Presentation on theme: "How to Write a Paper Association of Academic Dermatologic Surgeons Content Review date: August 27, 2012 Originally Submitted: September 15, 2007 Timothy."— Presentation transcript:
How to Write a Paper Association of Academic Dermatologic Surgeons Content Review date: August 27, 2012 Originally Submitted: September 15, 2007 Timothy M. Johnson MD Lewis and Lillian Becker Professor University of Michigan I have No COI-no relevant relationships with industry
How to Write a Paper Disclaimer: My Perspective. Everyone is different. These are just guidelines and pearls that I have found useful. ?
How to Write a Paper
Why Write? “Duty vs. Passion” To advance knowledge Improvement in management of disease To advance your institution Academic accomplishment, prestige, funding To advance yourself Enhances clear thinking & scholarship ability Promotion, career development, reputation Benefits often greater to author than reader
The Evidence Pyramid Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) Double Blind RCT Cohort studies Case Control studies Case Series Case Reports Ideas, Editorials, Expert Opinion Animal research, Test tube
Stages in a Research Study PPlanning the study & writing the protocol IIRB approval FFunding/Infrastructure EExecuting the study & collecting the data DData analysis WWriting GGoing through the editorial process
Writing a Paper: Getting Started No single best way Varies from paper to paper Background reading--Literature search! Identify mentors to understand what constitutes good versus bad papers Decide on authorship “The only way to learn to write is to write” --Peggy Teeters
Writing a Paper: Getting Started IRB Find statistician BEFORE study Sample size Power analysis Appropiate statistical tests Select journal-review guidelines
Writing a Paper Fix realistic schedule (Adherence) Write by a biological clock Need stretch of protected hours or days Ideas come while writing When time is short: prepare, revise Location Boring area, nothing to distract Maintain momentum Academicians rated by what they finish, not by what they attempt
Write in What Order? Title Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References Parts of a Manuscript--Structure “Writing is a lot easier if you have something to say” --Sholem Asch
Methods I For informed readers this is the most important section Past tense Precision-study design-like a recipe Explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, retrospective or prospective, etc. Detailed enough so results can be repeated by others WHAT DID YOU DO? 1
Methods II Ethical approval (IRB) Statistical methods Subheadings only if necessary-duplicate in results Remember that you can put detailed methods on the web-i.e., questionnaire WHAT DID YOU DO? 1
IRB !! Start by reading your local IRB website PEERRS certification: Program for Education and Evaluation in Responsible Research and Scholarship Fulfills the NIH requirement for human subjects training for PIs and "key personnel” Trials MUST be enrolled for publication in the best journals
IRB !! Almost every study worth publishing requires IRB approval Determination of exempt status is made by the IRB Exemption Categories 4. Research, involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.
Results I Just the facts, in a logical sequence Past tense Importance of accuracy cannot be overstated- check, recheck data/numbers-must add up Give numbers and percentages: 1 (10%) of 10… P values and confidence intervals Avoid discussion of results in this section WHAT DID YOU FIND? 2
Results II Tables & figures-straightforward, concise, not duplicative, should stand alone Table(s) - short specific title at top of page, footnotes Figure(s) - concise legends, QUALTY, avoid distracters, anonymity You can put extra results on the web WHAT DID YOU FIND? 2
Statistical vs. Clinical Significance Is it real? vs. Is it important? There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Mark Twain In God we trust All others must bring data.
Discussion I Always focus on your results Outline 2 or 5 main points that come from results Build a paragraph or two for each point Finally permitted latitude to elaborate and speculate (some) WHAT DOES IT MEAN? 3
Discussion II First answer the question posed in the Introduction Summarize previous work-compare your results Explain what is new without exaggerating, perspectives, implications What do your results mean? - clinical practice, management, policy WHAT DOES IT MEAN? 3
Discussion III Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, particularly any differences in results Usually avoid ending with a conclusions- summary section if redundant “further studies are required”- usually not necessary and implies to some you need to do before submitting WHAT DOES IT MEAN? 3
Introduction Short (3 paragraphs)-1 typewritten page First paragraph Brief background-establish context, relevance, nature of the problem/question/purpose Second paragraph Importance of the problem and unresolved issues Last paragraph Rationale: state hypothesis/main objective/purpose WHAT IS THE QUESTION/OBJECTIVE? What we know? What we don’t know? Why we did the study? 4
Abstract Critical part of paper Determines if paper will be read Is distributed freely in databases Structured per format Avoid acronyms and abbreviations Write and rewrite until flawless Clear and concise - stand alone
References Errors reflect scholarship-check & recheck Be selective-cite only those vital Relevant and recent (or seminal) Balance Read the references Do not misquote Use correct style for journal
Title Determines how paper gets indexed Often determines whether paper gets read Should describe and identify subject matter Avoid long title-impossible to comprehend at a glance Avoid abbreviations Question: may be easier to understand, more impact?
First Draft Write as quickly as possible Get everything down Ignore spelling, grammar, style Skip troublesome words Correct and rewrite only when the whole text is on paper Do not split the manuscript among the co-authors What works for me?
Style and Authorship Follow ICMJE* criteria: Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals Order: First author-primarily responsible for collecting & analyzing data, and writing Last author-usually an established investigator, assumes overall responsibility Middle authors-list in order of contribution * International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Style Accuracy, Clarity, Brevity Proper words in proper places make the true definition of style. --Jonathan Swift Have something to say and say it as clearly as you can… the essence of style. --Matthew Arnold If writing is unclear, meaning unintelligible readers and reviewers won’t understand Use concrete over vague language Multiple mistakes in spelling and syntax, suggests similar sloppiness in the project Check and double check data
Style Accuracy, Clarity, Brevity Use active voice whenever possible Active voice: the subject is performing the verb Passive voice: the subject receives the action expressed in the verb Passive (more wordy) Active (more concise) Active: Scientists have conducted experiments to test the hypothesis Passive: Experiments have been conducted by scientists to test the hypothesis Avoid overusing there is, there are, it is, it was, etc. There are treatment guidelines for Merkel cell carcinoma that were reported by Bichakjian, et al. Correction: Treatment guidelines for Merkel cell carcinoma were reported by Bichakjian, et al. Better: Bichakjian, et al. reported treatment guidelines for Merkel cell carcinoma. (Active voice)
Style Accuracy, Clarity, Brevity All first drafts have too many words Next drafts: prune vigorously, avoid repetition, wordiness, long sentences, excessive adverbs/adjectives Strip every sentence Writing improves in proportion to deletion of unnecessary words When you have the choice of two words, use the simpler one The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. --Thomas Jefferson
Simplify a majority of = most a considerable amount of = much a number of = several/some on account of = because referred to as = called has the capacity to = can it is clear that = clearly at the present time = now give rise to = cause is defined as = is subsequent to = after “Those who have the most to say usually say it with the fewest words”
Style Accuracy, Clarity, Brevity Liked by authors, disliked by readers Reading should not require a glossary Unwieldy word occurring > 10 times Avoid using colloquial language Abbreviations and Acronyms
Troublesome Terms And/or: and or or alone usually suffices Diabetic as a noun may be condescending to some, patient with diabetes Significant means statistically significant “Firstness”-provide details if true, rarely needed
Getting Help Get co-author and mentor help Experts are good Non-experts may also be good “I got lost here” is more important than “oncololy is misspelled” Learn from editing changes
Revise, Revise and Revise You may not be a very good writer, but be an excellent rewriter Always look from a distance--see your paper as the reviewer will see it Polish the writing style Double check spelling, look for typos Double check references Every fat paper has a thin one trying to get out
Publish and Perish “Deadly Sins” Data manipulation, falsification Duplicate manuscripts Redundant publication Plagiarism Humans use concerns Animal use concerns Author conflicts of interest Failure to discose conflict of interest
What is Redundant Publication? Data in conference abstract? Same data, different journal? Data on website? Data included in review article? Expansion of published data set? No Yes Maybe OK if later Probably Happens more commonly than expected
Redundant Publication Problem is not the publication but the lack of disclosure--disclosure is key Always send copies of overlapping papers and reference them Negative studies are often not published; positive studies are more likely be published more than once-creates BIAS Distorts what the evidence says
Submission Read “Instructions for Authors” thoroughly Conform to “Instructions” precisely Write cover letter (suggest reviewers) Know the journal, its editors, and why you submitted the paper there Avoid careless mistakes
What Editors Like About Papers Originality Interesting to readers, important, messages that matter Clear questions, correct methods Brevity, clear presentation (style) Good grammar and spelling Editors and reviewers spend hours reading manuscripts, and greatly appreciate receiving papers that are easy to read and edit!
What Editors Dislike Very long papers (> 3,000 words) Second-rate Style Conclusions not justified by data, sweeping conclusions Inability to follow “Instructions to Authors” Splitting versus lumping
What Happens Next? Acceptance Revision Rejection The Review Process If at first you don’t succeed, you’re about average!
The Post Review Phase-Revision Study reviews objectively and dispassionately Read every criticism as something you could explain more clearly Resist temptation to respond “you brainless person, I meant X”. Fix the paper so that X is apparent even to the most brainless reader. Be open to criticism - do not get defensive - This is really, really hard, but it is really, really, really, really important Listen to your reviewers
Responding to Reviewers-Revision Carefully prepare your responses point-by-point: Each comment should be addressed Each change should be stated Make your changes obvious Reviewer may be wrong Be tactful-next reviewer may be the same Do not respond to reviewers while upset Get help from co-authors
Rejection A journey of a thousand miles sometimes ends very, very badly -disappointing at best
Why Papers are Rejected I The best scientists get rejected and have to make major revisions Number of journal pages available has not kept pace with number of articles and authors May be nothing basically wrong More confirmatory than original Insufficient priority, backlog inventory Wrong journal
Why Papers are Rejected II Poorly written Sweeping conclusions-unjustified by data Ethics (IRB) approval not obtained Flawed or poor study design-methods Unrepresentative sample(s) Uncontrolled, poor controls, nonrandomized interventions Sample size too small Incorrect statistical analysis Hypothesis not adequately tested Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good. --Samuel Johnson
The Post Review Phase-Rejection Get over it Do not get defensive Study reviews as objectively & unemotionally as possible-for resubmission to another journal Address all of the reviewers’ concerns Next reviewer may be the same Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger. --Franklin Jones At least 50% of initially rejected articles are eventually published somewhere else!
The Post Review Phase-Rejection Appeal Option Do not call the editor---usually Willing to consider first appeals--but must revise the paper, refute criticisms, not just say the subject is important Few accepted on appeal No second appeals; ends in hostility or tears; plenty of other journals
Become a Reviewer Approach the editors and editorial staff The best reviewers are often the best writers and vice versa Apply principles from today Become a Better Writer Professor Trisha Greenhalgh: "How to Read a Paper" Series--BMJ
Introduction to Evidence Based Medicine: Critical Appraisal and Informed Medical practice Introduction to Clinical Medicine - Professional Skills January Professor Trisha Greenhalgh (University College London) "How to Read a Paper" Series Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ 1997;315: Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. BMJ 1997;315: Statistics for the non-statistician. II: "Significant" relations and their pitfalls. BMJ 1997; 315: Statistics for the non-statistician. I: Different types of data need different statistical tests. BMJ 1997;315: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ 1997;315: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). BMJ 1997;315: Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses). BMJ. 1997;315: Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests. BMJ 1997;315: Papers that report drug trials. BMJ 1997;315:480-3.