1. Publishing (and some rules of thumb) Steve Miles, MD

2. Caveats This talk is not about study design, human subjects protections, statistical methods, conflicts of interest, getting promoted, etc.

3. I: Writing

4. Academic Publishing Connecting your passion to an audience to make things happen. What are you passionate about? Where is your audience? Publishing is not the same thing as writing. What can you make happen?

5. Getting Started: Find your passion. Why do I care? Why should someone else care? What am I trying to accomplish with this paper?

6. Getting Started: Find your audience (i.e., journal). Medline search Your topic for last 3-5 years; sort by journal name. What editor is interested? Writers you admire on same topic; sort by journal name. Where are they publishing? Journals you admire/know.

7. The Foundation: Your Literature Search. Your arguments about the newness of your findings and soundness of methodology rest on your lit search. Search the topic very carefully by Medline, web, news and citation tracking. Search reviews on your method of presentation: e.g., meta-analysis, cost- effectiveness studies. Reviewers can tell!!

8. Getting Past Writer’s Block They all can produce a scientific paper. Write from your passion—the scientific form comes during editing. Outlines. Network of ideas mixing text and glyphs (asemic writing). Free writing. Meditation (automatic) writing Note cards. Inspiration capture., e.g., text yourself, notepad in pocket, next to your bed.

9. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication The oracle. Bookmark it. Obey it. Violators will be punished. http://www.icmje.org/

10. Authorship Substantial Contribution Conception to conception and design. Drafting for intellectual content. Final approval and guarantee of claims. Data acquisition or Analysis

11. Acknowledgements Contributors not meeting criteria for authorship persons providing purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. persons who contributed materially to the project but not as authors, e.g., “participating investigators” with descriptors of their function Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. All persons must give written permission to be acknowledged.

12. Discussion Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study. Minimize self citation. Do not repeat data or introduction. Contextualize with other work. State the limitations. Explore the implications.

13. Tables: Keep them simple with common terms and clear conclusions. If a reviewer can’t grasp it quickly, a reader won’t. A table like this can move your paper from a high circulation journal to a more specialized small circulation journal. Complex data should go as online appendix.

14. Use Honest Charting RCT of a dementia drug, corporate, Neurology 2000;54:2261,2269. As published As cleaned up. Worse Better

15. Avoid Chart Junk

16. Write the Abstract Last! Don’t take poison. “Unfortunately, many abstracts disagree with the text of the article.” Don’t get lost. If keywords are requested, use Medline, MeSH keywords. Do not dream up your own. Don’t get a non-therapeutic amputation. Abstracts are the online content of your article. Follow length rules! Evolution of tropomyosin functional domains: differential splicing and genomic constraints. We have cloned and determined the nucleotide sequence of a complementary DNA (cDNA) encoded by a newly isolated human tropomyosin gene and expressed in liver. Using the least-square method of Fitch and Margoliash, we investigated the nucleotide divergences of this sequence and those published in the literature, which allowed us to clarify the classification and evolution of the tropomyosin genes expressed in vertebrates. Tropomyosin undergoes alternative splicing on three of its nine exons. Analysis of the exons not involved in differential splicing showed that the four human tropomyosin genes resulted from a duplication that probably occurred early, at the time of the amphibian radiation. The study of the sequences obtained from rat and chicken allowed a classification of these genes as one of the types identified for humans. The divergence of exons 6 and 9 indicates that functional pressure was exerted on these sequences, probably by an interaction with proteins in skeletal muscle and perhaps also in smooth muscle; such a constraint was not detected in the sequences obtained from nonmuscle cells. These results have led us to postulate the existence of a protein in smooth muscle that may be the counterpart of skeletal muscle troponin. We show that different kinds of functional pressure were exerted on a single gene, resulting in different evolutionary rates and different convergences in some regions of the same molecule. Codon usage analysis indicates that there is no strict relationship between tissue types (and hence the tRNA precursor pool) and codon usage. G + C content is characteristic of a gene and does not change significantly during evolution. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

17. Conflicts of Interest Financial Intellectual Control of authorship—ghostwriting. Disclose all, editors have long memories.

18. Never Make an Editor Mad at You! Thou shalt not simultaneously submit the same piece to two journals (this is not college.) publish the same piece twice (no matter what media). Copyrights Meta-analysis violate embargo dates. Editors have long memories. Note. Editor Graham was with the Washington Post.

19. A Grammar Checker won’t make you a great writer. (But it can stop you from being a turgid one.) Passive sentences Keep less than 20% Active is shorter and more fun to read. Flesch Reading Ease: should be over 60 (easily read by 13 year olds) F-K Grade Level : 13 or less. Gettysburg Address is 69 and 9.1 Law school tenure policy 23, 16.6

20. Polishing Cannot be done enough. Start at various points in the paper as you write. Avoid a polished start and a rough middle. Read aloud. A spell checker is not a magic detector.

21. II: Submitting Reviews: Narrative or Meta-analysis. Original Research Academia and Clinic Clinical Guidelines and Position Papers* Health Policy Editorials* Essays (history, patient care, poems, travel, bios Case Reports Qual Improvement Letters Book Reviews * Usually solicited or submitted by an institution.

22. Do Not Neglect the Cover Letter A cover letter is a job application. One page. 2-3 sentence synopsis, 50 words tops. This submission is Perfect for your readers Compatible with your mission. Mandatory content.

23. Suggesting Reviewers Quality of peer review is comparably high. Acceptance recommendations are higher. Avoid conflicts of interest. Not your institution, teacher, etc. J Peds 2007;151:202-5. JAMA 2006;295:314-7.

24. III: Rejections

25. Far East Economic Review "We have read your manuscript with boundless delight. If we publish your paper, it would be impossible for us to publish any work of lower standard. And as it is unthinkable that in the next thousand years we shall see its equal, we are, to our regret, compelled to return your divine composition, and to beg you a thousand times to overlook our short sight and timidity." Don’t take it personally.

26. Why do papers get rejected? Paper factors Out of date. Don’t procrastinate. Flawed lit search. Flawed methods. Flawed writing. Grumpy reviewers are not friendly. No passion. Nor are bored reviewers. Journal factors So many submissions -- so little space. Just published on this. Not our audience/issue. Bad luck with reviewer/editor.

27. Dealing with Rejection Is it really a rejection? (Some are, “We can’t take this paper but revise and we may take another look.”) What can you learn from the reviews? Are the criticisms about the paper or about its fit with the journal’s audience? Papers in minor journals can have MAJOR influence.

28. Dealing with Rejection Read the paper aloud. Does it flow as well as I thought it did? How many grammar mistakes were there, really? Does it convey my passion? Did I speak to the journal’s audience?

29. Dealing with Rejection. Have your next journal in mind when you submit a paper. Re-edit to reviewers’ comments. Update literature search! Resubmit ASAP (you have put a lot of work into this). My personal record is 17 rejections for one paper.

30. IV: Acceptance (is not the final stage.)

31. Acceptance is an Emergency! Answer queries and complete various forms on same day if possible. Your paper may be timely—e.g., delay can harm its inclusion in a special issue. Then relax!

32. Academic Publishing Connecting your passion to an audience to make things happen. Scientific Meetings Academic Lectures Follow-up confirmatory or outcome papers. Legislative testimony Community Education Op-ed pieces Legal work

33. Slides available on request. Steve Miles, MD University of Minnesota miles001@umn.edu