1. Getting published Sue Symons Editorial Manager Karen Mattick
Associate Editor, The Clinical Teacher

2. Why publish? To create a sense of completion
So others may benefit from your work
To get feedback
To engage in discussion with others
To advance your career

3. Workshop overview
Strategies for success: Writing your article The publication process

5. What makes for a good paper?
Please discuss

6. Journal criteria Relevance Rigour Originality Importance
Clarity Ethical
Timeliness Interest
Relevance – to the readership/constituency: Medical Education more of an academic orientation, members of ASME, researchers etc; TCT aimed at the ‘jobbing clinical teacher’, so more practically orientated, not necessarily containing primary research
Originality - ‘original research’ in Medical Education; ‘novelty’ perhaps in TCT
Rigour – applicable to both journals
Importance – what does this add to the ‘font of knowledge’? – ‘So What?’

7. Strategies for success

8. Which section of the article do you think is most important?
Abstract
b) Introduction
c) Methods
d) Results
e) Discussion
f) References
g) Illustrations
Which section of the article do you think is most important?

9. Abstracts need to be good!
Usually the first section read Often the only section Treat it as a marketing tool for your article Often journals require structured abstract Best written after other sections, but… With plenty time for reviewing and polishing

10. Introduction Need to ‘hook’ the reader Three elements
What we know
What we don’t know
Why we did this study
(including aim / research questions)
Literature review
Needs to be selective and succinct, but provide a good conceptual framework

11. Methods
What we did - Ideally enough detail on what was done to allow reader to replicate the study Must link Intro with Results (so article is aligned) Should include data-collection instruments, sampling, procedure, analysis Usually also include detail of ethical approval etc

12. Results Who we studied What we found
Descriptive
Relational
Conventions about numbers, tables, figures etc
Avoid introducing interpretation / discussion

13. Discussion What did we show? What does it add to our understanding?
So what?
Start with brief and clear synopsis
Link back to Aims/Research Qs in Intro
Avoid simple reiteration of Results
Similarities and differences with other studies
So what? and Where next?

15. Style matters!
“I didn’t have time to write a short paper, so I wrote a long one”
(Pascal, Twain)

16. Ethics and ethical approval
Required statement about ethical approval What approval was sought, and why / why not? Usually want approval / issues described in paper Grey areas – e.g. evaluation vs research, quotes / potentially-identifiable data vs descriptive Different standards / processes internationally Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

17. Decide about authorship EARLY
Who will be co-authors, and in what order? What will each co-author’s contributions be? Who will be the lead / corresponding author? How will revisions / proofs be handled? Note Gift / ghost / guest authorship (based solely on securing funding, collecting data, general supervision, being head of department, etc) is not acceptable

18. Authorship
Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, updated Dec 2013 (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) Authorship credit should be based on the following four criteria: 1. substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2. drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3. final approval of the version to be published; AND 4. agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

19. Submission and review processes

21. Decisions on TCT Manuscripts
Total number of manuscripts in 2013 = 345
Rejected without review ≈ 45 %
Rejected after review ≈ 7 %
Accepted after review (+ usually revisions) ≈ 35 %
(remainder ‘regulars’, letters and withdrawn papers)

22. The aftermath: We all get rejected sometimes

23. Common reasons for rejection
Doesn’t add to the literature Conclusions not supported by data / not aligned Methodological issues Poor fit / not aimed at target audience Incomprehensible Ethical issues / lacks appropriate permissions Doesn’t comply with guidelines for authors

24. What to do if your paper is rejected
Pout, curse, commiserate with co-authors Take some time away from the paper Try to work out why it was rejected Appeals are possible, but pay particular attention to the editors comments Use the feedback to revise for submission elsewhere and/or adjust your next study

25. What to do if offered revisions
Celebrate (but not too much) Take some time away Carefully attend to each point in the review, particularly the editors commentary Submit a clearly marked revision along with a descriptive cover letter

26. When in doubt… ASK!