MANU ANUSCR SCRIPT WR WRITING NG AND PU AND PUBL BLISH SHING - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
MANU ANUSCR SCRIPT WR WRITING NG AND PU AND PUBL BLISH SHING Jennif nifer er C Cunning ingham E Erves , , PhD, M , MPH, , MAEd Ed, M MS, S, CH CHES ES Assis sistant nt P Profes essor o of R Resea earch Meh eharry M
Jennif nifer er C Cunning ingham E Erves , , PhD, M , MPH, , MAEd Ed, M MS, S, CH CHES ES Assis sistant nt P Profes essor o
Resea earch Meh eharry M Medic ical C Colleg ege
We will discuss:
■ Core Components of Writing a Successful Manuscript ■ Manuscript Preparation ■ Choosing a Journal ■ The Peer Review Process ■ Ethical Issues in Medical Research Writing
■ Title Page ■ Abstract ■ Introduction ■ Methods ■ Results ■ Tables/Figures ■ Discussion ■ Acknowledgements ■ References Whi hich t h to W
rite F Firs rst? Metho hods Introdu ductio ion Figure res/Table les Re Results Discussio ssion Ab Abstract Title le P Page Acknowle ledgements Refere rences
■ Title – A few words to describe content – Many indicate study design (i.e., epidemiological studies) ■ Additional content of title page: – Authors affiliations, corresponding author, running title, keywords, list of abbreviation – Optional: Word Count, Number of Tables/Figures, Sources of grant support
■ Summary of manuscript ■ 200-300 words ■ Structured or Unstructured ■ Descriptive, Critical, or Informational ■ Second most important section of manuscript ■ Content can vary pending on the type of article written ■ Be direct and succinct
■ Repeat the title ■ Refer to things outside the abstract – It needs to be able to stand alone! ■ Use References ■ Use Abbreviations
■ Captures main topics for indexing ■ 3- 10 words ■ Be strategic so will be found in literature searches ■ Link it to what you are known for (e.g., community engagement, health disparities) ■ If a medical topic, then use the MeSH term in the keywords
■ Stands for Medical Subject Headings ■ U.S. National Library of Medicine medical vocabulary resource ■ Purpose: Provides hierarchical-organized terminology for indexing and cataloging of biomedical information in databases such as PUBmed/MEDLINE and other NLM databases. ■ Use of MeSH terms is not applicable for all journal submissions!
For more information on MeSH and identification of MeSH terms, please go to https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html
■ Describes Importance of Topic ■ Summarizes relevant literature ■ “Funnel-Shaped Approach” for Writing ■ 1-1.5 pages
CONT NTENT NT
Public He Heal alth Burden den
ing factors t to the P e Problem em
s work to address ss the p e problem em
ap in in t the Lit iterat ature
esis statem emen ent
Public health s sig ignificance
■ Be clear on each step ■ 3-5 paragraphs ■ Most Common Components – Study Design – Theory (when applicable) – Subject Selection – Variables and Procedures – Analytic Methods – Human Subjects Approval
■ Narrative should be same logical sequence as tables/figures ■ Summarize and not repeat all data from tables ■ Include absolute numbers with percentages ■ 3-4 paragraphs – Paragraph 1: Patient Characteristics – Paragraph 2: Evidence for Objective 1 – Paragraph 3: Evidence for Objective 2 – Paragraph 4: Evidence for Objective 3
■ Narrative should be same logical sequence as tables/figures ■ Summarize and not repeat all data from tables ■ 3-4 paragraphs – Paragraph 1: Patient Characteristics – Paragraph 2: Theme 1 – Paragraph 3: Theme 2 – Paragraph 4: Theme 3 – Paragraph 5: Theme 4
■ Summarize new and important findings ■ Compare findings with the literature ■ Conclusions follow objectives ■ Describes where the topic is heading ■ Suggest clinical implications ■ Discuss Limitations and Next Steps ■ Provide Conclusion
■ Cite primary work over review articles ■ Avoid abstracts when possible ■ “In Press” Articles require permission ■ Avoid personal communication unless essential and not in public source ■ Check accuracy and formatting ■ Electronic citations should be considered
Reference M Management S Software
te
endel eley
Works
TeX
RefME
■ Electronic citations must be cited because someone wrote the content. ■ How to evaluate an electronic citation – Is the author a qualified expert? – Who is the sponsoring organization? (.edu, .gov, .org) – Date of posting ■ Some electronic websites have no clear author such as government or
■ Note: Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source!
Tabl ables
■ Double space ■ Each table on a single page ■ Title summarizes data ■ Do not use horizontal lines ■ Give each column a heading ■ Footnote explains content ■ Identify statistical measures of variation
Fig igures
■ Number consecutively according to cited ■ High resolution images ■ Letters, numbers, and figures need to be sufficient size ■ Include titles and detailed explanations in legends rather than figure
■ Co-Authors identify writing process
– First author writes sections and co-authors edit – Co-authors choose sections
■ Choose your writing process
– Write then Edit OR Edit while Writing
■ Prewrite brainstorm, outline, free write ■ Draft make it flow, use proper language ■ Revise clarify ideas ■ Edit grammar, mechanics ■ Publish finished product
Make s sur ure to:
ate a a Tim imeline f for Co Co-Auth thors
ate a a Block f for Writ itin ing Tim imes f for Yourse self lf
entify the r e right s setting for w writ itin ing
iew Other Ar Artic icles for G Guidanc ance
Young pretty busines Cheerful mixed race girl typin
■ Substantial contribution to: – Conception and design – Acquisition of data – Analysis and interpretation – Writing of Article ■ Draft and critical revision of manuscript for intellectual contact ■ Final approval of submitted version ■ Note: Some journals will provide authorship criteria upon submission!
■ First st A Author: Design or conceive study; writes first draft; partners with last author for subsequent drafts ■ Second A d Author: Major contribution ■ Thir ird A Author: Important contributions ■ Last st A Author: Usually experienced investigator who partners with first author in interpretation, analysis, and writing ■ Middle le A Author hors: Everyone else who qualifies for authorship
■ Review Scope of Journal – If your articles does not have the same scope, NEXT! ■ Journal Prestige and Rankings – Impact Factors, Quality, Rankings ■ Review Published Studies – Compare most sections of manuscripts to see if a good fit. – For example, just because the scope is similar the journal may not have a history of publishing qualitative research. ■ Review Reference Listings – Similar references indicate this journal could be IT!
■ Stands for Journal/Author Name Estimator ■ JANE helps to: – Identify a journal, find relevant articles to cite in your manuscript, and find reviewers if an editor ■ How does it work? – Enter title, abstract, and/or keywords of paper in box and click ‘find journals’, ‘find authors’, or ‘find articles’ – JANE compares the information to documents in PubMed to find best matching journals, authors, or articles ■ JANE relies on data in MEDLINE, PubMED, and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify high-quality journals and reduce chances of papers from predatory journals.
■ The higher the IF, the more highly ranked the journal ■ It is used to compare journal in a subject category. ■ Top 5% of journals Ifs >/= 6 ■ 2/3 of journals have IF > 1 ■ Usually aim for 2 or higher!
■ Paper ■ Electronic ■ Online-Submission Required ■ Online open access ■ Owned by a professional organization ■ Owned by a publisher ■ Owned by an individual for the betterment of their profession ■ Owned by a university
■ Aggressively solicit scholars to submit papers. – Spam or individually flattering emails. – Will publish your article for a fee before reviewing it. ■ Claim peer review and its extremely short! ■ Editorial board lack qualifications or are well-known with no input ■ The sc scope pe is overly broad and/or does it fit well with your research. ■ Publication frequency is irregular or not stated. ■ May have the same or similar name to a legitimate journal ■ Email address is non-professional (@yahoo.com, @aol.com or @gmail.com)
https://libguides.uml.edu/c.php?g=563165&p=5352697
■ Think, Check, Submit – https://thinkchecksumit.org/ ■ Beall’s List – https://beallslist.weebly.com/ – Note: Searchable by Publisher and by Journal Name
■ Original Research ■ Literature Reviews/Review articles ■ Clinical Trials ■ Opinion ■ Systematic Reviews ■ Meta-analysis ■ Rapid Communications ■ Cases Studies ■ Perspectives ■ Commentary ■ Conference Abstracts/Proceedings ■ Theoretical Model/Framework ■ Concept ■ Pilot Study ■ Letters to the Editor ■ Teaching Ideas
■ Purpos
: To determine if your article is a good fit/ editors’ interest ■ Usefu fuln lness: : Reduce time for manuscript publication
■ Greeting: Identify Editor in Chief and be personable ■ Identify your Goals: Why you are writing the journal specifically ■ Connect your article to the journals’ purpose ■ Send Title and Abstract in submission ■ Closing: Thank the editor for their time, and express interest in their
■ Format of article ■ Brief summary of findings ■ Address contribution to the journal ■ Statement of non-redundancy of submission ■ No conflicts of interest ■ Ethical Statement ■ Approval of all authors ■ Contact Information for Corresponding Author
■ Review Submission Guidelines ■ Be aware of publishing schedules (biweekly, monthly, bimonthly, quarterly, annually, immediate (online and open access) ■ Never submit to multiple journals at ONE time ■ Title needs to catchy and reflect study; No more than 12 words ■ Abstract: 2nd most important part of manuscript
Submit M t Manuscript pt (6 (6-15 m months hs) Manu nuscript A t Assigne ned Nu Numbe ber Edit itoria ial R Revie iew 2-3 w week eeks As Assigned P Peer r revie iew 2- 3 Reviewers (2-8 weeks) RE REJECT RE REJECT REVIS VISE O OR C COND NDITIO IONA NALL LLY A Y ACCEPT ACCE CEPT PT RE REJECT GAL ALLIES 2-6 m 6 mon
PUBLI LISHED 1-3 m 3 mon
AVAILABLE I E IMMED EDIATEL ELY EMBARG RGOED
■ Manages and review peer comments ■ Communicates decision to corresponding author ■ Breaks tie if peer reviewers divided! ■ Revisions- ASAP ■ More than 4 weeks to revise: Journal can require you to start over the peer review process.
■ Minor Faults in methodology ■ Minor inaccuracies in data ■ Inconsistencies among different sections of manuscripts ■ Faulty Deductions ■ Data do not support conclusions ■ Excessive data or text ■ Poor or excessive illustrations ■ Poor but salvageable
Peh and Ng, 2009
■ Review of a Galley Proof by all authors ■ Las ast t tim ime t to mak make corre rections! ■ Return in specific period according to journal ■ Be ready to pay fees if that’s the journals requirement (e.g., submission fees, page proof fees, change fees
■ Outside Scope of Journal ■ Incomplete Submission ■ Poor Methodology ■ Faulty Experimental Design ■ Major Flaws in Result Interpretation ■ Extremely Poor Writing ■ Duplicated or Plagiarised Work
IS IS THERE LIF LIFE AF AFTER A A PAP APER REJE JECTI TION? ?
Review comments and adapt prior to future submission!
Peh and Ng, 2009
■ Once you have received independence ■ Completed R01 ■ Research decreases and number of projects involved in increases ■ Focus is to gain grants and tenure ■ Leader in the field
■ You must be committed to ethical principles even if it delays your work! ■ Common ethical issues include:
■ Start Writing Early (e.g., introduction and methods during data collection) ■ Writing Partner, Team, or Manuscript Sprints ■ Focus on High Visibility Components- Title, Abstract, Tables/Figures ■ Organization with Headings and Subheadings ■ Finish strong: Outside Reviewers to read paper ■ Don’t harass any of the journals editors pre, during, and post-submission – You can be flagged and automatically rejected
Welch, 1999
■ Rewrite, rewrite, rewrite ■ Proofread, proofread, proofread ■ Check all your numbers for accuracy and consistency ■ Use software for references but still check them for accuracy