publishing your research Mischa Richter, The New Yorker publishing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

publishing your research

Mischa Richter, The New Yorker

publishing your research WHY? the audiences WHERE? the venue HOW? the review WHAT? the writing

publishing your research WHY?

• ther researchers

– to advance knowledge – to advance methods

workforce & public

– to adopt knowledge into personal behavior – to advocate for changes in workplace & regulatory practice

professionals

– to put knowledge into practice

publishing your research WHERE?

• ther researchers

– respected journal (not predatory journal)

workforce & public

– journal that gets media attention – open access journal

professionals

– journal read by professionals – journal that gets media attention – open access journal

Publishing your research HOW?

Extremely dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Satisfied Extremely satisfied

Source: 2018 Global State of Peer Review, Clarivate Analytics

reviewer declines are increasing

l

1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Average #

• f

reviewer invitations per review

Source: 2018 Global State of Peer Review, Clarivate Analytics

thinking about reviewers

will be considering whether to review your paper while

writing their own papers, conducting research, supervising employees, teaching, supervising graduate students, attending meetings, dealing with administrative responsibilities . . .

feel responsible to review as many papers/year as submitted as 1st author themselves & with students as 1st authors ... but largely get to choose which

• nes

attracting reviewers

preventing the easy "decline" & reviewing limbo title & abstract critical

• is it within your expertise?
• is it easy to understand?
• does it sound like methods are good?
• is it interesting, do you want to know

more? Is it going to be a slog to review? Is it going to be fun to review?

memorable, focus on 1 main idea more citations with ...

• fewer characters
• describe results rather than methods
• no question marks
• no hyphens or colons
• no reference to a geographical area

Palva et al. Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often Clinics 2012;67:509–513

the title

may be the only thing read by many people tell a full story ...

• context, content, conclusions

Mensh & Kording. 10 simple rules for structuring papers. PLOS Computational Biology 2017; 13(9): e1005619

• focus on same main idea as title
• chance to entice reviewers & future

readers, & frame article for them

the abstract

CONTEXT Background

• why the issue is important
• what is known
• gaps in knowledge
• what could be done better than before

publishing your research WHAT?

CONCLUSIONS Discussion summary of your results - comparison to previous knowledge - strengths & limitations of your work - implications of your results in broader context -

CONTENT

Question Methods Results

• ne central contribution

focused, clear, testable

We examined whether women with breast cancer who were living with an adult during and after treatment survived longer after diagnosis than those who did not.

research question

be specific

• shows you knew what you

were doing

• allows the reader to

understand

• allows other researchers to

replicate your study

methods – detail

We selected cases from the cancer registry and controls from the general population. vs. All women with primary breast cancer diagnosed between January 1 1995 and December 31 2000, registered by the BC Cancer Registry, were invited to participate. One female control, matched to each case on year of birth, was selected at random from the Ministry of Health Client Registry.

doesn’t mean your ideas can’t be complex means you need to lead the reader through it

methods linear framework

methods – linearity: introduce

Route types were compared between injury sites and control sites along each participant's cycling trip, based on two sources of data: interviews and site observations. The interviews queried each subject to allow mapping of the injury trip and to collect information about the injury event, the bicycle, trip conditions, and personal characteristics. Site observations identified and recorded characteristics of the route type at each of 3 sites: the injury site; and two randomly selected sites from the injury trip, one from any point on the route, the other matched to the injury site location, i.e, an intersection or not.

methods - linearity: introduce à explain

• list ALL your variables and where they

came from

• describe ALL your analyses, including

descriptive analyses

if you've described your methods well ... they provide the linear framework for your results

results same linear framework

results – tables, figures

results – tables, figures

avoid

Rarely used words Jargon Acronyms & other abbreviations Trying to sound complex for the sake of it

do

Use the same term for the same thing consistently throughout Define terms that might be misconstrued Aim for simplicity of expression

clarity with words

you can understand it you want to know what happens next & you are excited by the ideas

a good article should read like a good book . . .

Comments, questions? ... then some sample abstracts

METHODS Cohort identification. This study will use a retrospective cohort design. The BC Linked Health Data Base will be used to identify the cohort. It was developed by the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia, under contract to the Ministry of Health. It includes all Ministry of Health records related to billings to the Medical Services Plan, as well as vital statistics and other records. Access to these health care records for research purposes is made possible by application to the Ministry

• f Health according to their Access Policy for Research Uses of Linked Health Data.

GI illness event definitions. GI illness events will be identified by linking cohort members to records of their use of medical services in the Medical Services Billings File (e.g., visits to general practitioners and other physicians) and to records of their hospital stays in the Hospital Discharge Records File. Previous linkages between the health-related data files (including the Client Registry) have demonstrated a 97% linkage success rate. A GI hospitalization event will include any hospital discharge record with

• a “most responsible diagnosis” with an ICD-9 code listed in Column B of Table 1, or
• a “secondary diagnosis” ICD-9 code listed in column B, with a “most responsible

diagnosis” of any of the following: disorders of fluid, electrolyte and acid-base balance (ICD-9: 276); gastritis and duodenitis (535) blood in stool (578.1); diaper or napkin rash (691.0); pyrexia of unknown origin (780.6); anorexia (783.0); abnormal loss of weight (783.2); symptoms involving digestive system (787); or abdominal pain (789.0). Methods This study will use a retrospective cohort design. The BC Linked Health Data Base will be used to identify the cohort. It was developed by the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia, under contract to the Ministry of Health. It includes all Ministry of Health records related to billings to the Medical Services Plan, as well as vital statistics and other records. Access to these health care records for research purposes is made possible by application to the Ministry of Health according to their Access Policy for Research Uses of Linked Health Data. GI illness events will be identified by linking cohort members to records

• f their use of medical services in the Medical Services Billings File (e.g., visits to

general practitioners and other physicians) and to records of their hospital stays in the Hospital Discharge Records File. Previous linkages between the health-related data files (including the Client Registry) have demonstrated a 97% linkage success rate. A GI hospitalization event will include any hospital discharge record with a “most responsible diagnosis” with an ICD-9 code listed in Column B of Table 1, or a “secondary diagnosis” ICD-9 code listed in column B, with a “most responsible diagnosis” of any of the following: disorders of fluid, electrolyte and acid-base balance (ICD-9: 276); gastritis and duodenitis (535) blood in stool (578.1); diaper or napkin rash (691.0); pyrexia of unknown origin (780.6); anorexia (783.0); abnormal loss of weight (783.2); symptoms involving digestive system (787); or abdominal pain (789.0).

ergonomics of reading, using white space for framing

One way to help with proofreading is to to reformat the document in a different font, so you can find mistakes that you didn’t see before. One way to help with proofreading is to to reformat the document in a different font, so you can find mistakes that you didn’t see before.

a proof-reading trick