Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Crafting a Message for Publication Graham McMahon MD MMSc Editor for Medical Education, NEJM.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Crafting a Message for Publication Graham McMahon MD MMSc Editor for Medical Education, NEJM."— Presentation transcript:

1 Crafting a Message for Publication Graham McMahon MD MMSc Editor for Medical Education, NEJM

2

3 Specific Goals To familiarize you with the “publishing biz” and how it works To familiarize you with the “publishing biz” and how it works To help you think about how to convert your scholarship into publishable papers To help you think about how to convert your scholarship into publishable papers ResearchResearch Innovative curriculaInnovative curricula New teaching/learning methodsNew teaching/learning methods Other projectsOther projects Help you strategize your work with editors Help you strategize your work with editors

4 Overall Objective To help you become a To help you become a BetterBetter SmarterSmarter More successfulMore successful writer for publication as an educator

5 From the Author’s Perspective

6 Why Experiment? Evidence based education! Evidence based education! Rigor in educational approaches Rigor in educational approaches Improved quality for learners Improved quality for learners Personal and professional value Personal and professional value Elevate the field Elevate the field 6

7 Challenges in Educational Research Participants are actively learning over time Participants are actively learning over time Interventions must demonstrate additional increments of performance improvementInterventions must demonstrate additional increments of performance improvement Comparison groups difficult to identify Comparison groups difficult to identify Placebo groups challenging in educationPlacebo groups challenging in education Small sample sizes and short studies Small sample sizes and short studies Open-label Open-label Students may be vulnerable to experimental coercion and to change behavior as a result of being in an experimentStudents may be vulnerable to experimental coercion and to change behavior as a result of being in an experiment Contamination between research groups is commonContamination between research groups is common Time between learning and behavior can be long Time between learning and behavior can be long Dependence on intermediary endpointsDependence on intermediary endpoints Frequent changes in regulatory expectations Frequent changes in regulatory expectations Learners increasingly have survey fatigue Learners increasingly have survey fatigue 7

8 Challenges for Educational Researchers Conflicting demands Conflicting demands Isolation Isolation Lack of programmatic support Lack of programmatic support Constrained budget Constrained budget Activities not valued Activities not valued

9 Why Write? To share your ideas, programs, research To share your ideas, programs, research To get feedback from others To get feedback from others To incrementally advance the knowledge base To incrementally advance the knowledge base To get appropriate recognition To get appropriate recognition

10 Top Issues in MedEd Research Todres M, Rogers R. BMJ Aug 18;335(7615):

11 Write about what you believe in Ability to convince others Ability to convince others Get it done Get it done Withstand the Withstand the slings and arrows of publishing andslings and arrows of publishing and its highly variable, unpredictable and intermittent reinforcementits highly variable, unpredictable and intermittent reinforcement

12 How are papers organized? Logical structure with a basic formula Logical structure with a basic formula Five sections Five sections Abstract: summaryAbstract: summary Introduction: set the stage, why important, state hypothesisIntroduction: set the stage, why important, state hypothesis Methods: what you did, IRBMethods: what you did, IRB Results: data onlyResults: data only Discussion: what you found, what it means, what’s next, what you foundDiscussion: what you found, what it means, what’s next, what you found

13 Introduction Start building the case why the reader should be interested in your study Describe the areabeing studied Describe the areabeing studied Review the pertinent literature in that area that leads ups to your study Review the pertinent literature in that area that leads ups to your study Conclude with a description of how your study is the logical next step, fills a gap, or in other ways adds to the existing literature Conclude with a description of how your study is the logical next step, fills a gap, or in other ways adds to the existing literature Write hypothesis Write hypothesis

14 Methods Describe what you did, so the reader can understand and someone else potentially could repeat your study Describe what you did, so the reader can understand and someone else potentially could repeat your study SettingSetting SampleSample TimeframeTimeframe OutcomesOutcomes MeasuresMeasures Data analysis planData analysis plan

15 Results Describe what you found (not what you believe it means) Describe what you found (not what you believe it means) Present the positive and negative data of your findings in Present the positive and negative data of your findings in Text – little space, most important findingsText – little space, most important findings Tables and figures – present more of the dataTables and figures – present more of the data

16 Discussion Summarize what you found Summarize what you found Describe what you believe the findings displayed in your Results section mean in the context of other research Describe what you believe the findings displayed in your Results section mean in the context of other research Describe the strengths and limitations of your study and findings, without over- generalizing Describe the strengths and limitations of your study and findings, without over- generalizing To conclude, describe where your findings lead and possible logical next steps To conclude, describe where your findings lead and possible logical next steps

17 Aim High Who is your audience? What do they ready? Who is your audience? What do they ready? Review what the Journal is currently publishing Review what the Journal is currently publishing Consult with colleagues Consult with colleagues Time to first decisionTime to first decision Review processReview process DurationDuration Look at Journal’s impact factors Look at Journal’s impact factors

18 Education Papers don’t only get published in education journals Write About Education and the Other Things You Do/Study PRIMARY MED ED JOURNALS Med Educ2.7 Acad Med2.3 Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract1.4 Med Teach1.3 J Contin Educ Health Prof1.0 Teach Learn Med0.7 Acad Psychiatry BMC Med Educ 1.2 J Surg Educ Clin Teach PRIMARY MEDICAL JOURNALS N Engl J Med47.0 JAMA28.9 Lancet30.8 Ann Intern Med16.2 BMJ (13.7 CMAJ7.2 J Gen Intern Med2.6 Am J Surg2.3 J Fam Pract1.4 Fam Med1.3

19 Mission of a Journal Find the best work Find the best work Report it dispassionately Report it dispassionately

20 How does the process work?

21 Manuscripts Received

22 Types of Research 2012

23 Origin of Research US International

24 Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision Initial Submission

25 Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision Initial Submission

26 Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision Initial Submission

27 Peer Review Peer review is a mechanism by which the research community asserts quality control. Peer review is a mechanism by which the research community asserts quality control. It has become an essential feature of the decision-making processes used by most funding agencies and all major medical journals. It has become an essential feature of the decision-making processes used by most funding agencies and all major medical journals. A feature common to all peer reviews is that they are performed by one or more individuals active in a field of study that is central to the item being reviewed. A feature common to all peer reviews is that they are performed by one or more individuals active in a field of study that is central to the item being reviewed.

28 Types of Peer Review Double blind Double blind Article is de-identified, and identity of reviewer remains confidential.Article is de-identified, and identity of reviewer remains confidential. Single blind Single blind Reviewer knows identity of authors. Authors don’t find out identity of reviewers.Reviewer knows identity of authors. Authors don’t find out identity of reviewers. Open Open Identity of authors, reviewers known to allIdentity of authors, reviewers known to all Often reviews are published with the article.Often reviews are published with the article.

29 Editors use the Reviews Once reviews are in the editor reads the paper and the reviews Once reviews are in the editor reads the paper and the reviews The editor, not the reviewer, makes the decision about the paper The editor, not the reviewer, makes the decision about the paper Reviewers’ comments are valuable, but reviewers are only consultants to the thinking process Reviewers’ comments are valuable, but reviewers are only consultants to the thinking process

30 Reviewers’ Grades of Papers Rejected Accepted

31 Editors are looking for work that is…. Important Important Informative Informative Novel Novel Ethical Ethical Important informative novelethical

32 What is Important? Research results that will Research results that will change or affect practice,change or affect practice, teach us about biology, orteach us about biology, or serve as a launching platform to define new directions in medicineserve as a launching platform to define new directions in medicine Important informative novelethical

33 Study adds appreciably to available data Study adds appreciably to available data Conclusions provide clear direction Conclusions provide clear direction Conclusions follow from the data Conclusions follow from the data Free from commercial or intellectual biasFree from commercial or intellectual bias What is Informative? Important informative novelethical

34 A study that A study that breaks new ground, breaks new ground, defines new treatments or defines new treatments or resolves major controversies resolves major controversies What is Novel ? Important informative novelethical

35 Adequate informed consent obtained Adequate informed consent obtained Minimum number of subjects put at risk to gain needed information Minimum number of subjects put at risk to gain needed information Honest reporting Honest reporting What is Ethical? Important informative novelethical

36 Associate Editor makes a decision Full consideration? Full consideration? Manuscript is presented to all the editorsManuscript is presented to all the editors Minimal consideration? Minimal consideration? Manuscript is on the agenda but discussion is minimalManuscript is on the agenda but discussion is minimal

37 Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision Initial Submission

38 The Editors Meet

39 Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision Initial Submission About 20% of papers fail at this step

40 Possible Decisions Initial Reject 60.5% Reject After Peer Review 33.8% We’re very interested 0.8% Needs additional Experiments-1% We’re interested 3.5%

41 Three Major Reasons for Rejection Quality – the science is flawed Quality – the science is flawed Novelty – the science is good, but has previously been published or does not advance the field Novelty – the science is good, but has previously been published or does not advance the field Specialty – it’s good, but not of general interest and belongs in a specialty journal Specialty – it’s good, but not of general interest and belongs in a specialty journal

42 Reasons for Rejection Bordages G. Acad. Med. 2001;76:889–896.

43 Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision Initial Submission Associate Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Final Decision Revision Submitted

44 Expanded Mission of Medical Journals Find the best work Find the best work Solicit submissions Solicit submissions Meet authors needs for expeditious review Meet authors needs for expeditious review Best reviewers Best reviewers Thoughtful debate Thoughtful debate Report it dispassionately Report it dispassionately Careful manuscript editing Careful manuscript editing Content Content Language Language Remove ‘spin’ Remove ‘spin’ Clear graphics Clear graphics Supplementary commentary Supplementary commentary Disseminate the findings Disseminate the findings Attract readers to the site Attract readers to the site and print and print Support teachers Support teachers Support the reader Support the reader Easy search and retrieval Easy search and retrieval Portfolio Portfolio Provide an educational program Provide an educational program Support the scientific mission Support the scientific mission Meet the needs of readers Meet the needs of readers Enhance the experience Enhance the experience

45 Differing Perspectives Authors role Authors role Do the right studyDo the right study Write about it clearlyWrite about it clearly Report it dispassionatelyReport it dispassionately Submit to the right JournalSubmit to the right Journal Respond clearlyRespond clearly Journal’s Role Journal’s Role evaluate work do determine if it is important, informative, novel and ethicalevaluate work do determine if it is important, informative, novel and ethical ensure the data has been analyzed appropriately and that conclusions follow from the dataensure the data has been analyzed appropriately and that conclusions follow from the data relationships that could lead to perceptions of bias are disclosedrelationships that could lead to perceptions of bias are disclosed

46

47 Submissions in 2012 (n=14,441) Perspectives

48 NEJM.org Audience PCPs = FMs + IMs + GP 46% PCPs = FMs + IMs + GP 46%

49 Assigning the Manuscripts About 10% of papers are rejected at this stage Assigned manuscripts are sent to the Associate Editors

50 Local experts in major areas of medicine Local experts in major areas of medicine Being local facilitates in-person meetings Being local facilitates in-person meetings 10 AEs: 10 AEs: Cardiology,Cardiology, Infectious Disease,Infectious Disease, Cancer,Cancer, Endocrinology,Endocrinology, Gastroenterology,Gastroenterology, Associate Editors Maternal-FetalMaternal-Fetal NeurologyNeurology Office Practice,Office Practice, Health Policy &Health Policy & Vascular DiseaseVascular Disease

51

52

53 Honest Reporting All the data, analyzed as intended All the data, analyzed as intended Vioxx (VICTOR)Vioxx (VICTOR) Rosiglitazone (RECORD)Rosiglitazone (RECORD) Full disclosure Full disclosure Henschke et alHenschke et al OthersOthers

54 Articles Published 2011 Original Research n= % Letters n=700 20% Review Articles n= % Images n= % Other Articles n=91 18% Editorials n=99 95% Perspectives n=216 25%

55 Research Published in NEJM

56 Percentage of the Top 100 citations/decade in the NEJM Year Percentage


Download ppt "Crafting a Message for Publication Graham McMahon MD MMSc Editor for Medical Education, NEJM."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google