions/treatments are ASSIGNED by the investigator Phase IV Pre-clinical Phase I Phase II Phase III Post- marketing
Avoiding Rejection Clinical trial registration NOT REQUIRED FOR: Observational studies: interventions/treatments NOT assigned by the investigator Studies on pharmacokinetics and major unknown toxicity (eg. Phase I studies) Retrospective registration is sometimes possible
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the science Poor analysis Does not stand up to scrutiny Inappropriate methods/statistics Consult a statistician
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the science Inaccurate conclusions Based on assumptions Questionable interpretation
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscriptJournal requirements Citations not met Rationale and aims not stated Poor grammar Inappropriate data and style presentation
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscript Rationale and aims not stated Clearly and explicitly stated Why did you do it? Why is it important?
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscript Journal requirements not met Research not appropriate for the aims/scope of the journal Author guidelines not followed Formatting
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscript Citations Self-citations Old/irrelevant
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscript Citations Cite properly • Broadly from different research groups • Couple older seminal papers • Couple review articles • Mostly recent original articles • Field-dependent • Generally within the last 2-3 years
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscript Poor grammar and style Will be discussed at length in the next session
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscript Inappropriate data presentation Illogical representation Duplication of results Too much data Raw data
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the journal Inappropriate journal selected
Avoiding Rejection Choosing a target journal Journal selection must be based on an honest evaluation of your manuscript Significance Aims and Scope Impact
Avoiding Rejection Evaluating significance Are your findings: Novelty Incremental advances? Conceptual advances? Are your findings: Relevance Geographically/ethnically specific? Global significance? Are your findings: Appeal In an area of popular appeal?
Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: Rejection letter from NeuroRehabilitation…judged to be unsuitable for publication in NeuroRehabilitation... The following factors contributed to the final decision: The literature review was incomplete The hypothesis is not mentioned or unclear The subjects’ details are not included The manuscript does not follow journal format The authors draw conclusions which are inappropriate or unsubstantiated The statistical methodology is inappropriate, incorrect, or incomplete The manuscript is poorly written…