How to get research published, and what journals

look for

Dr Trish GrovesDeputy editor, BMJ

What I aim to cover

Planning research The research questionWhy you need to publishWhat editors wantHow to write a paperUseful resourcesPublication ethicsHow to please editors and peer reviewers

Why conduct and publish research?

say something important share your workchange practicepromote thought or debateeducateget into high impact journaladvance your career Keep your jobmake moneyentertain/divert/amuse

Steps in starting research

turn your ideas into a research questionreview the literatureenlist coauthors, statistician, supervisor agree who’ll do whatdesign the study and develop your methodsthink about the ethics of your study designwrite your research proposalapply for funding and ethics approval

The research question

What is a research question?

The researcher asks a very specific question and tests a specific hypothesis. Broad questions are usually broken into smaller, testable hypotheses or questions.

Often called an objective or aim, though calling it a question tends to help with focusing the hypothesis and thinking about how to find an answer

What makes a poor research question?

a question that matters to nobody, even you

hoping one emerges from routine clinical data/records– the records will be biased and confounded– they’ll lack information you need to answer your

question reliably, because they were collected for another reason

fishing expedition/data dredging – gathering new dataand hoping a question will emerge

How to focus your question

brief literature search for previous evidence

discuss with colleagues

narrow down the question – time, place, group

what answer do you expect to find?

Turning a research question into a proposal

who am I collecting information from?what kinds of information do I need?how much information will I need? *how will I use the information?how will I minimise chance/bias/confounding?how will I collect the information ethically?

* sample size – ask a statistician for helphttp://www.bmj.com/collections/statsbk/13.dtl

Minimising bias and confounding

Chance - measurements are nearly always subject to randomvariation. Minimise error by ensuring adequate sample size andusing statistical analysis of the play of chance

Bias - caused by systematic variation/error in selecting patients,measuring outcomes, analysing data – take extra care

Confounding - factors that affect the interpretation of outcomeseg people who carry matches are more likely to develop lungcancer, but smoking is the confounding factor – so measure likelyconfounders too

Ethical issues – the wider aspects

• what information will you give participants beforeseeking their consent?• how much will the study deviate from currentnormal (accepted, local) clinical practice?• what full burden will be imposed on participants?• what risks will participants/others be exposed to?• what benefit might participants or others receive? • how might society/future patients benefit in time?• might publication reveal patients’ identities?

Exactly what are you planning to do?

PICO/PECO

P - who are the Patients or what’s the Problem?

I or E - what is the Intervention or Exposure?

C – what is the Comparison group?O - what is the Outcome or endpoint?

Study designs

Descriptive studies answer “what’s happening?” research questionsAnalytic observational studies answer “why or how is it happening?”Analytic experimental studies answer “can it work?”

Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, UK www.cebm.net

Who will do what?

agree authorship before starting the study!

Authorship and contributorship

these denote credit and accountability

but many authors on papers have done little

people’s names are left off papers

authors do not know the authorship criteria

contributorship statement more inclusive

Authorship

Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contribution to:

• conception and design, or data analysis and interpretation

• drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content

• and final approval of the version to be published All these conditions must be met. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the

collection of data does not justify authorship.  All authors included on a paper must fulfil the criteria No one who fulfils the criteria should be excluded

Contributorship

contributors (not all necessarily authors) who took partin planning, conducting, and reporting the work

guarantors (one or more) who accept fullresponsibility for the work and/or the conduct of thestudy, had access to the data, and controlled thedecision to publish

researchers must decide among themselves the precise

nature of each contribution

Who did what?

Helen C Eborall, post-doctoral research fellow1, Simon J Griffin, programme leader2, A Toby Prevost, medical statistician1, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, professor of general practice1, David P French, reader in health behaviour interventions3, Stephen Sutton, professor of behavioural science1

Contributors: SS, DPF, ATP, A-LK, and SJG conceived and designed the original protocol. All authors were involved in amending the protocol. HCE coordinated the study throughout. Data entry was carried out by Wyman Dillon Ltd, Lewis Moore, and HCE. HCE cleaned the data and ran preliminary analysis with input from Tom Fanshawe. ATP analysed the data. ADDITION trial data were supplied by Lincoln Sargeant and Kate Williams. HCE wrote the first draft of the manuscript with ATP and SS. All authors contributed to subsequent and final drafts. HCE is guarantor of the paper.

Writing a research paper

General guidance on writing papers

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals

http://www.icmje.org/ reporting guidelines for research, at the

EQUATOR network resource centre

http://www.equator-network.org/

More on study methods and reporting

Centre for Evidence Based Medicinehttp://www.cebm.net/

Statistics at Square Onehttp://www.bmj.com/collections/statsbk/index.dtl

BMJ advice to authorshttp://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors

Writing a paper1. The message

What…is the research question?…is the right article format for your

study?…does the audience need to know?

Writing a paper2. IMRaD

Introduction: why ask this research question?Methods: what did I do?Results: what did I find?Discussion: what might it mean?

Writing a paper3. The introduction

brief background for this audience3-4 paragraphs onlywhat’s known, and what’s not, about your research

questiondon’t bore readers, editors, reviewersdon’t boast about how much you have read

the research questionstate it clearly in the last paragraph of the introductionsay why it matters

Writing a paper4. Methods

like a recipemost important section for informed readersdescribe:

inclusion and exclusion criteriaoutcome measuresintervention or exposure

give references for standard methods follow reporting guidelines as explained at(http://www.equator-network.org/ explain ethics issues

Writing a paper5. Results

include basic descriptive datatext for story, tables for evidence, figures for

highlightsconfidence intervalsessential summary statisticsleave out non-essential tables and figuresdon’t start discussion here

Writing a paper6. Structured discussion

don’t simply repeat the introductioninclude

– statement of principal findings – strengths and weaknesses of the study – strengths and weaknesses in relation to other

studies (especially systematic reviews), and key differences

– meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and implications for clinicians or policymakers

– unanswered questions and future research

go easy on the last two

Abstract: general rules

important

all authors mustapprove it

editors may screen by

abstract

for BMJ:

usually 300-400 words use active voice p values need data too%s need denominatorsno referencestrial registration details

Structured abstractobjectives - research question

design –prospective, randomised, placebo controlled, case control, etc

setting – primary or secondary care? number of centres, country

participants – entry and exclusion criteria, numbers entering andcompleting the study, sex, ethnic group as appropriate

interventions - what, how, when and for how long

main outcome measures - those planned, those finally measured

results - main results, 95% confidence intervals, statistical significance,number need to treat/harm 

conclusions – primary conclusions, implications; don’t go beyond data

trial registration - registry and number (only for clinical trials)

How to please editors and reviewers

How to please editors and peer reviewers

make sure the message is clear in the paper andabstract, not just in the cover letter

include extras eg STROBE checklistcite (and send) any closely related paperssend previous peer review reports

communicate clearly and promptly