Writing for Publication: a VdGM / EGPRN / EJGP joint workshop

Writing for publication

Workshop
Wonca Europe 2012
Vienna

©Jelle Stoffers 2012

Writing for publication

Workshop
by
Tobias Freund, Harris Lygidakis (VdGM)
& Jelle Stoffers (EJGP/EGPRN)


Introduction
• Welcome
• Who are we?
• Who are you?

• Why are you here?

• Content of this workshop:
– Suggestions to improve your writing and to enhance the
chance of acceptance of your paper
– Understanding of what happens at the Editor’s desk (and
why)

Start
• Who has ever submitted a manuscript to a
medical journal?
• And published?
• Who more than 10 papers?

• Then, let’s start at A or B


A Let’s start here and now:
Presentations

• What do you want to get out of this
conference? To take home?

• What do you consider a ‘good’ presentation?

• And a ‘bad’ one?


Papers
• Compare ‘papers’ with ‘presentations’:
– What is similar?
– What is different?

• What do you consider a ‘good’ paper (when
do you tell your colleagues about it?)
• And what do you consider a ‘bad’ one?


Journals
• What kind of journals do you like to read? And
why do you like them?

• For what purpose do you read them?

• Can you describe the type of articles you (like
to) read?


B … or start here:
Writing … Why? Why by you?
• …
• …
• …
• …
• …
• To become famous
– http://publicationethics.org
– http://www.icmje.org/index.html


What do you find difficult in writing?

•…
•…
•…


Editors
• Editors = ‘(pre-)readers ’
• Editors = experienced authors
• Editors = peers

•  ‘PEER REVIEW’

‘Does it matter?’
‘Is it new?’ content
‘Is it true?’
‘Is it clear?’ presentation,structure


Editor and Author
(Editor versus Author?)
• Collaboration (from both sides)
– Responsibility
– Respect
• ‘Universal’ rules  presentation, structure
– ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Biomedical Journals’
– International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
(ICMJE, former ‘Vancouver’ group)
• Specific context:
– ‘Scope’ of the journal  content


Editorial decisions
• Author  Editor Author:
– ‘No!’: immediate rejection
– ‘No, but maybe if you …’: reject and resubmit
• Au  Ed  Reviewer(s)  Ed  Au:
– Yes!: acceptance
– ‘Yes, but …’: minor revision
– ‘Maybe’: major revision
– (‘No, unless’: reject and resubmit)
– ‘No!’: rejection


Typical STRUCTURE of a (research) manuscript
• Title page incl. Authors and affiliations
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• References
• Tables and Figures
• Acknowledgements
• Conflict of Interest
• Covering letter

Shall we discuss the following elements?
• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Tables and Figures
• Discussion
• References
• Authors and affiliations
• Conflict of Interest
• Acknowledgements
• Covering letter


Let’s discuss the Introduction
(Why did you start?)

• What would you write in this section?

• Structure?

• What could be comments of reviewers/editors
on this section?


Content/Structure of the Introduction
(Why did you start? Does it matter? Is it new?)

• State why the problem you address is
important
• State what is lacking in the current knowledge
• State the objectives of your study or the
research question
• Presentation: be concise!


Common mistakes: Introduction
(Does it matter? Is it new? Is it clear? )

• The Introduction is an extensive review of the
literature
• The stated aim of the paper is
– tautological (e.g. ‘The aim of this paper is to
describe what we did’), or
– vague (e.g. ‘We explored issues related to X’)
• The research question is not specified


Let’s discuss the Methods
(What did you do?)


• Structure?

on this section?


Content/Structure of the Methods
(What did you do?)

• Specify the study design
• Describe the context and setting of the study
• Describe the ‘population’
(patients, doctors, hospitals, etc.)
• Describe the sampling/selection strategy
• Describe the intervention/procedure (if applicable)
• Describe data collection instruments and procedures
• Identify the main study variables
• Outline analysis methods

Common mistakes: Methods
(What did you do? Is it clear?)

• Elements are missing
• Methods, interventions and instruments are
not described in sufficient detail
• No definitions of variables
• Statistics unclear


Let’s discuss the Results, Tables and Figures
(What did you find?)


• Structure?

on this section?


Content/Structure: Results, Tables and Figures
(What did you find?)

• Report on data collection and recruitment
(response rates, etc.)
• Describe participants (demographic, clinical
condition, etc.)
• Present key findings with respect to the central
research question
• Present secondary findings (secondary
outcomes, subgroup analyses, etc.)
• Only highlight results in tables/figures in text

Common mistakes: Results, Tables and Figures
(What did you find? Is it clear?)

• Results are reported selectively (e.g.
percentages without frequencies, P-values
without measures of effect)
• Detailed tables are provided for results that do
not relate to the main research question
• Table is not ‘self explanatory’
• The same results appear both in table and text

Let’s discuss the Discussion
(What does it mean?)


• Structure?

on this section?


Content/Structure of the Discussion
(What does it mean?)

• State the main findings of the study
• Analyse the strengths and limitations of the study
• Discuss the main results with reference to
previous research
• Discuss policy or practice implications of the
results, and/or offer perspectives for future
research
• Formulate a conclusion


Common mistakes: Discussion
(What does it mean? Is it true? Is it clear?)

• The Discussion is not structured
• The Discussion misses elements
• The Discussion does not provide an answer to
the research question (Conclusion)
• Limitations are not acknowledged
• The Discussion overstates the implications of
the results


Other common mistakes
• References:
– In the Introduction and Discussion, key arguments
are not backed up by appropriate references
– References are out of date or cannot be accessed
by most readers
• ‘grey’ literature
• http://...
• www. …


Other common mistakes II
• General
– The structure of the paper is chaotic, e.g.
• Methods are described in the Results section
• No consistency
– The manuscript does not follow the journal’s
instructions for authors
– The paper much exceeds the maximum number of
words allowed
– The paper is written in poor English


Summary: The four W’s
Why did you start?

What did you do?

What did you find?

What does it mean?

Other topics …
• Title But also:
• Abstract • Where do I begin?
• When do I begin?
• References • How to choose a journal?
• Covering letter
• Authorship • Open access
– Authors and affiliations • Language
– Conflict of Interest
– Acknowledgements
• Presentation
• How to deal with revisions?


Other topics …
• Title But also:
• Covering letter
– Acknowledgements • Presentation


How to find a journal?
• Text similarity engines offer opportunity to
find journal that fit your topic
– ETBlast http://etest.vbi.vt.edu/etblast3
– JANE http://www.biosemantics.org/jane

©Tobias Freund 2012

If we still have time: other topics …
• Title But also:
• Covering letter
– Acknowledgements
• Presentation


Guidance
• Ask experienced peers
• Journal’s Instructions for Authors
• www.Equator-network.org

• … Editorial: T. V. Perneger and P. M. Hudelson
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2004;
Volume 16, Number 3: pp. 191–192

• http://publicationethics.org
• http://www.icmje.org/index.html

www.vdgm.eu

Tobias.freund@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Lygidakis@gmail.com

www.egprn.org

Jelle.stoffers@maastrichtuniversity.nl

AUTHORS/REVIEWERS:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ejgp
READERS/USERS:
http://informahealthcare.com/gen


Writing for Publication: a VdGM / EGPRN / EJGP joint workshop

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Writing for Publication: a VdGM / EGPRN / EJGP joint workshop

Similar to Writing for Publication: a VdGM / EGPRN / EJGP joint workshop (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Writing for Publication: a VdGM / EGPRN / EJGP joint workshop