1. Writing and Publishing in the Scientific Literature Mark Parascandola, PhD, MPH Epidemiologist Tobacco Control Research Branch US National Cancer Institute paramark@mail.nih.gov

2. Format of Scientific Paper Title--subject and what aspect of the subject was studied. Abstract--summary of paper: The main reason for the study, the primary results, the main conclusions Introduction--why the study was undertaken Methods--how the study was undertaken Results--what was found Discussion--why these results could be significant (what the reasons might be for the patterns found or not found)

3. Introduction Catchy opening sentence Catchy opening sentence Keep it short Keep it short Review literature (selectively) Review literature (selectively) Justify your study based on above (why is your study needed?) Justify your study based on above (why is your study needed?) End with sharp focus: hypothesis, question End with sharp focus: hypothesis, question

4. Methods Section Participants and Recruitment – who is being interviewed/surveyed and how did you find them? Participants and Recruitment – who is being interviewed/surveyed and how did you find them? Include sampling procedure Include sampling procedure Sample size calculations Sample size calculations Protocol – what is the study design? Protocol – what is the study design? Explain study design – focus group interviews, cross-sectional survey, case-control study, randomized experimental study Explain study design – focus group interviews, cross-sectional survey, case-control study, randomized experimental study Measures – what did you measure and how? Measures – what did you measure and how? State the exact questions you asked in survey (how did you determine whether someone is a smoker?) State the exact questions you asked in survey (how did you determine whether someone is a smoker?) Analysis – what methods were used to analyze the data Analysis – what methods were used to analyze the data Include description of statistical methods and software packages used or coding procedures in qualitative study Include description of statistical methods and software packages used or coding procedures in qualitative study

5. Methods Section How much detail is needed? Enough to permit replication; or to assess validity of findings and quality of study Enough to permit replication; or to assess validity of findings and quality of study Could someone else read your methods section and repeat your study? Could someone else read your methods section and repeat your study? Methods section should not just tell reader what technique you used, but give them enough information to understand how you did it Methods section should not just tell reader what technique you used, but give them enough information to understand how you did it Better to provide more detail here than less Better to provide more detail here than less

6. Example: U.S. Hookah Tobacco Smoking Establishments Advertised on the Internet In June 2009, two members of the team searched google.com, yahoo.com, and bing.com, because at that time these three search engines accounted for more than 95% of all U.S. searches. In June 2009, two members of the team searched google.com, yahoo.com, and bing.com, because at that time these three search engines accounted for more than 95% of all U.S. searches. Specific search terms included hookah, hookah bars, and hookah lounges. These searches were deemed sufficiently comprehensive after additional similar terms did not yield further sites that met criteria. Specific search terms included hookah, hookah bars, and hookah lounges. These searches were deemed sufficiently comprehensive after additional similar terms did not yield further sites that met criteria. Both researchers conducted an individual search and recorded the first 20 results found for each term and each search engine. Both researchers conducted an individual search and recorded the first 20 results found for each term and each search engine. This yielded 771 hookah tobacco smoking establishments, of which 367 were associated with web links. This yielded 771 hookah tobacco smoking establishments, of which 367 were associated with web links.

7. Example: Associations between hookah tobacco smoking knowledge and hookah smoking behavior among US college students First Question: ‘Have you ever smoked tobacco from a hookah, even a puff ?’ (Yes/No) First Question: ‘Have you ever smoked tobacco from a hookah, even a puff ?’ (Yes/No) Those who responded ‘yes’ then received the question, ‘Have you smoked tobacco from a hookah in the past year, even a puff ?’ (Yes/No) Those who responded ‘yes’ then received the question, ‘Have you smoked tobacco from a hookah in the past year, even a puff ?’ (Yes/No) Those who responded ‘yes’ to this item were asked, ‘Within the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke tobacco from a hookah?’ Response choices were none; 1– 2 days; 3–5 days; 6–10 days; 11–20 days and 21–30 days. Those who responded ‘yes’ to this item were asked, ‘Within the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke tobacco from a hookah?’ Response choices were none; 1– 2 days; 3–5 days; 6–10 days; 11–20 days and 21–30 days. Our primary outcome was current smoking of hookah tobacco, defined as having smoked at least 1 day in the past 30 days. Our primary outcome was current smoking of hookah tobacco, defined as having smoked at least 1 day in the past 30 days.

8. Results Separate results from methods & discussion Separate results from methods & discussion Report results in clear, orderly fashion Report results in clear, orderly fashion Organization of results should be consistent with methods section Organization of results should be consistent with methods section If results report attitudes about smoking, methods should describe how attitudes were measured If results report attitudes about smoking, methods should describe how attitudes were measured Show your data Show your data Show what you found, don’t just say it Show what you found, don’t just say it

9. Discussion/Conclusion Explain what results mean Explain what results mean Place results in perspective (other studies) Place results in perspective (other studies) Describe limitations Describe limitations Restrict interpretation to these results Restrict interpretation to these results Implications for policy or research Implications for policy or research Don’t conclude “more research needed” Don’t conclude “more research needed”

10. Discussion Section Summary of key findings Summary of key findings What is ‘take home’ message? What is ‘take home’ message? Put the results in context Put the results in context What have other studies found? How do your results compare (similar or different?) What have other studies found? How do your results compare (similar or different?) What do your findings add that is new? What do your findings add that is new? Is there other research that might help explain your findings? Is there other research that might help explain your findings? Acknowledge limitations Acknowledge limitations Recommendations or Next Steps? Recommendations or Next Steps? Are there any recommendations that follow from your findings? What specific follow up studies would you propose? Are there any recommendations that follow from your findings? What specific follow up studies would you propose?

11. BMJ: What This Paper Adds What is already known on the subject? What is already known on the subject? What do we know currently about the topic? What do we know currently about the topic? What gaps exist (what do we not know) What gaps exist (what do we not know) Why is this specific research project needed? (what do we need to know) Why is this specific research project needed? (what do we need to know) What does this study add? What does this study add? What do we know as a result of this study that we did not know before? What do we know as a result of this study that we did not know before? British Medical Journal Instructions for Authors

12. Paper Writing Resources

13. The Publication Process

14. Decision making by editorial board Reject without review Reject without review Send out for review Send out for review Offer to reconsider as brief or letter Offer to reconsider as brief or letter Reject and resubmit Reject and resubmit (reviewed papers): Revise & Resubmit (reviewed papers): Revise & Resubmit Reject after review(s) Reject after review(s) ACCEPT!! ACCEPT!!

15. But what are editors looking for? What’s known about this issue? What’s known about this issue? What does this paper add? What does this paper add? So what? Who cares? Does it matter? So what? Who cares? Does it matter? International implications? International implications? Originality? Interesting! Originality? Interesting! Link to contemporary topics/debates Link to contemporary topics/debates Likely press/media interest? Likely press/media interest?

16. Submission “Rules” One journal at a time One journal at a time Disclose/cite/send copies of any related publications/submissions Disclose/cite/send copies of any related publications/submissions May recommend reviewers Y/N May recommend reviewers Y/N Always disclose funding, COI Always disclose funding, COI Plagiarism Plagiarism Credit and build on work of others Credit and build on work of others

17. Nobel prize work rejected.. Have referees rejected some of the most- cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences 1996, 47: 302-10. Have referees rejected some of the most- cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences 1996, 47: 302-10. Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations. Science Communication 1995;16:304-25. Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations. Science Communication 1995;16:304-25. Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly cited. Social Studies of Science 1993; 23: 342-62. Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly cited. Social Studies of Science 1993; 23: 342-62.

18. Why papers are ACCEPTED Well done, well written, well referenced Well done, well written, well referenced Adds something new to the field; raises new questions or fresh viewpoint Adds something new to the field; raises new questions or fresh viewpoint Likely to be highly cited and of interest to media and/or other researchers Likely to be highly cited and of interest to media and/or other researchers Of interest beyond just one country, or has application or relevance to issues in other countries Of interest beyond just one country, or has application or relevance to issues in other countries Gets editors excited Gets editors excited

19. Why papers are rejected 1. General Issue not important, boring, “so what?” Issue not important, boring, “so what?” Not original Not original Too parochial, not interesting for international readership Too parochial, not interesting for international readership Not appropriate for journal Not appropriate for journal Data old & now irrelevant Data old & now irrelevant

20. Why papers are rejected 2. Scientific Unclear hypotheses Unclear hypotheses Poor or weak design Poor or weak design Sample biased or too small Sample biased or too small Statistics inappropriate or misapplied Statistics inappropriate or misapplied Conclusions unjustified Conclusions unjustified Causal conclusions from cross-sectional data Causal conclusions from cross-sectional data References outdated/authors not up with current debate References outdated/authors not up with current debate

21. Why papers are rejected 3. Presentation/style Poorly organized Poorly organized Badly written Badly written Careless errors Careless errors Terrible, multiple tables Terrible, multiple tables Needless/endless figures Needless/endless figures Outdated or improperly cited references Outdated or improperly cited references

22. Keep it short Make it “lean and mean” -- make every word justify its existence Make it “lean and mean” -- make every word justify its existence Check word limit; do word count Check word limit; do word count Even if o.k., shorter is (almost) always better Even if o.k., shorter is (almost) always better Cut all extra words, phrases, paragraphs Cut all extra words, phrases, paragraphs Prune, whittle, cut Prune, whittle, cut

23. Journals need papers! Global community is interested Everyone—even major researchers—gets rejected If at first you don’t succeed, try again! Review the literature and get to know what journals are publishing

24. Journals that Publish Tobacco Control Papers Tobacco Control Tobacco Control Journal of Nicotine and Tobacco Research Journal of Nicotine and Tobacco Research American Journal of Public Health American Journal of Public Health Asia Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention Asia Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention PLOS One PLOS One Cancer Causes and Control Cancer Causes and Control

25. Questions