Section 3. Making the best first impression

Transcription

1 Section 3 Making the best first impression

2 Customer Service Marketing your work Title and abstract Your title & abstract summarize your study Relevance of your aims Importance of your results Validity of your conclusions First impression of paper: clear/concise/convincing It sells your work: Readers judge your style & credibility Often first/only part that is read by readers & reviewers

3 Customer Service Marketing your work Title and abstract Title Important points Only the main idea Accurate, simple Population/model Include keywords Fewer than 20 words Hanging title: method/study type Avoid Unneeded words (a/the, A study of) Complex or sensational words Complex word order Abbreviations New or novel

4 Customer Service Marketing your work Title and abstract Title Interrogative Assertive/ Declarative* Indicative/ Descriptive* * + Method (subtitle) Can ischemic preconditioning improve prognosis after coronary artery bypass surgery? Ischemic preconditioning improves prognosis after coronary artery bypass / Improved prognosis after coronary artery bypass by ischemic preconditioning Prognostic effects of ischemic preconditioning in coronary artery bypass patients Xxxxxxx: randomized controlled trial

5 Customer Service Marketing your work Title and abstract Search Engine Optimization Identify 7 8 keywords (include synonyms, use Medical Subject Headings [MeSH]*) Use 2 in your title, 5 6 in the keyword list Use 3 keywords 3 4 times in your abstract Use keywords in headings when appropriate Be consistent throughout your paper Cite your previous publications when relevant *Or standard terms from PsycINFO, BIOSIS, ChemWeb, ERIC Thesaurus, GeoRef, etc

6 Customer Service Marketing your work Title and abstract Abstract Context Background, problem, aim Methods Results Conclusion Patients/materials/animals Treatments, measurements Outcomes, effects, properties, statistics Relevance, implications Learning points, future No references, unusual abbreviations, figures/tables Clinical: funding & trial registration number after abstract

7 Customer Service Marketing your work Unstructured abstract Numerous systemic treatment options exist for patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS); however, the comparative efficacy of these treatments is unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis of our cutaneous lymphoma database to evaluate the treatment efficacy of 198 MF/SS patients undergoing systemic therapies. The primary end point was time to next treatment (TTNT). Patients with advanced-stage disease made up 53%. The median follow-up time from diagnosis for all alive patients was 4.9 years (range ), with a median survival of 11.4 years. Patients received a median of 3 lines of therapy (range 1 13), resulting in 709 treatment episodes. Twentyeight treatment modalities were analyzed. We found that the median TTNT for single- or multiagent chemotherapy was only 3.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] ), with few durable remissions. α-interferon gave a median TTNT of 8.7 months (95% CI ), and histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) gave a median TTNT of 4.5 months (95% CI ). When compared directly with chemotherapy, interferon and HDACi both had greater TTNT (P < and P =.01, respectively). In conclusion, this study confirms that all chemotherapy regimens assessed have very modest efficacy; we recommend their use be restricted until other options are exhausted. Modified from: Cannegieter et al. Blood. 2015; 125:

8 Customer Service Marketing your work Unstructured abstract Why did you do the study? Numerous systemic treatment options exist for patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS); however, the comparative efficacy of these treatments is unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis of our cutaneous lymphoma database to evaluate the treatment efficacy of 198 MF/SS patients undergoing systemic therapies. The primary end point was time to next treatment (TTNT). Patients with advanced-stage What did you do? disease made up 53%. The median follow-up time from diagnosis for all alive patients was 4.9 years (range ), with a median survival of 11.4 years. Patients received a median of 3 lines of therapy (range 1 13), resulting in 709 treatment episodes. Twentyeight treatment modalities were analyzed. We found that the median TTNT for singleor multiagent chemotherapy was only 3.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] ), with few durable remissions. What α-interferon did you find? gave a median TTNT of 8.7 months (95% CI ), and histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) gave a median TTNT of 4.5 months (95% CI ). When compared directly with chemotherapy, interferon and HDACi both had greater TTNT (P < and P =.01, respectively). In conclusion, this study confirms that all chemotherapy regimens assessed have very modest efficacy; we recommend How their does use be restricted your study until other contribute options are exhausted. to your field? Modified from: Cannegieter et al. Blood. 2015; 125:

9 Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor Dear Dr Lippman, Editor s name Manuscript title Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled Evaluation of the Glasgow prognostic score in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases, which we would like to submit for publication as an Original Article in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. Article type The Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) is of value for a variety of tumours. Several studies have investigated the prognostic value of the GPS in patients with metastatic breast cancer, but few studies have performed such an investigation for patients undergoing liver resection for liver metastases. Furthermore, there are currently no studies that have examined the prognostic value of the modified GPS (mgps) in these patients. The present study evaluated the mgps in terms of its prognostic value for postoperative death in patients undergoing liver resection for breast cancer liver metastases. A total of 318 patients with breast cancer liver metastases who underwent hepatectomy over a 15-year period were included in this study. The mgps was calculated based on the levels of C-reactive protein and albumin, and the disease-free survival and cancer-specific survival rates were evaluated in relation to the mgps. Prognostic significance was retrospectively analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Overall, the results showed a significant association between cancer-specific survival and the mgps and carcinoembryonic antigen level, and a higher mgps was associated with increased aggressiveness of liver recurrence and poorer survival in these patients. Give the background to the research What was done and what was found This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mgps, a simple clinical tool, is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases. This information is immediately clinically applicable for oncologists treating such patients. As a premier journal covering the broad field of cancer, we believe that the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment is the perfect platform from which to share our results with the international medical community. Interest to journal s readers

10 Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor Other important information: Recommended reviewers Author s contact information We would like to recommend the following reviewers to evaluate our manuscript: 1. Reviewer 1 and contact information 2. Reviewer 2 and contact information 3. Reviewer 3 and contact information 4. Reviewer 4 and contact information Reviewers Can also exclude reviewers Please address all correspondence to: Contact information

11 Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor Last paragraph: Declarations related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration Ethics by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with submission to the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. This study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour Funding and Welfare. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Conflicts of interest

12 Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor Key phrases: Problem statement (para 2) However, an alternative approach a need for clarification has not been dealt with requires clarification a challenge a problem/weakness with remains unstudied is not sufficiently (+ adjective) is ineffective/inaccurate/inadequate/inconclusive/incorrect Few studies have There is growing concern that It is necessary to There is an urgent need to Little evidence is available on Little work has been done on

13 Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor Why your study is interesting to the journal s readership (para 4) Target your journal keywords from the Aims and Scope Conclusion/importance This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mgps, a simple clinical tool, is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in breast cancer patients undergoing curative resection for liver metastases. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons and medical oncologists treating such patients. As a premier journal covering breast cancer treatment, we believe that Breast Cancer Research and Treatment is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with breast cancer. Relevance

14 Customer Service Marketing your work Recommending reviewers Where to find them? How senior? Who to avoid? From your reading/references, networking at conferences Aim for mid-level researchers Collaborators (past 5 years), researchers from your university International list: 1 or 2 from Asia, 1 or 2 from Europe, and 1 or 2 from North America Choose reviewers who have published in your target journal

15 Section 4 Avoiding common peer reviewer complaints

16 Reviewer complaints What reviewers are looking for The science Relevant hypothesis Good experimental design Appropriate methodology Good data analysis Valid conclusions The manuscript Logical flow of information Manuscript structure and formatting Appropriate references High readability Peer review is a positive process!

17 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Introduction Ideas are not logically organized Why study needs to be done? Introduce topics that are not discussed later (Results/Discussion) Keep focused Not introduce important topics that are discussed later (topics in Results/Discussion) Write last Cited studies are not up-to-date Cited studies are geographically biased <5 years International

18 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Methods Transparency in study design Sample size not large enough (no power calculation, 1-b) Consult a statistician Patient enrollment, exclusion, & randomization unclear Use flowchart Interventions and assessments not clearly described Reproducibility Unclear how missing data (lost to follow-up) were handled Imputation methods Ethical approval and informed consent (x2 ) not clear Always required

19 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Methods Wrong statistical tests Distribution of data affects analysis and presentation Parametric tests (e.g., t-test and ANOVA) can be used only with continuous & normally distributed data with a large enough sample size The mean ± SD only for normally distributed data Simple guide: If SD is mean, most likely not normally distributed If SD is > 0.5 mean, may not be normally distributed Use Shapiro-Wilk s W test for normality

20 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Methods 2 categorical endpoints Paired (within sample) McNemar s test Unpaired (between sample) Fisher s exact test 2 treatment groups Chi-square test* >2 treatment groups *for sample sizes > 60 du Prel et al. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107:

21 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Methods Continuous endpoints Parametric Nonparametric Paired Unpaired Paired Unpaired 2 groups: Paired t test >2 groups: Repeatedmeasures ANOVA 2 groups: Unpaired t test >2 groups: ANOVA (F test) 2 groups: Wilcoxon signedrank test >2 groups: Friedman one-way ANOVA 2 groups: Mann Whitney U test (Wilcoxon rank-sum test ) >2 groups: Kruskal Wallis test Lang and Secic 1997; 71.

22 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Results Statistical significance does not equal clinical significance! When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as P values, which fail to convey important information about effect size and precision of estimates.

23 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Results Statistical significance does not equal clinical significance! Drug A significantly reduced LDL cholesterol by 28% (p<0.05). Therefore, Drug A is effective in reducing cholesterol levels How much is 28%? Is this clinically relevant? How does this effect generalize to the population? What is the 95% CI?

24 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Results Drug A significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels from 4.7±0.3 mmol/l to 3.4±0.6 mmol/l (p=0.02, 95% CI: ). Because a minimal reduction of 1.4 mmol/l is required to be clinically effective, the efficacy of Drug A is still unclear. Use absolute values State exact P-value State 95% CI and minimal clinically relevant difference

25 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Results Don t misuse statistical words! Patient parameters improved significantly; it is significant that X was correlated with Y The risk* of developing X in this case-control study Patient variables improved considerably/markedly; it is important that X was associated with/related to/linked to Y The odds of developing X in this case-control study * OK in a retrospective study if disease is rare and causality is assumed; risk=x/total, odds=x/(total x)

26 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Discussion Unexpected/negative results not explained Limitations not discussed The results are repeated in the Discussion Conclusions are overgeneralized Reporting transparency Establish credibility Summarize/interpret results We showed that tumor volumes in Groups A, B, and C were 34.6, 74.2, and 53.9 mm 3, respectively, after a 4-month drug treatment, reflecting only a 8.6% decrease. However, after a 12-month drug treatment, the tumor volumes in Groups A, B, and C were 16.3, 18.7, and 16.9 mm 3, respectively, which reflects a 45.2% decrease (p<0.05). This demonstrates that a 12-month treatment is necessary for the drug to effectively reduce tumor size among the three groups.

27 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Discussion Unexpected/negative results not explained Limitations not discussed The results are repeated in the Discussion Conclusions are overgeneralized Reporting transparency Establish credibility Summarize/interpret results The results presented in this study demonstrate that Drug X more effectively reduces tumor size after 12 months of treatment (45.2% reduction) than it does after 4 months (8.6% reduction).

28 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Discussion Unexpected/negative results not explained Limitations not discussed The results are repeated in the Discussion Conclusions are overgeneralized Reporting transparency Establish credibility Summarize/interpret results Based on presented findings Our results showing the efficacy of this treatment in preventing recurring myocardial infarctions in obese Japanese patients demonstrate that this treatment should be implemented in other populations with high cardiovascular risk.

29 Reviewer complaints Common complaints Discussion Unexpected/negative results not explained Limitations not discussed The results are repeated in the Discussion Conclusions are overgeneralized Reporting transparency Establish credibility Summarize/interpret results Based on presented findings Our results showing the efficacy of this treatment in preventing recurring myocardial infarctions in obese Japanese patients suggest that this treatment may be useful in other obese populations with high cardiovascular risk.

30 Section 5 Increasing the impact of your research

31 Challenges on the path to publication success Preparation Read/manage references Write outline Authorship Peer feedback Present at conferences Journal Selection Assess research impact Compare journals/ publishers (Pre-) Submission strategy Writing Write/edit in English without plagiarism Writing process Follow journal & reporting guidelines Publication ethics Submission Display items, supplemental material Ethics declarations Abstract & cover letter Select reviewers Navigate submission systems Peer Review Navigate review process Understand editor & reviewers Revise paper Respond to reviewers, point by point Resubmit or submit elsewhere Publication Success Archive/share Promote work to (non)- academic community Next project/ budget/grant Collaborators Track citations and altmetrics Patenting Update CV

32 Promoting Coverage your and Staffing work Plan Your multiple audiences Everyone evaluates your study and you Quality, Impact & Relevance Why your work is important! Journal editors & reviewers Readers, opinion/policy makers Students, researchers, industry Employers, schools, interest groups (Science) Media, public, politicians Conference/journal panels Review boards, funders, donors

33 Promoting Coverage your and Staffing work Plan Presenting after you publish Actively promote your article Networking with researchers Advantages Advice on future directions Networking with journal editors Conferences, Seminars, Press Conferences, Media Enquiries, Media Interviews, Social Media, Open Days, Public Education

34 Promoting Coverage your and Staffing work Plan Publicizing your article Increase the impact of your research after publication Presentations Web, Social media Press releases Newsletters Reports Check conference guidelines Respect journal publication policy Respect news embargo Report clearly and accurately Respect access/archive policies Respect copyright/cc licenses

35 Promoting Coverage your and Staffing work Plan Publicizing your article Reaching different audiences IMRaD research article (journals, posters, slides) Hard news (press releases) Hard news, delayed lede Hard news + kicker Hard news, delayed lede + kicker Soft news + explanations (news releases) Soft news + explanations + kicker Full feature + kicker (newsletters) Only after journal publication!

36 Activity 3 Please see Activity 3 in your workbook

37 Be an effective communicator Your goal is not only to be published, but also to be widely read and cited Developing advanced writing skills S Logically communicating your ideas in your manuscript Making the best first impression Avoiding common peer reviewer complaints Increasing the impact of your research

38 Any questions? Thank you! Trevor Lane: Eri Kinoshita: edanzediting.co.jp/primarycare Download and further Follow us on Twitter facebook.com/edanzediting Like us on Facebook