medical writing how to get funded and published
DESCRIPTION
Medical Writing How to get funded and published. November 2003. The key to successful writing is organisation and planning It is NEVER too early to start For example use a reference manager system from the beginning and make notes about all papers you read. Know what you are writing. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Medical Writing
How to get funded and published
November 2003
The key to successful writing is organisation and planning
It is NEVER too early to start
For example use a reference manager system from the beginning and make notes about all papers you read
Know what you are writing
• Original article (IMRaD)
• Case report
• Review/commentary
• Book review
• Letter
• Grant
Know what you are writing
• Message
• Market
• Length
• Co-authors
• Set a deadline
Original articles IMRaD
• Introduction – 3 paragraphs
– Don’t state the obvious
– state hypothesis and aims
• Methods– Succinct
– Web section?
– Answer how?
– Stats
• Results– Logical (simple to
complex)
– Don’t duplicate text/tables
– 3-4 tabs/figs
• Discussion– What are the
implications?
Know your journal
• Read the “instructions for authors”
• Read the journal
• Remember the editor is under a number of pressures
• Think marketing!
How good is your journal?Impact factors
Cell 40Nature 27NEJM 23Lancet 18BMJ 6AJRCCM 5Thorax 4ADC 3
Now the pain…
• First author takes the responsibility
• Write a plan
• Start with methods & results then discussion, introduction, abstract
• Editing
• Co-authors
• Independent
Peer Review
Peer Review
• Like democracy peer review is the worst way to assess research apart from all the others
• Peer review is sensitive to the basics of good presentation, structure, language and style.
• Badly presented papers or grants will not do well
• Obey “instructions for authors” or grant instructions!!!
Grant Review
• Usually grants are awarded by a committee of 10 or more.
• The majority will not have much working knowledge of your specialist area.
• One member will be allocated your application.
• Two or more peer reviewers
• You may have an opportunity to address reviewers comments by mail or at interview.
Grant Review
• Your grant may be discussed for 5 - 20 minutes
• There is usually some form of marking system
• Decisions are usually final but occasionally you will be asked to re-submit.
Peer Review - Abstracts
P os te r S p oken
2 R eview ers
S orted b y C a teg ory
S u b m itted ab s trac t on lin e
Reviewers Responsibilities
• Honest assessment of the MS
• Usually works to a structure (eg Thorax / Blue Journal)
• Ask to recommend acceptance or not and often to grade the paper
• Usually has a confidential note to the Editor
• Should reviewer be identified?
Manuscript Review
AuthorMS Submitted
Editors
Associate Editor
2 or 3 Peer Reviewers
Recommendations- Accept - Minor - Major- Revise + Resubmit- Reject
Statistical review
Reviewers Responsibilities
• Honest assessment of the MS or grant
• Usually works to a structure (eg Thorax / Blue Journal)
• Ask to recommend acceptance or not and often to grade the paper
• Usually has a confidential note to the Editor
• Should reviewer be identified?
Critical appraisal
• Is it of interest?
• Why was it done?
• What was found?
• Are the stats ok?
• What are the implications?
• Will it be cited?
Statistical review
• Sample size
• Are the outcome measures valid?
• Is the basic data well described?
• Are the analyses valid?
• How was significance assessed?
• Have confounders/bias been considered?
Major Criticisms
• Nothing new
• No hypothesis
• Over stating results
• Under powered
• Poor statistical analysis
• Wrong journal
• Methodology of assays etc
Minor Criticisms
• Too long
– Introduction: 1 side
– Methods: 1-2sides
– Results: 1-2sides
– Discussion: 3-4sides
– References <30
– Too many figs/tables
• Poor English
• Spelling mistakes
• Over statement of results
• No acknowledgement of limitations
• Missed refs
• Don’t take it personally• Don’t dissect comments until you have cooled
down• Most rejections are justified• Appeal?• Modify MS before resubmission – the same
reviewer may get it again!• Do resbmit
Responding to Reviewsreject
Responding to Reviewsaccept/resubmit
• Be honest and true to what you believe
• Address all the issues raised
• Don’t be aggressive or wounded
• Concede about 50 - 75% of the issues raised as they are usually correct.
• Return the revised MS promptly
Paper accepted
• Celebrate
• Wait for the proofs (pdf) and respond quickly
• Start the next paper!