Tips on Successful Writing and Getting Published Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Editor, JAMA Internal Medicine

Transcription

1 Tips on Successful Writing and Getting Published Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Editor, JAMA Internal Medicine Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc and 1

2 Helpful Hints!!! Correct journal Instructions Rejection without review Paper reviewed Peer-review Editors Responding to reviews Other issues Keys to success

3 Is it the Correct Journal? This is the critical issue for all journals Can be far more subjective than you think Beware of case-reports Is the topic timely Most journals can reject without review Is it worth shooting high, but failing (impact factor)

4 Follow the Instructions! Article type original, review, etc. Cover page title, word count Length critical issue (less is more) Abstract single most important page Speak with editor(s) first although often generates a standard response

5 Odyssey of a Manuscript: JAMA IM Editorial Process Manuscript Submitted Acknowledgment Initial Screen Rejection Rejection Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Editor s review and evaluation Author for Revision Manuscript Meeting Acceptance

6 A Good Abstract 90% of us read ONLY the abstract Structured Concise (250 words is possible) In English keep odd abbreviations to a minimum Some data Accuracy of data Beware dataless abstracts Conclusions Best to have outside reader

7 Dataless Abstracts!!! Results Mixed-modeling analyses were used to examine differences in the rate of weight gain over time based on the extent to which children exhibited the ability to self-regulate in the behavioral procedures. Compared with children who showed high self-regulation in both behavioral protocols at ages 3 and 5 years, children who exhibited a compromised ability to self-regulate had the highest BMI z scores at each point and the most rapid gains in BMI z scores over the 9-year period. Effects of pubertal status were also noted for girls. l Results Multivariate linear regression analyses showed that increased sugarsweetened beverage intake was independently associated with increased HOMA-IR, systolic blood pressure, waist circumference, and body mass index percentile for age and sex and decreased HDL cholesterol concentrations; alternatively, increased physical activity levels were independently associated with decreased HOMA-IR, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations, and triglyceride concentrations and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. Furthermore, low sugar-sweetened beverage intake and high physical activity levels appear to modify each others' effects of decreasing HOMA-IR and triglyceride concentrations and increasing highdensity lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations.

8 Titles Getting started Drafting Improving Polishing

9 Getting Started on the Title State the research question Is A associated with B in population C? Is tai chi associated with falls in older women? Draft a title Effect of tai chi on risk of falls in older women Use clear, precise descriptions

10 Improving a Boring Title State the main findings of your study Older women randomized to tai chi had a lower risk of falls and better quality of life than those randomized to a wait list Add interesting design features or findings to the title Practicing tai chi reduces risk of falls in sedentary older women. A randomized trial

11 How About These Titles? Tai chi: A traditional Chinese martial art Tai chi: Best thing since sliced bread for the elderly Tia chi is associated with falls in older people

12 Polishing a Good Title Make it interesting Tai chi prevents falls and improves quality of life in sedentary elderly women. A randomized trial Don t go overboard Kick-butt older women don t fall: A randomized trial

13 Structure of an Article Introduction 2-3 paragraphs Brief works The frame for your study Methods 3-5 paragraphs Explain in English and justify use of unusual statistics Results 5 paragraphs 1 st paragraph describe the sample Text should not duplicate tables/figures Discussion (structured) Principal findings Strengths and limitations Strengths and Limitations vis a vis other studies Meaning of study Unanswered questions/future research References landmark papers and most recent publications

14 Rejection without Review Why? Wrong journal journals have specific missions Incorrect format (editors are sensitive beings) Data too old to be relevant Not new or novel Poorly written abstract Poorly designed/wrong analysis Sweeping conclusion Case-report Editor having a bad day (this happens)!!!

15 Major Theme of Paper What are your 2-3 important points (that is remembered) Emphasize in results section of the abstract Conclusion of the abstract should reflect these points Highlight in results section of paper Emphasize in tables Highlight in first paragraph of conclusion

16 Peer-Reviewers You can recommend reviewers to editor (and individuals not to review plus/minus) Recommended reviewers rate paper the same as others, but more often recommend acceptance Chosen from list of reviewers that journal generally uses Some subject areas difficult to find reviewers editors search reference list or Medline Process takes 1-3 months

17 Peer-Review Little science a fair amount of research Quality varies, best reviewers are 35 to 45 Time 2-4 hours depends upon manuscript Not much difference between blinded and unblinded reviews Increasing concern about biases/conflicts of interest of reviewers

18 What Do Reviewers Assess Importance Clarity Design and analysis Should review abstract, text, tables, figures, references, acknowledgements/support Make recommendation to editor Opinions of reviewers are not binding Usually provide comments to authors and separate comments to editors

19 Review paper Editors Review comments from peer-review May request statistical help Make recommendation to and participate in manuscript review meeting Accept; accept with revision; reject with revision; reject; short report; research letter Discussed vis a vis importance and validity

20 Responding to Reviews Answer completely, answer politely, answer with evidence Most times the reviewer/editor are correct Reviewers provided conflicting suggestions - ask editor You do not have to respond to every issue, but must articulate why not Follow directions i.e. number responses, indicate changes in manuscript and where they can be found Long explanations to editor in cover letter is not the same as modifying the text

21 Polite Responses We agree with the referee that ---- but The referee is right to point out ---- yet Although we agree with the referee that We, too were disappointed by the low response rate. We support the referee s assertion that ---, although With all due respect to the reviewer, we believe that this point is not correct. Data not words are a better response

22 Dear God: Thank you for submitting your paper about Creating Life. Your paper was reviewed by external editors and the consensus is that it will not be acceptable in its present form. We were quite concerned about your methodology. The main issue raised by the Reviewers were: - How do we know Life would not have happened without you. You need better controls. The fact that you did it a few billion times since then does not matter. It was not randomized and might be subject to selection bias. Finally, we need more outcome data about your creation. What is Life supposed to achieve? Please resubmit addressing all the reviewers concerns point by point. Given the extensive changes required, your paper will be treated as a new submission. We look forward to seeing more high impact research from you.

23 Ethics Always seek ethics committee approval Researchers should never decide for themselves if IRB approval is necessary Quality improvement versus research December 4, 2015 Footer: Title of Slide 23

24 Oops! Common Mistakes Circulating a draft before discussing authorship Rushing the abstract at the end Poorly referenced paper Spelling errors in text and references Data in abstract that are not in the paper Data in abstract that are different from the paper Bait and switch emphasizing secondary rather than primary outcomes

25 Your First Draft Just write! Do tables or abstract first Circulate as a full paper Double space except for tables/references Do not list authors without talking with senior author Date all drafts Prompting your co-authors Get examples of similar papers

26 Keys to Success Clarity (abstract) Brevity (2500 words) Novelty (why this journal) Modesty (some)

27 Getting Articles Published Revise and revise 10 drafts Senior colleagues are critical Good luck it feels great!!!