A 2-day workshop on how to publish your research. It includes a full and detailed explanation of the publication process and many technical details needed by the health researcher to publish his/her research.
It was delivered to the staff of the Northern Area Armed Forces Hospital in Hafr Albaten City, Saudi Arabia (13-14 Nov. 2019)
Essential skills in health research and scientific writingDr Ghaiath Hussein
This presentation is of the training on "Essential Skills in Health Research and Scientific Writing" that was help in Soba Teaching Hospital in Khartoum, in collaboration with the Sudanese American Medical Association (SAMA).
It was a 4 days training given on a rate of one session per week. It was almost all skills-based hands-on training.
Day 1: The theoretical part was an Introduction to the Knowledge Management Cycle and where research fits in this model. The practical part was how to conduct an online review of literature
Day 2: The theoretical part was about the responsible conduct of research, and scientific misconduct, with focus on plagiarism. The practical part included the installation and the use of Reference Manager, including how to import the references found in the LR (given in session 1) in a database in the Reference Manager software.
Day 3: The theoretical part covered the basics of scientific writing in English. The practical part included writing, and re-writing some pieces, using the provided phrasebanks and verbs 'cheat-sheets'.
Day 4 was on the writing for publication, including detailed description of the peer-review publication model and how it works. We also touched very briefly, due to time constraints, to an overview and two examples of ethical issues in research. The practical part included writing an effective cover Letter to the editor, choosing proper manuscript title, and writing an informed consent.
Essential skills in health research and scientific writingDr Ghaiath Hussein
This presentation is of the training on "Essential Skills in Health Research and Scientific Writing" that was help in Soba Teaching Hospital in Khartoum, in collaboration with the Sudanese American Medical Association (SAMA).
It was a 4 days training given on a rate of one session per week. It was almost all skills-based hands-on training.
Day 1: The theoretical part was an Introduction to the Knowledge Management Cycle and where research fits in this model. The practical part was how to conduct an online review of literature
Day 2: The theoretical part was about the responsible conduct of research, and scientific misconduct, with focus on plagiarism. The practical part included the installation and the use of Reference Manager, including how to import the references found in the LR (given in session 1) in a database in the Reference Manager software.
Day 3: The theoretical part covered the basics of scientific writing in English. The practical part included writing, and re-writing some pieces, using the provided phrasebanks and verbs 'cheat-sheets'.
Day 4 was on the writing for publication, including detailed description of the peer-review publication model and how it works. We also touched very briefly, due to time constraints, to an overview and two examples of ethical issues in research. The practical part included writing an effective cover Letter to the editor, choosing proper manuscript title, and writing an informed consent.
There are some common criteria you should consider when choosing a journal to publish in. Once you have a publication strategy in place, choose journals that meet all of your criteria.
Writekraft Research & Publication LLP.
We are one of the leading PhD assistance company that deals in helping PhD scholars in their Thesis, Research paper writing and publication work. We are providing custom PhD Thesis written for you exactly the way you want along with a Turnitin plagiarism report.
For more Information Contact us@ admin@writekraft.com
Or Call us @ 7753818181, 9838033084
www.writekraft.com
Scientific research and publication walk throughRoshni Mehta
Humble effort made in the form of this presentation will assist in the accomplishment of exploratory as well as result-oriented research studies. I shall feel amply rewarded if this slides proves helpful in the development of genuine research studies.
As a scientist, we must write, and, as an experimentalist, writing while you work strengthens your research. Writing a paper can be an integral part of observational science. Our manuscript can even be a blueprint for our experiments.
The aim of this talk is to discusses some of the ethical issues that can arise during scientific publication and the peer review process and discusses their implications. The presentation covers several issue including the scientific publication ethics, misconduct, integrity of the research, authorship and peer review ethics as well as Committee on publication Ethics (COPE) ,
Presentasjon fra Helene Ingierd i forbindelse med foredraget "Research ethics, scientific misconduct and questionable practices". Foredraget ble holdt online den 23. september 2020.
How to publish in an isi journal حنان القرشيvdsr_ksu
محاضرة How to publish in an ISI Journal إعداد الدكتورة حنان عبدالله القرشي
ضمن سلسلة محاضرات البحث العلمي لعام 1437هـ.
وكالة عمادة البحث العلمي للأقسام النسائية، جامعة الملك سعود.
Presentació realitzada per Remedios Melero en el marc del Seminari sobre la revisió per experts (peer review) que va tenir lloc a la Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació de la UB el 20 de juny de 2011, dins el marc del programa de doctorat “Informació i Documentació en la Societat del Coneixement”. Aquest seminari va ser organitzat conjuntament amb l'EASE (European Association of Science Editors).
Topics covered include:
Duties of editors, reviewers, and authors
What is “peer review” & brief history
Objectives & process of peer review
What editors & reviewers are looking for?
Surviving the peer review process
What leads to ACCEPTANCE
There is no straight formula to determine the best journal to publish your manuscript. However, analyzing various parameters may help you to decide the journal that best suits you for publishing. Following are some of those criteria:
https://www.cognibrain.com/criteria-for-selecting-journal-for-publication/
This is based on a presentation given before the Gwalior Association of Management Teachers and Researchers . This is based on experience as a researcher, reviewer and a reader .
'Understanding and benefiting from the publishing process'
Publishing Connect workshop Lancaster delivered by Anthony Newman, Senior Publisher, Elsevier.
Types of scientific publications
The different types of research papers published
Considerations before writing
Choosing the right journal
Writing using correct language
The structure of the manuscript
The submission and review procedure
Author responsibilities: publishing ethics and plagiarism
How to use information resources as a tool for authors (Scopus)
Slides shared with the permission of the speaker.
There are some common criteria you should consider when choosing a journal to publish in. Once you have a publication strategy in place, choose journals that meet all of your criteria.
Writekraft Research & Publication LLP.
We are one of the leading PhD assistance company that deals in helping PhD scholars in their Thesis, Research paper writing and publication work. We are providing custom PhD Thesis written for you exactly the way you want along with a Turnitin plagiarism report.
For more Information Contact us@ admin@writekraft.com
Or Call us @ 7753818181, 9838033084
www.writekraft.com
Scientific research and publication walk throughRoshni Mehta
Humble effort made in the form of this presentation will assist in the accomplishment of exploratory as well as result-oriented research studies. I shall feel amply rewarded if this slides proves helpful in the development of genuine research studies.
As a scientist, we must write, and, as an experimentalist, writing while you work strengthens your research. Writing a paper can be an integral part of observational science. Our manuscript can even be a blueprint for our experiments.
The aim of this talk is to discusses some of the ethical issues that can arise during scientific publication and the peer review process and discusses their implications. The presentation covers several issue including the scientific publication ethics, misconduct, integrity of the research, authorship and peer review ethics as well as Committee on publication Ethics (COPE) ,
Presentasjon fra Helene Ingierd i forbindelse med foredraget "Research ethics, scientific misconduct and questionable practices". Foredraget ble holdt online den 23. september 2020.
How to publish in an isi journal حنان القرشيvdsr_ksu
محاضرة How to publish in an ISI Journal إعداد الدكتورة حنان عبدالله القرشي
ضمن سلسلة محاضرات البحث العلمي لعام 1437هـ.
وكالة عمادة البحث العلمي للأقسام النسائية، جامعة الملك سعود.
Presentació realitzada per Remedios Melero en el marc del Seminari sobre la revisió per experts (peer review) que va tenir lloc a la Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació de la UB el 20 de juny de 2011, dins el marc del programa de doctorat “Informació i Documentació en la Societat del Coneixement”. Aquest seminari va ser organitzat conjuntament amb l'EASE (European Association of Science Editors).
Topics covered include:
Duties of editors, reviewers, and authors
What is “peer review” & brief history
Objectives & process of peer review
What editors & reviewers are looking for?
Surviving the peer review process
What leads to ACCEPTANCE
There is no straight formula to determine the best journal to publish your manuscript. However, analyzing various parameters may help you to decide the journal that best suits you for publishing. Following are some of those criteria:
https://www.cognibrain.com/criteria-for-selecting-journal-for-publication/
This is based on a presentation given before the Gwalior Association of Management Teachers and Researchers . This is based on experience as a researcher, reviewer and a reader .
'Understanding and benefiting from the publishing process'
Publishing Connect workshop Lancaster delivered by Anthony Newman, Senior Publisher, Elsevier.
Types of scientific publications
The different types of research papers published
Considerations before writing
Choosing the right journal
Writing using correct language
The structure of the manuscript
The submission and review procedure
Author responsibilities: publishing ethics and plagiarism
How to use information resources as a tool for authors (Scopus)
Slides shared with the permission of the speaker.
This is the PowerPoint of the short-term training programme conducted at MGR university by Dr.S.Vijayakumar of Crescent University. The talk focussed on the following aspects
Kinds of Research
How to write an Abstract
How to write Keywords
How to write an Effective Introduction
Reporting Methods
Writing the Results
Writing the Discussion section
How to Integrate Tables and Figures in your research paper.
Reference Management-Introduction to Mendeley
O SIBiUSP em parceria com a American Journal Experts - AJE (empresa especializada em ajudar pesquisadores à eliminar as barreiras linguísticas e ter seu trabalho publicado nas revistas de mais alto impacto) traz para a comunidade científica de São Paulo o "Workshop de Publicação Científica - AJE", apresentado pela Gerente de Parcerias Estratégicas do Square Research, Amy Beisel.
How do you write a master's thesis? Prof. Laura Black guides students from the Master of Advanced Studies in Humanitarian Logistics and Management through the process.
Objectives:
1. Discuss why, when, what, where and how to publish.
2. Understand what makes a paper publishable.
3. Explore the journals market.
4. Introduce Library Trends as a source of journal publishing in the library and information field, and describe how it is produced.
Moderators :
Clara M. Chu
• Director and Mortenson Distinguished Professor, Mortenson Center for International Library Programs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Coeditor-in-Chief of Library Trends and Inaugural Coeditor of the ‘International Insights’ column of College & Research Libraries News
• Expert in developing appropriate solutions to deliver equitable and relevant library services in culturally diverse and dynamic libraries
• Studies the information needs of culturally diverse communities in a globalized and technological society
• Co-developing an institute on Artificial Intelligence and libraries
Jaya Raju
Professor and Head of the Department of Knowledge and Information Stewardship, Humanities Faculty, University of Cape Town
• Specialist researcher and author in library and information science (LIS) education and its epistemological implications for the discipline and for professional practice
• Teaches research methodology and the broader philosophical, ontological and epistemological issues that impact the research process
• Coeditor-in-Chief of Library Trends and Inaugural Coeditor of the ALISE (Association for Library and Information Science Education) Book Series on LIS education and research
• Editor-in-Chief of the South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science from 2012 to 2018
Targeted Audience:
• Staff in any type of library and information center
• Library and information science students, researchers and educators
نظرية التطور عند المسلمين (بروفيسور محمد علي البار
ويقدم فيها سردا تاريخيا لنظريات نشأة الخلق وخلق آدم وكيف ان نظرية التطور هي نظرية علمية وليس دينية لكن تم استغلالها لمحاربة الكنيسة
Ethical considerations in research during armed conflicts.pptxDr Ghaiath Hussein
My talk @AUBMC Salim El-Hoss Bioethics Webinar Series. In this webinar, we have discussed the following points:
1- How armed conflicts affect the planning and conduct of research?
2- What is ethically unique about research during armed conflicts?
3- How did my doctoral project approach these ethical issues both at the normative and the empirical levels?
4- What are the lessons learned from the conflicts in the middle east (Sudan, Syria, Yemen, etc.) and how do they differ from the situation in Ukraine?
Acknowledgement: This talk is based on my doctoral thesis (http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/8580/), which was fully funded by Wellcome Trust, UK.
Research or Not Research? This Is Not the Question for Public Health Emergencies
November 17, 2021 @ 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm EST
Speaker:
Ghaiath Hussein, Assistant Professor, Medical Ethics and Law, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
About this Seminar:
Public health emergencies, whether natural or man-made, local or global, in peacetime or during armed conflicts are always associated with the need to collect data (and sometimes biological samples) about and from those affected by these emergencies. One of the central questions in the relevant literature is whether the activities that involve the collection of data and/or biological samples are considered ‘research’, with the subsequent endeavour to define what ‘research’ is and whether they should be submitted for ethical approval or not. In this seminar, I will argue that this is not the central question when it comes to research/public health/humanitarian ethics. Using the findings of a systematic review on the research conducted in Darfur and findings from a qualitative project that aimed at defining what constitutes ‘research’ in public health emergencies I will, alternatively, present what I refer to as the ‘ethical characterization’ of these research-like activities and how they can be ethically guided.
micro teaching on communication m.sc nursing.pdfAnurag Sharma
Microteaching is a unique model of practice teaching. It is a viable instrument for the. desired change in the teaching behavior or the behavior potential which, in specified types of real. classroom situations, tends to facilitate the achievement of specified types of objectives.
NVBDCP.pptx Nation vector borne disease control programSapna Thakur
NVBDCP was launched in 2003-2004 . Vector-Borne Disease: Disease that results from an infection transmitted to humans and other animals by blood-feeding arthropods, such as mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas. Examples of vector-borne diseases include Dengue fever, West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, and malaria.
Tom Selleck Health: A Comprehensive Look at the Iconic Actor’s Wellness Journeygreendigital
Tom Selleck, an enduring figure in Hollywood. has captivated audiences for decades with his rugged charm, iconic moustache. and memorable roles in television and film. From his breakout role as Thomas Magnum in Magnum P.I. to his current portrayal of Frank Reagan in Blue Bloods. Selleck's career has spanned over 50 years. But beyond his professional achievements. fans have often been curious about Tom Selleck Health. especially as he has aged in the public eye.
Follow us on: Pinterest
Introduction
Many have been interested in Tom Selleck health. not only because of his enduring presence on screen but also because of the challenges. and lifestyle choices he has faced and made over the years. This article delves into the various aspects of Tom Selleck health. exploring his fitness regimen, diet, mental health. and the challenges he has encountered as he ages. We'll look at how he maintains his well-being. the health issues he has faced, and his approach to ageing .
Early Life and Career
Childhood and Athletic Beginnings
Tom Selleck was born on January 29, 1945, in Detroit, Michigan, and grew up in Sherman Oaks, California. From an early age, he was involved in sports, particularly basketball. which played a significant role in his physical development. His athletic pursuits continued into college. where he attended the University of Southern California (USC) on a basketball scholarship. This early involvement in sports laid a strong foundation for his physical health and disciplined lifestyle.
Transition to Acting
Selleck's transition from an athlete to an actor came with its physical demands. His first significant role in "Magnum P.I." required him to perform various stunts and maintain a fit appearance. This role, which he played from 1980 to 1988. necessitated a rigorous fitness routine to meet the show's demands. setting the stage for his long-term commitment to health and wellness.
Fitness Regimen
Workout Routine
Tom Selleck health and fitness regimen has evolved. adapting to his changing roles and age. During his "Magnum, P.I." days. Selleck's workouts were intense and focused on building and maintaining muscle mass. His routine included weightlifting, cardiovascular exercises. and specific training for the stunts he performed on the show.
Selleck adjusted his fitness routine as he aged to suit his body's needs. Today, his workouts focus on maintaining flexibility, strength, and cardiovascular health. He incorporates low-impact exercises such as swimming, walking, and light weightlifting. This balanced approach helps him stay fit without putting undue strain on his joints and muscles.
Importance of Flexibility and Mobility
In recent years, Selleck has emphasized the importance of flexibility and mobility in his fitness regimen. Understanding the natural decline in muscle mass and joint flexibility with age. he includes stretching and yoga in his routine. These practices help prevent injuries, improve posture, and maintain mobilit
New Directions in Targeted Therapeutic Approaches for Older Adults With Mantl...i3 Health
i3 Health is pleased to make the speaker slides from this activity available for use as a non-accredited self-study or teaching resource.
This slide deck presented by Dr. Kami Maddocks, Professor-Clinical in the Division of Hematology and
Associate Division Director for Ambulatory Operations
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, will provide insight into new directions in targeted therapeutic approaches for older adults with mantle cell lymphoma.
STATEMENT OF NEED
Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) accounting for 5% to 7% of all lymphomas. Its prognosis ranges from indolent disease that does not require treatment for years to very aggressive disease, which is associated with poor survival (Silkenstedt et al, 2021). Typically, MCL is diagnosed at advanced stage and in older patients who cannot tolerate intensive therapy (NCCN, 2022). Although recent advances have slightly increased remission rates, recurrence and relapse remain very common, leading to a median overall survival between 3 and 6 years (LLS, 2021). Though there are several effective options, progress is still needed towards establishing an accepted frontline approach for MCL (Castellino et al, 2022). Treatment selection and management of MCL are complicated by the heterogeneity of prognosis, advanced age and comorbidities of patients, and lack of an established standard approach for treatment, making it vital that clinicians be familiar with the latest research and advances in this area. In this activity chaired by Michael Wang, MD, Professor in the Department of Lymphoma & Myeloma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, expert faculty will discuss prognostic factors informing treatment, the promising results of recent trials in new therapeutic approaches, and the implications of treatment resistance in therapeutic selection for MCL.
Target Audience
Hematology/oncology fellows, attending faculty, and other health care professionals involved in the treatment of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
Learning Objectives
1.) Identify clinical and biological prognostic factors that can guide treatment decision making for older adults with MCL
2.) Evaluate emerging data on targeted therapeutic approaches for treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory MCL and their applicability to older adults
3.) Assess mechanisms of resistance to targeted therapies for MCL and their implications for treatment selection
Flu Vaccine Alert in Bangalore Karnatakaaddon Scans
As flu season approaches, health officials in Bangalore, Karnataka, are urging residents to get their flu vaccinations. The seasonal flu, while common, can lead to severe health complications, particularly for vulnerable populations such as young children, the elderly, and those with underlying health conditions.
Dr. Vidisha Kumari, a leading epidemiologist in Bangalore, emphasizes the importance of getting vaccinated. "The flu vaccine is our best defense against the influenza virus. It not only protects individuals but also helps prevent the spread of the virus in our communities," he says.
This year, the flu season is expected to coincide with a potential increase in other respiratory illnesses. The Karnataka Health Department has launched an awareness campaign highlighting the significance of flu vaccinations. They have set up multiple vaccination centers across Bangalore, making it convenient for residents to receive their shots.
To encourage widespread vaccination, the government is also collaborating with local schools, workplaces, and community centers to facilitate vaccination drives. Special attention is being given to ensuring that the vaccine is accessible to all, including marginalized communities who may have limited access to healthcare.
Residents are reminded that the flu vaccine is safe and effective. Common side effects are mild and may include soreness at the injection site, mild fever, or muscle aches. These side effects are generally short-lived and far less severe than the flu itself.
Healthcare providers are also stressing the importance of continuing COVID-19 precautions. Wearing masks, practicing good hand hygiene, and maintaining social distancing are still crucial, especially in crowded places.
Protect yourself and your loved ones by getting vaccinated. Together, we can help keep Bangalore healthy and safe this flu season. For more information on vaccination centers and schedules, residents can visit the Karnataka Health Department’s official website or follow their social media pages.
Stay informed, stay safe, and get your flu shot today!
Knee anatomy and clinical tests 2024.pdfvimalpl1234
This includes all relevant anatomy and clinical tests compiled from standard textbooks, Campbell,netter etc..It is comprehensive and best suited for orthopaedicians and orthopaedic residents.
New Drug Discovery and Development .....NEHA GUPTA
The "New Drug Discovery and Development" process involves the identification, design, testing, and manufacturing of novel pharmaceutical compounds with the aim of introducing new and improved treatments for various medical conditions. This comprehensive endeavor encompasses various stages, including target identification, preclinical studies, clinical trials, regulatory approval, and post-market surveillance. It involves multidisciplinary collaboration among scientists, researchers, clinicians, regulatory experts, and pharmaceutical companies to bring innovative therapies to market and address unmet medical needs.
Lung Cancer: Artificial Intelligence, Synergetics, Complex System Analysis, S...Oleg Kshivets
RESULTS: Overall life span (LS) was 2252.1±1742.5 days and cumulative 5-year survival (5YS) reached 73.2%, 10 years – 64.8%, 20 years – 42.5%. 513 LCP lived more than 5 years (LS=3124.6±1525.6 days), 148 LCP – more than 10 years (LS=5054.4±1504.1 days).199 LCP died because of LC (LS=562.7±374.5 days). 5YS of LCP after bi/lobectomies was significantly superior in comparison with LCP after pneumonectomies (78.1% vs.63.7%, P=0.00001 by log-rank test). AT significantly improved 5YS (66.3% vs. 34.8%) (P=0.00000 by log-rank test) only for LCP with N1-2. Cox modeling displayed that 5YS of LCP significantly depended on: phase transition (PT) early-invasive LC in terms of synergetics, PT N0—N12, cell ratio factors (ratio between cancer cells- CC and blood cells subpopulations), G1-3, histology, glucose, AT, blood cell circuit, prothrombin index, heparin tolerance, recalcification time (P=0.000-0.038). Neural networks, genetic algorithm selection and bootstrap simulation revealed relationships between 5YS and PT early-invasive LC (rank=1), PT N0—N12 (rank=2), thrombocytes/CC (3), erythrocytes/CC (4), eosinophils/CC (5), healthy cells/CC (6), lymphocytes/CC (7), segmented neutrophils/CC (8), stick neutrophils/CC (9), monocytes/CC (10); leucocytes/CC (11). Correct prediction of 5YS was 100% by neural networks computing (area under ROC curve=1.0; error=0.0).
CONCLUSIONS: 5YS of LCP after radical procedures significantly depended on: 1) PT early-invasive cancer; 2) PT N0--N12; 3) cell ratio factors; 4) blood cell circuit; 5) biochemical factors; 6) hemostasis system; 7) AT; 8) LC characteristics; 9) LC cell dynamics; 10) surgery type: lobectomy/pneumonectomy; 11) anthropometric data. Optimal diagnosis and treatment strategies for LC are: 1) screening and early detection of LC; 2) availability of experienced thoracic surgeons because of complexity of radical procedures; 3) aggressive en block surgery and adequate lymph node dissection for completeness; 4) precise prediction; 5) adjuvant chemoimmunoradiotherapy for LCP with unfavorable prognosis.
Recomendações da OMS sobre cuidados maternos e neonatais para uma experiência pós-natal positiva.
Em consonância com os ODS – Objetivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável e a Estratégia Global para a Saúde das Mulheres, Crianças e Adolescentes, e aplicando uma abordagem baseada nos direitos humanos, os esforços de cuidados pós-natais devem expandir-se para além da cobertura e da simples sobrevivência, de modo a incluir cuidados de qualidade.
Estas diretrizes visam melhorar a qualidade dos cuidados pós-natais essenciais e de rotina prestados às mulheres e aos recém-nascidos, com o objetivo final de melhorar a saúde e o bem-estar materno e neonatal.
Uma “experiência pós-natal positiva” é um resultado importante para todas as mulheres que dão à luz e para os seus recém-nascidos, estabelecendo as bases para a melhoria da saúde e do bem-estar a curto e longo prazo. Uma experiência pós-natal positiva é definida como aquela em que as mulheres, pessoas que gestam, os recém-nascidos, os casais, os pais, os cuidadores e as famílias recebem informação consistente, garantia e apoio de profissionais de saúde motivados; e onde um sistema de saúde flexível e com recursos reconheça as necessidades das mulheres e dos bebês e respeite o seu contexto cultural.
Estas diretrizes consolidadas apresentam algumas recomendações novas e já bem fundamentadas sobre cuidados pós-natais de rotina para mulheres e neonatos que recebem cuidados no pós-parto em unidades de saúde ou na comunidade, independentemente dos recursos disponíveis.
É fornecido um conjunto abrangente de recomendações para cuidados durante o período puerperal, com ênfase nos cuidados essenciais que todas as mulheres e recém-nascidos devem receber, e com a devida atenção à qualidade dos cuidados; isto é, a entrega e a experiência do cuidado recebido. Estas diretrizes atualizam e ampliam as recomendações da OMS de 2014 sobre cuidados pós-natais da mãe e do recém-nascido e complementam as atuais diretrizes da OMS sobre a gestão de complicações pós-natais.
O estabelecimento da amamentação e o manejo das principais intercorrências é contemplada.
Recomendamos muito.
Vamos discutir essas recomendações no nosso curso de pós-graduação em Aleitamento no Instituto Ciclos.
Esta publicação só está disponível em inglês até o momento.
Prof. Marcus Renato de Carvalho
www.agostodourado.com
2. • Professor ABDULAZIZ ALKAABBA
Professor of Family Medicine and Bioethics, AL-Imam University - College of Medicine
Board member of the Saudi Healthcare Ethics Society
• Dr. Ghaiath Hussein
Assistant professor of Bioethics and Community Medicine
Board member of the Saudi Healthcare Ethics Society
• Dr. Abdullah Adlan
Consultant Biomedical Ethics and Health-care Governance, Adjunct Assistant Professor,
KSAU-HS
Head of the Biomedical Ethics Department, King Abdullah International Medical Research
Center (KAIMRC), Riyadh, KSA
3. • Describe the Research
Publication Cycle
• Describe the steps in
constructing, revising, editing
and submitting a manuscript
for publication in a peer-
reviewed journal
• Explain the IMRAD structure
approach of scientific
publications
• Define reference management
software (RMS)
• List examples of the main RMS
• Install and apply the basic
functions of Mendeley
• Describe and apply criteria of
choosing journals for
publication
• List the reasons for rejecting
the submitted manuscripts
1 2
4. Date & time Topics Speaker
Day 1: Prepare your manuscript
8.00 - 8.30 Registration
8.30 – 9.00 The research-publication cycle
- The Knowledge Management Cycle
- Overview on research steps from idea to
publication
Prof. Alkabba
9.00 – 9.30 How to structure your paper? IMRAD: Part I
- Title, Abstract and Keywords
- Introduction, Methods and Results
Dr. Adlan
9.30 – 10.10 How to structure your paper? IMRAD: Part II
- Discussion and Conclusions
- Figures and tables
- Acknowledgments and References
Dr. Ghaiath
10.10 – 10.20 Coffee break
10.20 – 11.00 Formatting your manuscript
- IMRaD structure
- Author’s guidelines
- Online submission systems
Dr. Adlan
Dr. Ghaiath
11.00 – 11.30 Ethical considerations in scientific publications
- Authorship and authors' responsibilities
- Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism
Prof. Alkabba
Date & time Topics Speaker
11.30 – 12.00 Tips for using reference management
software (Mendeley)
- What is the RMS?
- How RMS can help in your research
& publication?
- Practical tips to Mendeley
Dr. Ghaiath
Dr. Adlan
12.00 – 1.00 Prayer & lunch break
1.00 – 4.00 Practical sessions: groups will have the
following tasks
- Critically read a publication (does it
follow IMRaD structure?)
- Outline a (mock) manuscript you
developed from your research report
- How to search and cite using
Mendeley?
Prof. Alkabba
Dr. Ghaiath
Dr. Adlan
4.00 – 4.20 Work group presentations Groups
4.20 – 4.30 Wrap-up and tasks for Day 2 Prof. Alkabba
Dr. Ghaiath
Dr. Adlan
1 2
5. Date & time Topics Speaker
Day 2: Publish your manuscript
8.30 – 9.00 Selecting a journal & submitting your paper for publication Prof.Alkabba
9.00 – 9.30 What do journal editors want? Dr. Adlan
9.30 – 10.00 Cover letters and supplementary documents for manuscript submission Dr. Adlan /Dr. Ghaiath
10.10 – 10.20 Coffee break
10.20 – 11.00 Understanding peer review process & Journal decisions - I Dr. Adlan
11.00 – 11.30 Understanding peer review process & Journal decisions - II Dr. Ghaiath Hussein
11.30 – 12.00 Reference management and manuscript preparation) Dr. Abdullah Adlan
Dr. Ghaiath Hussein
12.00 – 1.00 Prayer & lunch break
1.00 – 4.00 Practical sessions- groups will have the following tasks:
- Critically read a published article – if you were a reviewer, what would
you suggest?
- Respond to a (mock) reviewer’s comments on their manuscript.
Prof. Abdulaziz Alkabba
Dr. Ghaiath Hussein
Dr. Abdullah Adlan
4.00 – 4.20 Work group presentations Groups
4.20 – 4.30 Wrap-up and end of workshop (certificates)
7. “Good” research: Good Science & Good Ethics
“Good” Evidence: near-top to hierarchy of
Evidence
Evidence-Based Healthcare: Better
practice that is based on best evidence
Better health status
Why do we need research?
8. Research planning - implementation cycle
Planning
Conducting
Data
Management
ReportingDissemination
Evidence
synthesis
New research
questions
11. • Contribute to the body of knowledge
• To become a recognized expert in your field
• To help develop or improve on existing practice or policy
• To advance your career (promotions)
• Gain inner satisfaction
https://simplyeducate.me/2013/07/20/why-publish-research-findings/
12. What are
the
you faced
when you
tried to
publish?
• Group A • Group B
Tasks:
1. Divide yourselves into two groups.
2. Share your experiences about scientific publications
3. What are the main challenges you faced when you tried to publish?
13. Essential Research Skills
Before conduct (Prepare) During conduct (Do) After conduct (Disseminate)
Review of literature Research methods (Q&Q) Reference management
Proposal writing Designing data collection tools Scientific writing
Grant writing (and hunting) Data analysis (Quan. & Qual.) Writing for publication
Research ethics Plagiarism Publication ethics
Cross-cutting skills:
• Critical thinking
• Leadership skills
• Project management
• Presentation (communication) skills
• Resource (Time) management
• Scientific writing
14. How to structure your paper? IMRAD: Part I
Dr. Abdullah Adlan
- Title, Abstract and Keywords
- Introduction, Methods and Results
Source: https://www.enago.com/academy/
15. What to
read an article?
• Reflect on your latest online literature search …
• What made you stop at a specific article to click it?
16. Titles matter!
Nicola Di Girolamo and Reint M. Reynders (2016) found
that:
• Titles in the Altmetric Top 100 were 102.6 characters
long, included 3.4 uncommon words, and 29.6% were
declarative
• Declarative titles having lesser uncommon words were
significantly more represented in the Altmetric Top 100
• Declarative titles had 2.8 times the odds in the top list
• For every extra uncommon word used in the title, there
was a 1.4 increase in the odds to be non-Altmetric Top
100 article
• The conclusion of the study showed that an
informative and easy to understand title might help in
bridging the gap between scholarly and social media
dissemination.
17. • Declarative
State the main conclusions.
Example: Mixed strains of probiotics improve
antibiotic associated diarrhea.
• Descriptive
Describe the subject.
Example: Effects of mixed strains of
probiotics on antibiotic associated diarrhea.
• Interrogative
Use a question for the subject.
Example: Do mixed strains of probiotics
improve antibiotic associated diarrhea?
18. Tips for an
Attractive Title
•Be concise
• Convey the main topics
• Highlight the importance
• Be concise
•Be descriptive
•Use a low word count (5-15
words)
•Check journal guidelines
•Avoid jargon and symbols
19. Why did it
become #1?
https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/06/Nicola-Di-Girolamo.pdf
20. Problematic Titles
• Does Vaccinating Children and Adolescents with Inactivated
Influenza Virus Inhibit the Spread of Influenza in
Unimmunized Residents of Rural Communities?
This title has too many unnecessary words.
• Influenza Vaccination of Children: A Randomized Trial
This title doesn’t give enough information about what makes
the manuscript interesting.
• Effect of Child Influenza Vaccination on Infection Rates in
Rural Communities: A Randomized Trial
This is an effective title. It is short, easy to understand, and
conveys the important aspects of the research.
TIP: Write down a few possible titles, and then select the best to
refine further. Ask your colleagues their opinion. Spending the
time needed to do this will result in a better title.Photo Credit
21. Abstracts and Keywords … What & Why?
• An abstract is a self-contained, short, and precise summary that
describes a larger work.
• Components vary according to discipline (IMRaC ± Limitations)
• The abstract is an original content rather than an excerpted passage.
Why write an abstract?
• Selection and Indexing:
• To allow readers who may be interested in a longer work to quickly decide
whether it is worth their time to read it.
• many online databases use abstracts to index larger works.
• Therefore, abstracts should contain keywords and phrases that allow for easy
searching.
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/abstracts/
22. Abstract format
• Depending on the author guidelines of the
journal, it can be:
• The structured abstract
• has distinct sections with headings(objective,
methods, results, and conclusion), which
enables a reader to easily find the relevant
information under clear headings
• Think of each section as a question and provide
a concise but detailed answer under each
heading.
• The unstructured abstract
• is a narrative paragraph of your research.
• It is similar to the structured abstract but does
not contain headings.
• It gives the context, findings, conclusion, and
implications of your paper.
23. Good abstract should be
• A summary of the content of the journal manuscript
• A time-saving shortcut for busy researchers
• A guide to the most important parts of your manuscript
• Able to stand alone (the only part of your article that appears in indexing)
• Helping to speed up the peer-review process.
• Answering these questions about your manuscript:
• What was done?
• Why did you do it?
• What did you find?
• Why are these findings useful and important?
TIP: Journals often set a maximum word count for Abstracts, often 250 words,
and no citations. This is to ensure that the full Abstract appears in indexing
services.
24. All abstracts include:
• A full citation of the source, preceding the
abstract.
• The most important information first.
• The same type and style of language found in
the original, including technical language.
• Key words and phrases that quickly identify
the content and focus of the work.
• Clear, concise, and powerful language.
Abstracts may include:
• The thesis of the work, usually in the first
sentence.
• Background information that places the
work in the larger body of literature.
• The same chronological structure as the
original work.
How not to write an abstract:
• Do not refer extensively to other works.
• Do not add information not contained in the
original work.
• Do not define terms.
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/abstracts/
25. Keywords
• Keywords are a tool to help indexers and
search engines find relevant papers.
• If database search engines can find your
journal manuscript, readers will be able to find
it too.
• This will increase the number of people
reading your manuscript, and likely lead to
more citations.
• They should:
• Represent the content of your manuscript
• Be specific to your field or sub-field
26. Examples of Keywords
• Manuscript title: Direct observation of nonlinear optics in an isolated carbon
nanotube
Poor keywords: molecule, optics, lasers, energy lifetime
Better keywords: single-molecule interaction, Kerr effect, carbon nanotubes,
energy level structure
• Manuscript title: Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid
administration
Poor keywords: neuron, brain, OA (an abbreviation), regional-specific neuronal
degeneration, signaling
Better keywords: neurodegenerative diseases; CA1 region, hippocampal; okadaic
acid; neurotoxins; MAP kinase signaling system; cell death
• Manuscript title: Increases in levels of sediment transport at former glacial-
interglacial transitions
• Poor keywords: climate change, erosion, plant effects
• Better keywords: quaternary climate change, soil erosion, bioturbation
27. Give your
study an
attractive
and
effective
• Group A • Group B
Tasks:
1. Divide yourselves into two groups.
2. Share your titles
3. Classify your title
4. Write 3 – 5 keywords that best describes your study
28.
29. What is an ?
• The section that introduces your
research in the context of the knowledge
in the field.
• First introduce:
• the topic including the problem you are
addressing,
• the importance of solving this problem, and
• known research and gaps in the knowledge.
• Then narrow it down to your research
questions and hypothesis.
https://www.enago.com/academy/top-three-tips-for-writing-a-good-introduction/
30. Tips to an effective
introduction
• Give broad background
information about the problem.
• Write it in a logical manner so that
the reader can follow your
thought process.
• Focus on the problem you intend
to solve with your research
• Note any solutions in the
literature thus far.
• Propose your study as solution to
the problem with reasons.
31. Refer to the notes section below for guidelines
on this topic.
32. • It is the section whose purpose is to explain the meaning of the
results to the reader.
• It helps in answering the following questions:
• Did you achieve your objectives?
• How do your results compare to other studies?
• Were there any limitations to your research?
• Before writing the Discussion, consider the following:
• How do your results answer your objectives?
• Why do you think your results are different to published data?
• Do you think further research would help clarify any issues with your data?
How to Write an Effective Discussion, Dean R Hess . [Respir Care 2004;49(10):1238–1241
33. Structure of
• Set out the context and main aims of the study
• Do this without repeating the introduction
• Discuss findings, compare to other studies
• How findings compare to other studies
• Limitations
• Practical implications: what they mean for the field
• Talk about the major outcomes of the study.
• Be careful not to write your conclusion here.
• Merely highlight the main themes emerging from your data
34. Include
It is not a literature review.
Keep your comments relevant
to your results.
Interpret your results.
Be concise and remove
unnecessary words.
Do not include results not
presented in the result
section.
Ensure your conclusions are
supported by your data.
√ State the study’s major
findings
√ Explain the meaning and
importance of the findings
√ Relate the findings to other
studies
√ Alternative explanations of
the findings
√ An explanation for any
surprising, unexpected, or
inconclusive results
√ Acknowledge the study’s
limitations
√ Make suggestions for further
research
Overpresentation of the
results
Unwarranted speculation
Inflation of the importance of
the findings
Tangential issues
The “bully pulpit”
Conclusions not supported by
your data
New results or data not
presented previously in the
paper
Inclusion of the “take-home
message”; save this for the
conclusions section
How to Write an Effective Discussion, Dean R Hess . [Respir Care 2004;49(10):1238–1241
https://www.enago.com/academy/discussion-conclusion-know-difference-drafting-manuscript/
35. SHOULD
State what you set out to
achieve.
Tell the reader what your
major findings were.
How has your study
contributed to the field?
Mention any limitations.
End with
recommendations for
future research.
Restate your hypothesis or
research question
Restate your major findings
Tell the reader what
contribution your study has
made to the existing
literature
Highlight any limitations of
your study
State future directions for
research/recommendations
Introduce new arguments
Introduce new data
Fail to include your research
question
Fail to state your major results
38. Refer to the notes section below for guidelines
on this topic.
39. Display items (Tables & Figures)
• The quickest way to communicate large amounts of complex information.
• Many readers will only look at your display items without reading the main
text
• Display items are also important for attracting readers to your work.
• High-quality display items give your work a professional appearance.
• Readers will assume that a professional-looking manuscript contains good
quality science
• Which of your results to present as display items consider the following
questions:
• Are there any data that readers might rather see as a display item rather than text?
• Do your figures supplement the text and not just repeat what you have already stated?
• Have you put data into a table that could easily be explained in the text such as simple
statistics or p values?
https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/writing-a-journal-manuscript/figures-and-tables/10285530
40. Tables & figures
• What is wrong with this table?
Men Group 1 men group 2 Rats
Serum Protein
A
100 158 -
Blood glucose
(mmol/L)
102 160 154
Weight
(average)
138.8989 150.8 1.6588887
Activity level 0 5 8
Data on different responses
41. Tables
• Concise and effective way to present large amounts of data.
• Design them carefully to clearly communicate your results to busy
researchers.
Clear and concise legend/caption
Data divided into categories for clarity
Sufficient spacing between columns and rows
Units are provided
Font type and size are legible
Source: Environmental Earth Sciences (2009) 59:529–536
42. Figures (Images, Data plots, Schematics)
• Images:
• Include scale bars
• Consider labeling
important items
• Indicate the
meaning of
different colours
and symbols used
• Data plots
• Label all axes
• Specify units for
quantities
• Label all curves and
data sets
• Use a legible font
size
44. Figures (schematics & maps)
In maps:
Include
latitude and
longitude
Include scale
bars
Label
important
items
Consider
adding a map
legendSource: Nano Research (2011) 4:284–289
45. Refer to the notes section below for guidelines
on this topic.
46. Why do we need to cite ?
• To give credibility to statements made
• To give credit to other scientists whose findings are being cited
• For use by readers to find further information
• Establish where ideas came from
• Give evidence for claims
• Connect readers to other research
• Provide a context for your work
• Show that there is interest in this field of research
Smart P., Maisonneuve H. and Polderman A. (eds) Science Editors’ Handbook. European Association of Science Editors.
www.ease.org.uk
47. Reference Management Software (RMS)
• It is software for scholars and authors to use for recording and utilising
bibliographic citations (references).
• These software packages normally consist of a database in which full
bibliographic references can be entered.
• It can usually be integrated with word processors so that a reference list
in the appropriate format is produced automatically
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_management_software
48. RMS: What they do?
1. Import citations from bibliographic databases and websites
2. Allow organization of citations within the RM database
3. Allow annotation of citations
4. Allow sharing of the RM database with colleagues
5. Allow data interchange with other RMS through standard metadata
formats (e.g., RIS, BibTeX)
6. Produce formatted citations in a variety of styles
7. Work with word processing software to facilitate in-text citation
Source: (http://www.istl.org/11-summer/refereed2.html)
50. 1. Install your RM of choice
2.Do your online search
3. Build a new database
4.Transfer the reference from the web to your
database
5.Use the references you imported in your document
51.
52. What are Author’s Instructions?
• All journals have certain requirements for publication in them
• These requirements are detailed in the ‘Author’s Instructions’
• They are important because:
• Facilitates the acceptance of your submission
• Editors can/will refuse submissions not following the instructions
• They make life easier (or harder?) for the author
The good news: many journals have ready-to-use templates.
53. What’s usually included in the ?
• Scope and editorial policy
• Scope (areas of interest/focus), and types of submissions
• Ethical considerations:
• Ethical approval, Informed consent, authorship, conflict of interests
• Formatting:
• Font, Spacing, Numbers’ format
• Referencing style:
• Vancouver, Harvard, MLA,APA,
• There are templates in the main Reference Management Software (e.g. Endnote, Reference
Manager, etc.)
• Formatting guidelines
• Graphs and diagrams, accepted file types, photographic and scanned images, maps, etc.
Usually required to follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals
(International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE).
54. What’s usually included in the ?
• Reporting of specific types of studies
Reporting format Usage and guidance
reports of randomized trials (http://www.consort-statement.org)
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials
(http://www.consort-statement.org/Evidence/evidence.html)
reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (http://www.strobe-
statement.org)
meta-analysis of observational studies
(http://www.consortstatement.org/News/news.html#moose)
for studies of diagnostic accuracy (http://www.consort-
statement.org/stardstatement.htm )
reports of non-randomized evaluations of interventions
(http://www.trend-statement.org/asp/trend.asp)
56. Who is an ?
• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the
work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for
the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important
intellectual content; AND
• review manuscript drafts and approve the final version to be
published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
• An author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual
contribution
• All authors should One author should take primary responsibility
for the whole work
• Authors should describe each author’s contributions and how
order was assigned to help readers interpret roles correctly
• The funding and provision of technical services, patients,
materials alone are not sufficient
ICMJE Guidelines | Harvard Medical School
57. Unethical forms of authorship
Authorship
misconduct
Definition
Ghost
Authors who contributed to the work but are not listed, generally to hide a conflict of
interest from editors, reviewers, and readers.
An author is paid to write an article but does not contribute to the article in any other way.
Guest
Individuals given authorship credit who have not contributed in any substantive way to the
research but are added to the author list by virtue of their stature in the organization.
Orphan
Authors who contributed materially to the work but are omitted from the author list
unfairly by the drafting team.
Forged/Gift
Unwitting authors who had no part in the work but whose names are appended to the
paper without their knowledge to increase the likelihood of publication.
https://www.internationalscienceediting.com/authorship/
58. How to
authorship ?
• Talk early and often about authorship
and authorship order for each
project’s manuscript(s)
• When gathering input about
contributions, ask everyone to put in
writing
• Create a culture of transparency and
collaboration and revisit the issue of
specific authorship periodically
• If a disagreement arises, make every
effort to resolve the dispute locally Harvard Medical School
59. Research Misconduct (FFP)
Definition: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting
them.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes,
results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
• Research misconduct includes the destruction of, absence of, or
accused person's failure to provide research records accurately
documenting the questioned research.
60. Research Misconduct (FFP) – Wrongful Acts
Definition or research Misconduct:
is significant misbehaviour that improperly appropriates the intellectual property or
contributions of others, that intentionally impedes the progress of research, or that
risks corrupting the scientific record or compromising the integrity of scientific
practices. (US Commission on Research Integrity (1996) )
A wrongful act is defined as any act that may subvert the integrity of the review
process which includes, but not limited to the following:
• Submitting a fraudulent application, offering or promising a bribe or illegal
gratuity, or making an untrue statement.
• Submitting data that are otherwise unreliable due to, for example, a pattern of
errors, whether caused by incompetence, negligence, or a system-wide failure to
ensure the integrity of data submissions.
61. Other forms of
scientific misconduct
• Undeclared redundant publication or
submission
• Disputes over authorship
• Failure to obtain informed consent
• Performing unethical research
• Failure to gain approval from an ethics
committee
62. Definition of Plagiarism
• … plagiarism to include both the theft or
misappropriation of intellectual property (IP) and the
substantial unattributed textual copying of another's
work.
• … the unattributed copying of sentences and
paragraphs which materially mislead the ordinary
reader regarding the contributions of the author.
• The theft or misappropriation of IP includes the
unauthorized use of ideas or unique methods
obtained by a privileged communication, such as a
grant or manuscript review.
Office of Research Integrity (ORI)’s
64. Why care about the
choice of the journal?
Your thoughts?
65. Getting your research and
work to be published
The journal publishing process
Writing a paper
Ten rules for success
66.
67. Deciding whether to publish
• Why publish?
• to add knowledge to your field
• to advance your career
• to see your name in print!
• It is my job as researcher
• For my promotion
• Have I got something worth publishing?
• Does the work add enough to existing knowledge?
68. Deciding where to publish
• Conference proceedings, book chapters and
journals
• 26,000 journals – how to choose?
• Different strategies
• topic and journal coverage (check website)
• Is it peer-reviewed?
• Most appropriate readership
• Length of time from submission to publication
• Highest ‘impact’
• Journal impact factors
70. What are the Scholarly Metrics?
• Scholarly metrics are away for the impact of an article, author, or
journal to be measured quantitatively.
https://www.lib.uwo.ca/files/scholarship/6-imtg-understanding_scholarly_metrics-final_en_0WL.pdf
Metric Definition
the impact factor represents the average number of
citations per article the journal received during the previous two years
Journals with high impact factors–where there are a high average number
of citations is considered to have greater impact and importance in that
field of study
focuses specifically on the individual researcher, quantifying the output
and impact of his or her work.
the calculation is cumulative and based on the distribution of citations
across the number of publications of an individual researcher.
71. What are impact factors?
• An impact factor attempts to provide a measure of
how frequently papers published in a journal are
cited in the scientific literature.
• Calculated as the average number of times an article
published in the journal in previous 2 years has been cited in
all scientific literature in the current year.
• So, if there were an average of 1000 citations in 2018 for 100
articles published in a journal in 2016 and 2017, the impact
factor would be 10.
• Most journals have impact factors that are below 2.
• e.g. Nature = 34,07, J. Applied Ecology = 4.5,
• Saudi annals 0.8
72. • Developed by Eugene Garfield in the 1950s
• Reflects average of number of citations to recent articles published in journals JCR tracks
• Proxy measure for importance of journal in the field
• Impact Factor
• Current and 5-year IFs
• Immediacy Index ( the journal it is cited for only one ans same year )
• Cites in 2012 to items published in 2012
Impact Factors and Immediacy
Formula
A = the number of times that articles published in that journal in
2006 and 2007, were cited by articles in indexed journals during
2008.
B = the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in
2006 and 2007.
2008 impact factor = A/B.
73. • Important notes
Any journal with an
impact factor is a good
journal.
• Social science journals
rank lower in impact
than science journals.
The higher the IF, the
more valued the journal.
Impact Factors
Of the 67 journals ranked in Health
Policy & Services, the top ranked
journal is Milbank Quarterly at 4.644,
the lowest is Sciences Sociales Et
Sante at 0.176.
74. What editors look for in a
manuscript
• Quality
• good science: well planned, well executed study
• good presentation
• Significance and originality
• Consistent with scope of journal
• Demonstrated broad interest to readership
• Will it cite?
• Well written ‘story’
• Author enthusiasm
75. Writing the paper: key points
• Strong Introduction
• Engage the reader
• Set the scene, explain why the work is important, and
state the aim of the study
• Clear, logically organised, complete Methods
• Provide enough information to allow assessment of
results (could someone else repeat the study?)
• Results
• Be clear and concise; avoid repetition between text,
tables and figures
• Relevant Discussion
• Start strongly – were aims achieved?
• Discuss significance and implications of results
76. Attracting the editor/reader
• There are lots of opportunities for rejection!
• Remember: your paper is competing with many others for the
attention of editors and readers
• Title
• Brief, interesting and accurate
• Abstract
• Attract readers to your paper
• Aim for 4 sections: why, how, what and implications
• Include important keywords for searching
• Make it clear and easy to read
77. The IMRAD Format
for Scientific Papers
• Introduction: What was the question?
• Methods: How did you try to answer it?
• Results: What did you find?
• And
• Discussion: What does it mean?
79. Before you submit
Internal review
• Ask your peers to read it to get an alternative perspective
• Ask someone outside your field to read it
• Read the Notice to Authors
• Follow format and submission instructions
• Write a covering letter to the editor
• Should clearly explain (but not overstate) the scientific advance
• Submit with the consent of all authors and to only one journal
80. Submitting the Paper
• Traditional submission (by mail)—now rare
• Electronic submission
• Commonly via online submission system
• Sometimes as e-mail attachment
• Inclusion of a cover letter (conventional or electronic)
• Completion of required forms
82. Peer Review
• Evaluation by experts in the field
• Purposes:
• To help the editor decide whether to publish the paper
• To help the authors improve the paper, whether or not the journal accepts
it
83. The Editor’s Decision
• Based on the peer reviewers’ advice, the editor’s own evaluation,
the amount of space in the journal, other factors
• Options:
• Accept as is (rare)
• Accept if suitably revised
• Reconsider if revised
• Reject
84. Revising a Paper
• Revise and resubmit promptly.
• Indicate what revisions were made.
• Include a letter saying what revisions were made. If you received a list of
requested revisions, address each in the letter.
• If requested, show revisions in Track Changes.
• If you disagree with a requested revision, explain why in your
letter. Try to find a different way to solve the problem that the
editor or reviewer noted.
85. Understanding reviews: what makes a good
review
• Good reviews provide the editor with the information on which a
decision can be based
• The best are articulate and constructive
• They tell the editor:
• What is interesting about the paper ?
• How the results are significant?
• What contribution the paper makes to the field ?
• What can be done to improve the paper ?
• If the paper is not publishable and why
86. Detailed comments in the review
•A good review answers the following
questions and provides suggestions for
improvement:
• Does the introduction explain why the
work was done and the hypothesis being
tested ?
• Is the experimental/study design
appropriate?
• Are the methods clearly described to
enable full assessment of the results ?
• Is the analysis appropriate ?
87. Detailed comments in the review
• A good review answers the following questions
and provides suggestions for improvement:
• Are the results presented effectively ?
• Is the work discussed in the context of all relevant
literature ?
• Does the discussion make clear the significance and
wider implications of the work ?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?
88. Responding to referees’ reports
• Read the editor’s letter first for instruction
• Take a deep breath: proceed to the reports
• Put them aside for a day, or two, a week…
• Re-read reports and discuss with coauthors …
• Revise paper and prepare response document
• Remember –
• Even comments that seem aggressive or ignorant can be helpful
• Always view this as a chance to improve the paper
89. Good response to referees’ reports are ….
• Well organised
• Address common themes at start
• Use a ‘quote and response’ OR numbering system of points raised by each
referee
• Informative
• Provide full explanations
• Do not overlook or ignore any points
• Assertive (and polite)
90. • Questions going through the editor’s mind:
• How good is the science in this paper?
• Is an important issue/area of study being addressed?
• Is the experimental design appropriate and adequate?
• Are the analyses appropriate and competently done?
• Has the study been put in context?
• Does the paper contribute significantly to the literature?
• Does the paper tell an interesting story?
• Will it be read and cited?
The decision:
accept, re-review, reject
91. The decision
• Remember –
• The editor will make a final decision based on how well the
referees’ reports have been dealt with, so …
• Revise with care
• Respond fully to each of the referees’ comments
• Present cogent and complete arguments if you have not followed a
referee’s recommendation
• Make the editor’s job as easy as possible!
92. Summary
•Writing for successful publication
means
• having a well designed, original study to write about
• selecting an appropriate outlet/journal
• knowing what you want to write
• writing clearly
• making the story interesting
• highlighting the significance of the results
• responding carefully and positively to referees’ reports
93. Ten rules for getting published (1)
1. Read many papers, and learn from both the
good and the bad ones.
2. The more objective you can be about your work,
the better the work will ultimately become.
3. Good editors and reviewers will be objective
about your work.
4. If you do not write well in the English language,
take lessons early; it will be invaluable later.
5. Learn to live with rejection.
94. Ten rules for getting published (2)
6. Understand what makes good science and what makes good
science writing: be objective about them.
7. Start writing the paper the day you have the idea of what
questions to pursue
8. Become a reviewer early in your career.
9. Decide early on where to try to publish your paper.
10. Quality (not quantity) is everything.
95. Further information
• Getting your work published (Podcast)
• http://www.jobs.ac.uk/careers/whitepapers/640/Getting_your_academic_
work_published
• PLOS Computational Biology – ‘Ten simple rules for getting
published’
• http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-
document&doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057&ct=1
• ‘How to get published in LIS journals: a practical guide’
• http://www.elsevier.com/framework_librarians/LibraryConnect/lcpamphlet
2.pdf
97. Henry Oldenberg (1619-1677)
• A German Natural Philosopher
• A founding Member of the Royal society in
1660
• Founder Editor of:
Philosophical Transaction of Royal Society
99. Peer reviewed
Scholarly Journal articles
Books
Thesis
Grey Publication
Website
Daily news papers
None documented anecdotes opinions
Videos, films, presentations, word of the
mouth etc.
100. The importance of PR
• It is a cornerstone of contemporary science
and current medicine
• It is mainly relying on expert opinion
• It is objective review
• It is ensure the quality of the papers they
publish.
• It is usually done by group of volunteers yet
they are experts
101. PR Stake holders
Journal staff – oversees the receipt of manuscripts, manages communications
with authors and reviewers and processes accepted manuscripts for publication
Scientific editors - make the final decision as to whether a specific manuscript
will be accepted for publication, returned for revisions, or rejected
Members of the editorial board – read and review papers, select reviewers and
monitor quality of reviews, and recommend actions to editor
Reviewers – provide reviews of manuscripts, make recommendations concerning
publication
102. What is expected of your peer
• Expertise in one or more areas of paper
• Objectivity
• No conflicts of interest
• Good judgment
• Able to think clearly and logically
• Able to write a good critique
• Accurate
• Readable
• Helpful to editors and authors
• Reliable in returning reviews
• Able to do the review in the allotted time frame
103. Done by experts
Rate your work among other peers
Example: Grants writing or call for
paper
Done by experts
Insure the highest quality for the
final manuscript
Insure the availability of enough data
for reproducibility of the results
Merits Review
Versus
Peer Review
104.
105. • Which journal should you publish in? (covered by Prof. Alkabba)
• How can you ensure you have the best chance of being accepted?
• Do you really need to bother with a cover letter?
• How do you respond to reviewers?
106. Aim at the !
• Journal editors:
• evaluate all submitted manuscripts,
• select those which they consider to be suitable for the journal,
• send for peer review, and
• consider peer reviewers’ advice to make a final decision about
what gets published.
• When first faced with a manuscript they usually look at the
cover letter, abstract, conclusion and references.
• Journal editors want to publish good quality science that is
of interest to their readers.
Submission is more likely to be accepted if it:
• Is within the scope of the journal
• Is novel and describes research that advances the field
• Adds to an active research field
• Is carefully prepared and formatted
• Uses clear and concise language
• Follows ethical standards
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC
107. Why do papers?
Technical reasons
• Incomplete data such as too small a sample size
or missing or poor controls
• Poor analysis such as using inappropriate
statistical tests
• Inappropriate methodology for answering your
hypothesis or using old methodology that has
been surpassed
• Hypothesis is not clear or scientifically valid, or
your data does not answer the question posed
• Inaccurate conclusions on assumptions that are
not supported by your data
• Editorial reasons
• Out of scope for the journal
• Not enough of an advance or of enough impact for the
journal
• Research ethics ignored (e.g. IRB approval of consent)
• Lack of proper structure or not following journal
formatting requirements
• Lack of the necessary detail for readers to fully
understand and repeat the authors’ analysis and
experiments
• Lack of up-to-date references or references containing
a high proportion of self-citations
• Poor language quality (hardly understood by readers)
• Difficult to follow logic or poorly presented data.
• Violation of publication ethics
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC
How to avoid them?
108. Document Details
Title page
Title
Authors—names, affiliations, addresses
Corresponding author’s contact details
Author roles
Conflict of interest statement
Funding sources if applicable
Manuscript
If the review is anonymous remember to include the manuscript title
The abstract should be at the start of the manuscript
Page numbers are essential
Line numbering may be useful
Tables Numbered and titled—tables should stand alone
Figures Numbered and titled—figures should stand alone
Covering letter
Addressed to the editor in chief
State the importance of the study without hyperbole.
Confirm that the work is original and not under consideration by another journal
Completed
copyright form
Table 27.5 example separate documents required for manuscript submission
Oxford Handbook of Clinical and Healthcare Research
109. The Title Page
The title page should contain the following contents:
• Main title and subtitle (if any).
• Authors (First Name, Middle Name, Family Name), listed in the order
in which they are to appear on the page of the published article.
• Highest qualification for each author.
• Institutional affiliation for each author.
• Financial support information.
• Short or ‘running’ title. Length should not exceed 58 characters.
• Name, address, number(s), and email address of the corresponding
author.
110. What is a Cover Letter?
• A letter you send to the editor to
‘sell’ your article along your
submission
• Your chance to introduce your
work to the editor AND explain
why the manuscript will be of
interest to a journal's readers.
• Make it persuasive!
• Is this a good letter?
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
I am sending you our manuscript
entitled “Large Scale Analysis of Cell
Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer” by
Researcher et al. We would like to have
the manuscript considered for
publication in Pathobiology.
Please let me know of your decision at
your earliest convenience.
With my best regards,
Sincerely yours,
A Researcher, PhD
111. What to include in the Cover Letter?
Where (in the letter)? What?
Beginning If known, address the editor who will be assessing your manuscript by their name.
Include the date of submission and the journal you are submitting to.
First paragraph: Include the title of your manuscript and its type of manuscript (e.g. review, research,
case study). Then briefly explain the background to your study, the question you sought
out to answer and why.
Second paragraph: Concisely explain what was done, the main findings and why they are significant.
Third paragraph: Indicate why the readers of the journal would be interested in the work, i.e. the
importance of the results to the field. Take your cues from the journal’s aims and scope,
Conclude State the corresponding author and any journal specific requirements that need to be
complied with (e.g. ethical standards).
Must include!
Cliché sentences
“We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under
consideration by another journal.
All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the
name of the target journal].”
112. What do reviewers assess in your article?
Do they clearly identify the need for this research, and its relevance?
Does it target the main question(s) appropriately?
Are they presented clearly and logically, and are they justified by the data
provided? Are the figures clear and fully described?
Does it justifiably respond to the main questions posed by the author(s) in
the Introduction?
Are they up-to-date and relevant?
Is it clear, correct and easy to read?
114. What to expect in a reviewer's response?
• Introduction: Mirror the article, state your expertise and whether
the paper is publishable, or whether there are fatal flaws;
• Major flaws;
• Minor flaws;
• Other, lesser suggestions and final comments.
115. How to respond to reviewers/editor?
• “Sleep on it” before starting to write your rebuttal. Take Your Time!
• Carefully read the accompanying letter
• Read the reviewers' comments again carefully and check the issues
raised by the reviewer
• Carefully discuss the comments – one by one
• The better you structure this, the easier it is for the editor and
reviewers to see what you have done.
116. Outline/framework for responding to editor
• Include a heading for every page with “Reply to the comments on
manuscript [title of your manuscript] [manuscript ID number]” and
“[your name] et al.”
• Write an introduction to your response to the comments and summarise
major changes you have made, and include this with this response or use
it for a separate cover letter for the Editor. Do not forget to thank the
editor and reviewers for their efforts.
• Organise the comments/questions from the editor and each reviewer
and your response, for example, as follows.
• 1) Comment 1.1. (for comment 1 from reviewer 1) followed by a copy–paste of the
comment or question, or a short summary of the point raised. If the reviewer's
comments are not numbered, split the review into individual comments. You can
use italics to highlight the comments from the reviewer.
• 2) Reply 1.1. (the reply to comment 1 from reviewer 1). This is why this is often
called a point-by-point reply to the comments.
117. Outline/framework for responding to editor
Some ground rules for the content of your reply (1)
• Discuss the comments in detail in advance with your co-authors.
• Carefully read the requirements from the journal for submitting a revised
version (e.g. marked-up version).
• Realise that the reviewer has taken time to evaluate your manuscript and
aims to help you to improve it (although it may sometimes appear
otherwise).
• Be polite to the reviewer and editor, and do not be dismissive of their
comments.
• Always be very specific in your response and address all points raised
• an editorial comment or spelling error, you can answer “This has now been
amended”, “We agree” or “We apologise for this omission”.
• If more than one reviewer has raised the same point, refer to this (“this point has
been addressed in the reply to comment x of reviewer y”).
118. Outline/framework for responding to editor
Some ground rules for the content of your reply (2)
• Consider including additional information, data or figures for the
reviewer that were not included in the manuscript if it helps you to make
your point.
• If you cannot address a point raised by the reviewer, explain why. If you feel that
a certain comment is outside the scope of your study, please explain this.
• If you disagree with the reviewer (yes, this may happen) and/or think that an
additional experiment or analysis is not needed, explain why.
• Carefully consider also mentioning this in the Discussion, for example, in
the paragraph with limitations, since readers may share the reviewer's
opinion.
• Never claim to have made changes if you have not done so.
119. Outline/framework for responding to editor
Some ground rules for the content of your reply (3)
• If you have been asked to shorten some part of your manuscript, do so.
• Always indicate where you have made a change in your manuscript in
response to the question/comments: “This is now addressed in the
Discussion section of the revised manuscript on page x, line y.” If
appropriate, cite relevant references in your reply.
• Address your response and not to the Reviewers.
• You should write for instancto the Editor e “We agree with the reviewer
…”rather than “We agree with you”. Always refer to the reviewer in third
person.
120. Sample of response cover letter
Tuesday, May 12, 2019
Dear Mr. Jones,
Editor of BMC Medical Ethics
Re: Second Revision of the Manuscript reference No. METH-D-18-00176
It is our pleasure indeed to know that you consider our revised manuscript is potentially
acceptable for publication. Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript “Mention
of ethical review and informed consent in the reports of research undertaken during the
armed conflict in Darfur (2004-2012): a systematic review”, which we would like to resubmit
an updated and revised final version for publication in BMC Medical Ethics.
Please find, in the following pages, our point-by-point responses to each of the editorial
comments and those of the reviewers.
Revisions in the text are shown in details below with clear reference to where these changes
have taken place in the modified version of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions in the
manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript
suitable for publication in BMC Medical Ethics.
We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the authors
Ghaiath Hussein, PhD
Address: Slaman Farsi Rd., Khaleej Distr., Riyadh 7839-13224 , Saudi Arabia
Cell: +966-565565810
E-mail: ghaiathme@gmail.com
Editor Comments:
1. Please provide a list of all the abbreviations used in the manuscript. This list should be placed
just before the Declarations section. All abbreviations should still be defined in the text at first
use.
Response:
A list of abbreviations was added just before the Declarations section.
2. Please include a statement in the Authors' contributions section to the effect that all authors
have read and approved the manuscript, and ensure that this is the case.
Response:
The required statement is added.
3. Please ensure that the titles of each separate Table file are correct and that they are in
sequential order.
Response:
The tables were revised. This led to renaming adding the missing Table 4
4. At this stage, we ask that you submit a clean version of your manuscript and do not include
track changes or highlighting.
Response:
This will be done along the submission of the final version.
Reviewer reports:
1. Raffaella Ravinetto, PharmD, PhD (Reviewer 2): Thanks for a comprehensive and
accurate reply to our previous comments.
Concerning my previous remark that "Mortality and nutritional surveys may be primarily
undertaken for different purposes than research, e.g. exploratory assessments to further
plan field intervention, M&E of field intervention. When not conducted for a primary
research purposes, they still need to comply with essential ethical issues such as
consent, protection of privacy and confidentiality, etc. (by the way, is it possible that many
of the CRED studies belonged to the category?)", I wish to clarify that this was a
reflection on the fact that this kind of activity "should" comply with ethics requirements in
any case (even if not used for research). This was not at all an assumption that all
surveys "will" by default comply with ethics requirements.
Response:
We have added the following statement at the end of the “Possibility One”, which reads as:
“Moreover, it would be expected than even when these surveys are not done primarily for
research purposes may not need ethical approval; yet they would have complied with an
essential ethical requirement such as consent.”
2. Concerning the issue of pre-approved protocol, I wish to reiterate that for the MSF ERB
the pre-review of generic protocols still requires ethics approval of the final,
contextualized protocol, thus the relevant paper should still have mention of ethical
approval.
Response:
Under “Possibility Four”, we have added the following statement: “Moreover, the MSF ERB still
requires the ethical approval of the final protocols that used pre-reviewed generic
protocols. Thus, the studies under this category should have mention of ethical approval.”
122. What is Mendeley
Organize your documents + references
Collaborate by joining + creating groups
Discover statistics + recommendations
Stay up to date + learn more
Store your data
Manage your career
129. Adding Documents
Select a file or folder to
add from your computer
Watch a folder
Add reference by
manually entering
details
Import from another reference
manager, or BibTeX
137. Manage Your Library
Use column
headings
to order your
references
Mark entries
read or unread
Entries with
attached PDFs
can be opened
with the PDF
Reader
Star items to
mark them as
favorites
All items in
your personal
library
Items added
in the last two
weeks
Access your
recently read
items
All items you’ve
starred in your
library
Items in need
of review
138. Create and Use Folders
References not added to a folder
will appear in ‘unsorted’
Your folders will be listed below.
Drag and drop to re-order them.
Use ‘Create Folder’ to enter a
new folder name.
139. Search Your Documents
Enter your search term
in the search field
The main view will be
filtered accordingly
Click on a specific folder
to search within it
Use the clear button to
remove the search filter
Mendeley’s search tool
will look at reference
metadata, but will also
search within the full text
of PDF papers.
140. Search Your Documents
Add tags to papers in your
library which share a common
theme
Use the Filter Menu to filter
your library view to only include
tagged items
You can also filter by Author,
Author Keywords and
Publication
154. Create Groups
See the groups
you created, joined
or follow.
Add documents to
a group by
dragging and
dropping.
155. Private Groups
Collaborate with Your Research Team
Share full-text
documents with
members of your
private group
Share highlights
and annotations
Each group member is assigned a different color for highlighting
156. Create your research profile
Connect with
colleagues
and join new
communities
Share your work
with other
researchers
Promote your
work and interests
to a global
audience
Receive personal
stats on how your
work is used
157. Showcase Your Publications
1. Add your own publications
2. Mendeley adds the PDFs to the
public database
3. Showcase them on your profile