karen shashok translator – editorial consultant [email protected] research consultation center...
TRANSCRIPT
Karen ShashokTranslator – Editorial consultant
Research Consultation Center SUMS, ShirazFebruary 2015
Successful research publication
©2015 Karen Shashok
AERTeM, ASETRAD, COPE, EASE, EMAME, MET, TREMÉDICA, WAME
Part 1. Publication strategy in a competitive global environment
M. Xeridat, in Van Kolfschooten F. Can you believe what you read? Nature 2002;416:360-363
The editor and publisher will not help with the writing, language or organization. The peer reviewers might or might not help.
Pressure on journals to screen out and reject as many manuscripts as possible before they enter the system and consume resources
Reasons for rejection without review?
Disappearance of free editorial support from publishers
Most reviewers, editors and publishers in science journals no longer edit manuscripts.
They may reject manuscripts that need “too much” editing even if the content is appropriate for the journal and even if the science looks sound.
“Far from this being an occasional occurrence, it seems that the excuse of poor English is used as a way of rejecting manuscripts, a handy tool to have in these days of heavy submission loads and the need to ‘cull’ manuscripts before peer review.”
Johnson-Vekony 2008
European Science Editing
http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/
november_2008344_part_i.pdf
Which journal?
Insight into journal policies can help authors select target journals with better chances of success: - more favorable reception- faster review and publication - communicating with readers who will use your results
To reach the right readers
An optimal match between your work and the journal’s mission (Guyatt and Haynes, 2006)
Where will the article be seen by the greatest number of most interested readers?
Which journal?
- Who needs to know? - What journals do they read? (Reference list)- Which journals publish articles on your research topic? - Journal policies and editorial board (expertise, receptivity)- Impact factor or other evaluation criteria
Which journal? http://www.authoraidem.org/index.php/advice-for-authors
1. Scope, content, readership2. Geography3. Editorial expertise4. Trustworthy, professional publisher5. Access6. Time to decision7. Frequency of publication8. Career value (impact factor, other
metrics)
Which journal?
SCImago SJR2 http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php
SJR Journal of Informetrics 2010 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157710000246
Journal Citation Reports http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/
Aims and scope
- Usually general, often not up to date or accurate - Check recent Table of Contents- Search in journal site with your key words http://www.paho.org/journal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=155
Editorial board
- International or national? - Is your country represented? - Are the names familiar to you as experts? http://jech.bmj.com/site/about/edboard.xhtml
http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcpublichealth
Instructions to Authors or Guidelines for manuscript preparation
http://jech.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
Access models:
- Payment by reader (subscription or pay-per-view) - Payment by author (open access)
· Both use peer review.· Both have good and bad journals.
· Open access does not always require the author to pay.
Open access models Green: Accepted manuscript available in a repository, publisher’s final version available only upon payment Gold: Publisher’s final version of all papers immediately available without payment by reader Hybrid: Final versions of some papers immediately available if authors have paid “open access fee”
Legitimate open access journals
http://oaspa.org/membership/members/
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/
http://doaj.org/
Make a good first impression
- Take time to choose the most appropriate journal. - Always follow the journal’s Instructions or Guidelines. - Pay attention to the ethics rules.- If there is something that you don’t understand, ask the editor.
Writing process
Buchachon Petthanya
When you write the manuscript, ask yourself who needs to know what you found.
Before you finish the manuscript, identify the journals most likely to accept it.
Peer review and editing improve the article but do not make it perfect.
- Even if research is not perfect, the report of the research should be as accurate and helpful to readers as possible.- Most of the quality (both scientific and language/reporting/writing) should be provided by authors.
A simple and boring text is better than a complex, “interesting” text that is hard to understand. (Martha M. Tacker)
Wikimedia Commons
http://www.freeimageslive.co.uk/free_stock_image/treebranchesdrawingjpg
Writing strategies
- Make notes or draft parts of the text any time you have an idea.
- Make an outline.
- Make a list of references that should be cited.
-Write the easy parts first and the hard parts last.
- Correct the abstract and title when the paper is finished.
Don’t copy and paste from other articles. Many badly written articles are published even in top journals.
Vasconcelos SMR. Writing up research in English: Choice or necessity? Rev Col Bras Cir 2007; 34:1-2
In the manuscript- Times New Roman 12 cpi- Double-spaced- Pages numbered - No footnotes- No automatic anything- No typesetting (bold only for title and section headings, italics only for Latin names, bold and italics as needed in the References)
The manuscript
Part 2. IMRaD structure
Wu J. Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond. Landscape Ecol 2011; 26:1345–1349 http://leml.asu.edu/jingle/Wu-Publications-PDFs/2011/Wu-2011-ScientificWriting.pdf
ICMJE. Manuscript preparation. Preparing for submission http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/ preparing-for-submission.html
Equator network http://www.equator-network.org/
Introduction: Asking an important question, choosing the best method
Ellie Davies
Attract attention and identify the target population of readers
1. Interesting first sentence
2. Explain why there is a problem.
3. Identify the gap in knowledge.
4. State your hypothesis and how it will test your proposed solution.
5. Say how your findings can be used.
Ask a specific question. Provide a specific answer.
Your statement of purpose and statement of importance (at the end of the Introduction) is the anchor for the whole article.
Wikimedia Commons
Quoting, citing and referencing
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/154/comments Published correction of a citation and reference error
How to ensure citation accuracy and avoid plagiarism
1. Avoid copy-and-paste.2. Write or revise all the text yourself.3. Insert provisional references (author-year) in the first draft.4. Paraphrase for only 1 or 2 lines and provide the reference.5. Use “verbatim quotations” for only 1 or 2 lines and provide the reference.
How to ensure citation accuracy and avoid plagiarism
6. Check all references and quotations carefully.7. Spell all authors’ names correctly.8. Provide the reference for any information or ideas published before (even your own).
Materials and Methods or Patients and Methods
Rasmussen et al. 2010
Methods
1. Study design, setting, population, sample (flow chart)
2. Each variable: how measured (what materials, what methods)
3. Compliance with ethical guidelines (animals, humans)
4. Statistical methods
Methods – Reproducibility and generalizability
- Setting, population, sample, time period (clinical research)
- Exact name, manufacturer, city and country of materials (apparatus, reagents, cell lines, antibodies, etc.)
Methodology and reporting
Follow the EQUATOR reporting checklists for different study designs
http://www.equator-network.org/
Reporting: Study design
- Observational rather than experimental - Time: Cross-sectional, prospective, retrospective- Type of outcome: incidence or prevalence- Sampling based on outcome
Observational study designs
- Cross-sectional, Cohort, Case-control - Incidence, Incidence case-control- Prevalence, Prevalence case-control
STROBE checklist for cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies
http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/translations/STROBE_short_Spanish.pdf
CONSORT checklist for randomized clinical trials
http://www.consort-statement.org/downloads/translations
Reporting
Journal checklists for editors and reviewershttp://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-types/research/editors-checklists
Check the journal’s website.
Results: Clarity in data reporting, tables and figures
Kiselev Andrey
Results: Data selection
Kiselev Andrey
Results that focus on the question asked in the Introduction
- Figures and tables that focus on the question asked, and the data that help readers answer it for themselves
- No repetition of data among text, tables and figures
- Follow the order of subsections in the Methods section for variables
Results that focus on the question asked in the Introduction
- If you present data clearly, the readers will be able to foresee your conclusions.
- Your article will be more convincing.
Table 1. Mean diameter of the zone of growth inhibition with different topical antimicrobial treatments for burns in the present study and earlier studies
Table title and figure legend should repeat variable, statistical test, setting and time period
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0088182;jsessionid=E1268CEF45C47D93F5271C279B1CCF42
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0090662;jsessionid=E1268CEF45C47D93F5271C279B1CCF42
Discussion: Organization and convincing conclusions
The Plainspoken Scientist
The Discussion explains: - what your findings mean, and - why they are important.
1. Do not discuss data that are not included in the Results section.2. Similarities and differences with earlier research, and possible reasons for differences3. Answer the question you asked in the Introduction.
4. Explain to what extent the conclusions can be generalized.5. Identify the design and methodological limitations (and strengths).6. Suggest new studies that could help answer questions that require more data.
You are the teacher!
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/the_csc_summer_seminars_on_int046041.html
Refer to your research question often while writing and revising, to stay focussed on the aim of the study and the new, original key results.
Wikimedia Commons
Sequence and organization (specific to general) 1. Summarize main methods and results. Emphasize new or unusual results. 2. Compare to similar studies. Explain why your findings differ.3. Explain possible mechanisms of your findings. 4. Explain meaning and implications for clinical practice, further research, policy.
Placing your research in the wider context
1. Report main similarities and differences with earlier results.
2. Suggest reasons for differences.
3. Explain why you believe you are right if your findings are controversial or different from most other studies.
Meaning and implications of your results
1. For theory (mechanistic explanation, implications for basic science)
2. For practice (in the lab, in clinical practice, in the field, in populations)
3. For future research
Relate the conclusions explicitly to the aim of the study.
Wikimedia Commons
REUTERS/Remo Casili
Conclusions 1. Based on your evidence and methods.2. Don’t exaggerate. 3. Don’t claim “for the first time” unless you are completely sure.4. If your findings are surprising, unexpected or different, suggest a possible explanation.
Clear writingAcademic Phrasebank John Morley, University of Manchesterhttp://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/
Title and Abstract: Accuracy, clarity and impact
A title that reflects the contents
What participants? What population?
What conditions? Where?
What setting (local, national, regional, international)?
Experimental or observational?
When?
● Always Gamble on an Empty Stomach: Hunger Is Associated with Advantageous Decision Making
● A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
● A Direct Brain-to-Brain Interface in Humans
● Interaction between Neuroanatomical and Psychological Changes after Mindfulness-Based Training
● Holding Thermal Receipt Paper and Eating Food after Using Hand Sanitizer Results in High Serum Bioactive and Urine Total Levels of Bisphenol A (BPA)
● Pterodactylus scolopaciceps Meyer, 1860 (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea) from the Upper Jurassic of Bavaria, Germany: The Problem of Cryptic Pterosaur Taxa in Early Ontogeny
● Three Minutes of All-Out Intermittent Exercise per Week Increases Skeletal Muscle Oxidative Capacity and Improves Cardiometabolic Health
● Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults
● Vocal Fry May Undermine the Success of Young Women in the Labor Market
An Abstract that reflects the contents
- Re-revise the abstract after the main manuscript is completely finished.
- No discrepancies in the information in the abstract, main text, and tables or figures for: terminology, sample size, population size, numerical data
- Word limit!
Structured abstract
- Reflects structure of the article
- Structure depends on type of article:
Original research
Clinical trial (original article)
Case report
Short communication
Systematic review, Metaanalysis
Specific
General to specific
Specific to general
Part 3. Style
1. Writer’s personal style
2. “Good scientific English style” (clear, concise, coherent)
3. Publisher’s or journal’s technical style (style manuals for medicine, microbiology, chemistry, psychology, etc.)
1. Writer’s personal style
Not much tolerance for this in science journals. Short and simple is best.
2. “Good scientific style”
Can be learned with practice
3. Publisher’s or journal’s technical style
Follow the rules; check the instructions or the recommended style manual.
Wordiness
It can be said that cardiovascular disease is a major global cause of mortality in the developed countries, the fundamental underlying substrate of which is atherosclerosis.
Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of overall mortality in developed countries; its main substrate is atherosclerosis.
Publisher’s technical style
http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/house-style “Scientific measurements may be expressed using either conventional or SI units, with the conversion factor expressed in parentheses only at first mention. […] The metric system is preferred for the expression of length, area, mass, and volume. Blood pressure should be expressed in mm Hg.”
Specialized terminology and usagePhysical examination revealed an enlarged liver and spleen, and biochemistry showed a marked increase in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) to 4650 U/L (ref. 105–205 U/L) and a low platelet count of 64 109/L (ref. 145– 350 109/L). The white blood cell count was normal, and the hemoglobin concentration was 7.9 mmol/L, i.e., just below the reference level (ref. 8.1–10.3 mmol/L).
Technical style: Abbreviations1. As few as possible 2. Not in the title, abstract section
heading, table titles, figure legends3. Define on first appearance, then
always use the abbreviation (no flip-flopping)
4. Not as the first word of a sentence
Technical style: Scientific names
1. Italics: Genus and species
2. Capital: Genus (not species or subspecies)
3. Abbreviated genus (E. coli). Don’t flip-flop.
4. Not as the first word in a sentence, not in section headings.
Part 4. Peer reviewResearch publication ethics
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html
Peer review at naturehttp://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html
Why do (biomedical) peer reviewers decline to review? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465595/
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf
Rejection without review
- Initial screening fail
- Failure to identify what is new and original
- Outside aims and scope (wrong readership, wrong priorities)
- Formal aspects: Format, ethics, English, references, aims and scope
- Poor science (Methods)
Result of peer review
- Accept as submitted (<2%)
- Minor revisions, resubmit (Deadline?)
- Major revisions, resubmit (Deadline?)
- Reject (Cascading review?)
- Proof correction (24-48 h)
For most researchers, and therefore most reviewers, English is not their first language.
Wikimedia Commons
Even though reviewers and editors are good researchers and subject experts, they may not be skilled in language or writing.
Editors depend on reviewers, and reviewers are not always right.
Letter and point-by-point replies to reviewers’ comments - Be polite but be an equal (peer). - Say “thank-you” for useful feedback. - Don’t manipulate their ego.- Use care when you need to contradict the reviewer.
New types of peer review
Hames I. The changing face of peer review. Science Editing 2014; 1(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9
Authorship and contributorship
http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-31-november-2012/fixing-authorship-towards-a-practical-model-of-contributorship/
ICMJE authorship criteriaA. Substantial contribution to
conception and design, data acquisition, analysis or interpretation
B. Drafting or revising for intellectual content
C. Final approval D. Accountability for accuracy and
integrity A + B + C + D = Author
Authorship abuse- Gift: authorship not earned- Guest: authorship not earned or only partially earned (honorary)- Ghost: authorship may be earned but author is not named
Conflict of interest
http://www.stephenhicks.org/2012/10/12/conflicts-of-interest-physicians-and-financiers-example/
Fraud and misconduct
Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. PNAS 2012 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
Ethical responsibilitiesReviewers and editors: what rules apply?Guidelines, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
Consequences of research fraud
Conclusions: The reader needs to be convinced that your findings are logical, valid, and supported by solid evidence, not impressed by your writing style.
M. Xeridat, in Van Kolfschooten F. Can you believe what you read? Nature 2002;416:360-363
Clear: The reader doesn’t need to read the same sentence or paragraph more than once, and can navigate all parts of the article easily.
Rigorous:
- The results (including tables and figures) follow from the methods. - The discussion follows from the introduction. - The data are reported correctly.- Limitations and possible additional studies are noted.
Convincing:
- Focus on answering the question asked in the introduction. - Don’t overstate or exaggerate your conclusions. - Search for and correct technical errors.
