Writing Up the Research Paper for Medical Journals

Jeanne M. Ferrante, M.D., M.P.H.Associate Professor

Department of Family Medicine

You’ve spent months/years conducting your research.

Now What?Get It Published!

Title Research question reshaped into the

manuscript title Method of study

Abstract Context/Background Objective Design Population/Setting Intervention (if applicable) Outcome measures Analysis Results Conclusion

OBJECTIVE

METHODS

Introduction Importance of this paper Gap this paper is addressing Background information

Follow-up study Conceptual model/theoretical framework

Purpose Research question Hypothesis

Methods Overall research study design Statement of IRB and informed consent Intervention, if applicable Population and Setting How were data collected and obtained?

Validity Reliability

Methods Alteration of data to facilitate analysis Variables

Main and secondary outcomes, independent variables, confounders

Statistical Analysis Missing data, lost to follow-up

Power calculation for null studies

Results Description of study population and setting Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means) Bivariate analysis results Multivariate analysis results Results presented in text OR tables Objective findings without commentary

Methods/Results of Qualitative Research Papers

Study Design Participants and setting Sampling and sample size Data collection

Rationale for methodological choice Theoretical background Data collection and analysis iterative? How was data processed?

Qualitative Research Papers How was bias managed ?

Interpretivist vs. realist perspective What procedures were used to reduce,

compare or contrast data? Descriptions of outliers or negative evidence Themes organized to produce higher-order

insights

Qualitative Research Papers Strategies used to draw and verify

conclusions Processes used to establish validity and

reliability of analysis (interpretivist vs. realist perspective)

Enough direct quotations but not too much; avoid very short quotations.

Interpretivist Versus Realist Interpretivist

Multiple ways to understand reality Provide meaningful account Rich substance and content Description of interpretive process Immersion and self-reflection Strong evidence of inference and conclusions

Cohen and Crabtree (2008). Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care. Controversies and Recommendations. Ann Fam Med; 6:331-339.

Interpretivist Versus Realist Realist

Knowledge of reality is imperfect Strives for plausibility and accuracy Processes used to repeat and affirm

observations Validity and Reliability

Triangulation, external auditing, multiple coding, member checking

Cohen and Crabtree (2008). Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care. Controversies and Recommendations. Ann Fam Med; 6:331-339.

Discussion Summarize main findings Highlight study’s particular strengths Explain findings Compare findings with previous work Suggest implications of findings Suggest future directions

Discussion Limitations

External validity- population and setting Internal validity- limitations in quantity or

quality of data, potential confounding, biases, imprecision

Limitations of study design Effect of limitations on results

Summary paragraph

References Usually 10-30 Current Places study in appropriate context

Tables/Figures Clear and able to stand alone Footnotes used for explanation Has good use of space Use to decrease text

Cover Letter to Editor Title and journal Importance of this research Has not been submitted or published elsewhere Seen and approved by all authors and take public

responsibility Conflict of interest statement Funding of research Your contact information

Choosing the Right Journal What is your audience? Refer to journals where articles from your

literature review were published. Look at articles in your targeted journal. Look at citation index (ISI Journal Citation

Reports) for impact factor.

Other Tips Proof read! Make sure writing is clear and concise. Look at similar articles in your topic or

method for outline. Use Endnote or other bibliography

software.

Reasons Manuscripts are Accepted Literature review thoughtful, focused, up-to-date Problem important, timely, relevant, critical Problem well formulated, well stated Study well-designed Sample size sufficiently large Interpretation took into account the limitations of

the study Implications practical, useful

Reasons Manuscripts are Rejected Literature review incomplete, inaccurate,

or outdated Problem statement insufficient Conceptual model/theoretical framework

missing Measures inappropriate or sub-optimal Sample too small or biased

Reasons Manuscripts are Rejected Statistics incomplete or inappropriate Data reported insufficient, inaccurate, or

inconsistent Tables or figures defective Results are over interpreted Text difficult to follow

Responding to Reviewers Address by reviewer Number and address all comments Repeat the comment, or a portion of it, and set it apart

from the response by formatting or change in font (e.g., italics)

Include page and paragraph numbers OK to refer to previous responses Be gracious, even if the reviewer was not Resubmit within 1-2 months

Guidelines for Different Studies Randomized controlled trials: CONSORT Observational studies: STROBE Non-randomized educational, behavioral, and

public health interventions: TREND Quality improvement interventions: SQUIRE Accuracy and use of diagnostic tests: STARD

Keep Writing!