Writing up your research for

scientific publication

Or playing the publishing game!

Basma Ellahi Reg Nutr. (Public Health)

Professor in Public Health Nutrition

Faculty of Health and Social Care1

Presented by

• Dr. Tom Akuetteh Ndanu

• Research Fellow

• School of Medicine and Dentistry /CHS

• University of Ghana, Legon

• Nutritionist, Biochemist, Biostastitian

• Reverend Minister

2

Objectives

• Review the key issues that need to be considered when writing for publication

• Discuss why, where, for whom and how you might publish your work

• Examine the processes involved in writing for and submitting to a journal

• Reflect upon the factorsEditors/Reviewers consider when making their decision to publish

• How to deal with feedback from reviewers

3

My Background and Perspective

• From writing for publication as a PhD student

• Writing for publication as a Lecturer/Reader in Public Health Nutrition

• Co-editor of a special edition of British Food Journal

• Reviewer of journal articles, book proposal, grant proposal, research proposals

• External examiner for PhD’s• Section Editor JHPN • Editor Handbook of Nutrition

Research (Springer, 2014)

4

Tom's background

• Writing for publication as a PhD student

• Writing for publication as a Research Fellow in Nutrition and Oral health etc.

• Reviewer of journal articles, book proposal, grant proposal, student research proposals

• Editor of Focus on Ministers Magazine

• Columnist in Lifecare Magazine

• Contributor to Handbook on Statistics for Nutrition Research

5

Main Issues for discussion• The publication process

• Why publish?

• What are you writing?

• For whom are you writing?

• How to get published

• Writing tips

• Proof reading

• Deciding what journal to publish your work in

• The review process

• What editors look for

• Parts of the paper

• Reviewers comments and your responses

• Resubmission of your paper

6

The Publication Process• The means by which your work

can be read and hopefully be used by others

• Information shared is knowledge advanced

• Involves the publication of – empirical findings, – theoretical ideas, – reviews of existing literature– validation of tools for example

questionnaires,– laboratory protocols

7

• Publication can be:• Undertaken throughout

your studies• an outcome of individual

research tasks • completed when your

study is finished• planned and unplanned(a priori or post hoc)

Why publish your work?

• To make an original contribution to knowledge in the field

• To improve your ability to think and write critically and analytically

• To disseminate research findings to interested parties (e.g. academics, practitioners, professional bodies)

• To build your CV and reputation in the field

• To advance your career and job prospects• Spark a debate in a particular field of

study• Generate interest in others for your new

ideas

8

What are you writing?

• You need to write for a purpose

• what key question(s) are you seeking to answer?

• Pilot study/preliminary findings

• Your final results and discussion

• A more theoretical piece• A report on lab protocols• A validity/reliability/feasibility

study• A review article• Columnist in a magazine

9

For Whom are you writing?

• You may think that what you are writing is important, but many others will not and vice versa

• You should be very clear about who your intended audience is before publishing

• This will help you frame the parameters/objectives of what you are writing

• It will help inform the way you write

• It will also help you select which material to publish where and why

10

How to get published

• There are several ways to publish your work:

1) Regular articles in peer reviewed journals

2) Articles in special issues of journals (often commissioned from conferences)

3) Books (including chapters in edited collections)

4) Conference proceedings (often abstract)

5) Professional outlets(association newsletters, magazines, e-lists)

11

Writing tips

• Avoid slang and jargon

• Use strong verbs, they are essential to clear, concise writing.

• Use the active voice whenever possible. It is usually less wordy and unambiguous.

The fact that such processes are under strict homeostatic control is demonstrated by our work in this area.

Our work in this area demonstrates that such processes are under strict homeostatic control.

12

Writing tips

• Be brief - Wordiness usually adds nothing but confusion, and the resulting paper is very expensive to typeset and to print.

• First person - perfectly acceptable where it helps keep your meaning clear.

• Jones reported xyz, but we found….

• Our recent work demonstrated ..

• For these reasons, we began a study of …

• Avoid phrases like “we believe”, “we feel”, “we concluded”, etc.

Proof-reading - A quick test…….

• There are no tricks in this test

• Read the sentence below only once, counting the number of F’s. Count them only once (as you would if you were proofreading)

• Be honest. Do not go back and count them again or the test will be no fun!

14

May 8, 2004 15-84

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.

Answer

• There are 6 F’s in the sentence

• If you found three, you are of average intelligence.

• If you found four, you are above average.

• If you found five, you can turn your nose at most anybody

• If you found six, you are a genius

16

There is no catch. Many people forget the “OF”’s. The human brain tends to see them

as V’s and not F’s. Pretty weird, huh?

May 8, 2004 17-84

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OFSCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.

There is a moral to this story

• Proofreading is similar. “Unimportant” details tend to be overlooked

Exmaple : Inetrsteinig

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrodare, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsatltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a totalmses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihsis bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed erveylteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

18

19

Journals: Deciding where to publish

• Ask your supervisor or peers for their advice about the suitability of your target Journal

• If you are not sure about the suitability of your paper for a journal having read it aims and scope, then write to the Editor(s)

• Have a reserve list of journals• Journals have an impact factor

that may indicate its quality and impact

• But always submit your work where it is best suited and likely to be read

20

Nutrition & dietetics category: 76 journals

Rank Abbreviated Journal Title

(linked to journal information)ISSN Total Cites

Impact

Factor

1 PROG LIPID RES 0163-7827 3893 10.250

2 ANNU REV NUTR 0199-9885 4490 9.158

3 AM J CLIN NUTR 0002-9165 48233 6.504

4 NUTR RES REV 0954-4224 1151 5.500

5 INT J OBESITY 0307-0565 18052 5.221

6 CRIT REV FOOD SCI 1040-8398 4667 4.820

7 NUTR REV 0029-6643 5027 4.597

8 J NUTR BIOCHEM 0955-2863 5792 4.552

9 CURR OPIN CLIN NUTR 1363-1950 3365 4.519

10 J NUTR 0022-3166 34300 4.196

11 NUTR METAB CARDIOVAS 0939-4753 2856 3.978

12 OBESITY 1930-7381 10761 3.922

13 J AM DIET ASSOC 0002-8223 9562 3.797

14 P NUTR SOC 0029-6651 4197 3.674

15 INT J BEHAV NUTR PHY 1479-5868 2551 3.577

16 FOOD CHEM 0308-8146 41375 3.334

17 GENES NUTR 1555-8932 606 3.329

18 BRIT J NUTR 0007-1145 16968 3.302

19 CLIN NUTR 0261-5614 5003 3.298

20 ADV NUTR 2161-8313 264 3.245

http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=LIST_SUMMARY_JOURNAL

http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=1&journal=PROG+LIPID+REShttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=2&journal=ANNU+REV+NUTRhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=3&journal=AM+J+CLIN+NUTRhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=4&journal=NUTR+RES+REVhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=5&journal=INT+J+OBESITYhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=6&journal=CRIT+REV+FOOD+SCIhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=7&journal=NUTR+REVhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=8&journal=J+NUTR+BIOCHEMhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=9&journal=CURR+OPIN+CLIN+NUTRhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=10&journal=J+NUTRhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=11&journal=NUTR+METAB+CARDIOVAShttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=12&journal=OBESITYhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=13&journal=J+AM+DIET+ASSOChttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=14&journal=P+NUTR+SOChttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=15&journal=INT+J+BEHAV+NUTR+PHYhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=16&journal=FOOD+CHEMhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=17&journal=GENES+NUTRhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=18&journal=BRIT+J+NUTRhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=19&journal=CLIN+NUTRhttp://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=RECORD&rank=20&journal=ADV+NUTR

Journals: Deciding where to publish

• Each journal will have their own aims and scope-your work must address these

• Has the journal published articles on a similar theme/topic before?

• Who is likely to read the journal?• How long does the review

process take?• Does the journal have an online

publication facility (e.g. iFirst, Online First)?

• How many times per year is journal published?

23

Targeting your paper

• Target your paper by conducting additional journal research:– How are articles titled?

– How are abstracts constructed?

– How are papers constructed?

– What kinds of supplemental information are included in papers (e.g., graphs, tables, diagrams, etc.)?

24

The review process

• When an editor or reviewer initially reviews a submission, he/she checks to see if the manuscript meets basic publication requirements.

• These include:• Topic• Approach• Format• Overall impression of

substance and style• Completeness

• Additional considerations may be:

• Author credentials (blind process)

• Originality of thought• Counter-intuitive outcomes• New knowledge to add to the

field• Validity of research design

25

What editors look for?

• Does the article fit within the journals aims and scope?

• Will the article be of interest to readers? Does the article engage in debates covered in the journal? Is the article well-written, original, and likely to advance knowledge in the field?

• Articles that are within the specified word limit, use correct referencing style, presented professionally and correctly

26

Preparing your paper

• Now you know what Editors look for, prepare your paper accordingly!

27

What are the components of a research paper?

28

Component of the paper

• Tittle • Affiliations of authors• Key words• Abstract• Material and Methods• Results • Discussion and conclusion• Acknowledgement• Authors contribution• Conflict of interest statement• References • *Appendices - Tables and chartsSubmission checklist

29

31

32

Draft due in for Monday morning?

Practical things

• Think about the way you approach writing. Do you use a process? Or do you plug your nose, dive in, and hope for the best?

• Having a process for writing, like having a process for research, sets you up for success.

• We’ve all had writing experiences where the words just seem to flow.

• By defining and working with a process, you create the conditions in which you are more likely to achieve that flow.

33

Tips – focus your ideas

• Talk it

• Map

• Daydream

• Write

34

Some writers find it helpful

• Start in the middle

• Pick up a pencil

• Start typing

• Set incremental goals

• Keep reading

35

36

Introduction

• Provides background needed to understand the paper and appreciate its importance

• Identifies the question the research addressed

• In general, should be fairly short

• Typically should be funnel-shaped, moving from general to specific

37

Introduction

• Common Mistakes

– Too much or not enough information

– Unclear purpose

– Lists

– Confusing structure

– First-Person anecdotes

38

Methods and materials

• Provides instruction on exactly how to repeat experiment– Study design– Subjects– Sample preparation techniques– Sample origins– Field site description– Data collection protocol– Data analysis techniques– Any computer programs used– Description of equipment and its use– Training done for examiners of raters or data collecters if any

39

Methods and materials

• Common Mistakes– Too little information

– Information from Introduction

– Verbosity

– Results/ sources of error reported

40

Results

• Objective presentation of experiment results

– Summary of data

• NOT a Discussion!

41

Results

• Common mistakes– Raw data

– Redundancy

– Discussion and interpretation of data

– No figures or tables

– Methods/materials reported

42

Discussion

• Interpret results – Did the study confirm/deny the hypothesis?

– If not, did the results provide an alternative hypothesis? What interpretation can be made?

– Do results agree with other research? Sources of error/anomalous data?

– Implications of study for field

– Suggestions for improvement and future research?

• Relate to previous research

43

Discussion/conclusion

• Make sure the data supports your conclusion and point out any other alternative interpretations. If you don't do this, then a reviewer surely will

44

Discussion - Typical order

• Positive: State your major finding. Present arguments for your interpretation of your results.

• Neutral: Put your study in context of other studies; show how yours adds

• Negative: State the limitations of your study, and why you still believe in your results.

• Positive: State your study’s strengths; Conclude with implications and suggestions for further work.

45

Key issues in discussions

• State what you found

• What it means in the light of your objectives

• How it compares with what is known

• How it differs from what is known

• Possible reasons for the similarity and the difference

• The unexpected results are not wrong findings but often that is where the Nobel prize is (Prof. Sefa, GH)

46

Discussion

• Common Mistakes– Combined with Results

– New results discussed

– Broad statements

– Incorrectly discussing inconclusive results

– Ambiguous data sources

– Missing information

47

Tables and figures

• Tables

– Presents lists of numbers/ text in columns

• Figures

– Visual representation of results or illustration of concepts/methods (graphs, images, diagrams, etc.)

• Captions

– Must be stand-alone

48

Tables and figures

• Guidelines for Figures and Tables– High resolution

– Neat, legible labels

– Simple

– Clearly formatted

– Indicate error

– Detailed captions

49

References

• Check specific referencing style of journal

• Should reference:

– Peer-reviewed journal articles, abstracts, books

• Should not reference:

– Non-peer-reviewed works, textbooks, personal communications

50

References

• Common Mistakes

– Format, Format, Format

• (Figures & Tables, Equations, and References)

– Redundant Information

• Text, Figures, Tables, and Captions

– Type of Reference

51

Authorship

• Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

• Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

• Final approval of the version to be published

• Order of names considered and agreed

52

Scientific misconduct

• Gift Authorship

• Redundant Publication

• Plagiarism

• Fabrication

• Falsification

• Conflict of Interest

53

Are You A Good KISSer?

• Are you a good kisser or a sloppy kisser?

• Do you keep it simple? Can you streamline?

• Find out by selecting the boxes that best describe your approach using Handout 1

54

Become a slave to style

• https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/585/02/

55

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/585/02/

56

Submitting your paper

• On-line submission

• Follow instructions

57

The review process

58

59

Typical review cycle

60

The review process

• Once submitted, your paper will usually be processed by an Editorial Assistant

• The Editor(s) will decide on the paper’s suitability and whether it should be sent for review

• All articles are “reviewed” by at least two academics (2 Reviewers) with appropriate expertise/interest in the subject matter

• The “reviewers” provide a written report to the Editor(s) on the quality of the paper

What do reviewers consider

• Importance and clarity of research hypothesis

• Originality of work

• Delineation of strengths and weaknesses of methodology, experimental/statistical approach, interpretation of results

• Writing style and figure/table presentation

62

Editorial decisions

• The process can take at least 6-8 weeks, but it can often be longer!

• Reviewers are usually asked to recommend the paper be:

• A) accepted paper with minor revision

• B) accepted paper with major revision

• C) revised and resubmitted

• D) rejected

• The Editor(s) take the final decision and can ask for a third review if the comments conflict

63

Reading reviewers’ comments

64

Reading reviewers comments

• Whatever the outcome, you should always read reviewers’ comments

• However supportive/critical, the comments are usually intended to help you improve the paper

• It can be easy to be disappointed with the comments if they are critical – put them down for a day or two and then re-read them

• You should respond, where possible, to the comments raised and edit the paper

• But you do not have to change everything

65

Responding to reviewers

• If you are invited to resubmit or the paper is accepted, you must show how you have responded to the reviewers via letter

• Always start by saying thank you!

• Copy and paste their comments from the editorial correspondence into a letter

• Under each comment state how and where you have amended the paper

• If you have not addressed something, you must explain why

66

Re-submitting your paper

• Journals have their own style, but indicate the changes in red font or yellow background for ease of identification

• Once you have revised the paper and responded to the reviewers, they need to be resubmitted in the instructed way

• Delete any old files that appear in your on your online account so the only the latest version is used

• Your paper may be returned to the reviewers, or the Editor(s) will make a decision

• Be prepared for further revisions/rejection!

67

Getting accepted!

68

Getting accepted!

• If you have responded satisfactorily to the reviewers comments your paper will be accepted for publication

• You may need to upload a final “clean” version of the paper online which is then sent to the publisher for typesetting

• You often receive an email with a PDF ‘Proof’ to check and return and a copyright form to sign and return

• Your paper will be published in a future issue-can take 12 months but can appear online in approximately 8 weeks

Typical production cycle

Getting rejected!

• Everyone has been rejected!• Your paper can be rejected

because of:• The perceived quality of your

paper (e.g. sample size, theoretical explanation, data, clarity of methods, addition to knowledge)

• The revisions required are so substantial it would change the paper completely

• The reviewers personal opinion!

• The Editor (s) do not “need” the paper

70

And if everything else fails ……..

Be prepared to start again!

71

Getting your work read!

• Once published hopefully people will read your work

• Include it on your CV/website page

• Consider an academia.edu account

• Or Google scholar

• Follow your citations

• Think about starting again!

72

73

74

75

76

Major questions you need to ask your self before writing for publication

• What do I want to publish?

• Why do I want to publish?

• Where do I want to publish?

• How do I want to publish?

• What major issues do I need to address?

• What are the cost implications of publishing my paper?

In academia the rule is POP – Publish or Perish

77

Useful Reading

• http://www.publishnotperish.org/module4/documents/following_rejection_checklist.pdf

• http://www.publishnotperish.org/module3/writing_resources_web.htm

• http://www.publishnotperish.org/module4/documents/the_review_process.pdf

• http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWtoc.html

• http://www.elsevier.com/early-career-researchers/guides-and-recommended-reading

• http://ismedia.exeter.ac.uk/flash/ee/skills/rdo5/player.html

78

http://www.publishnotperish.org/module4/documents/following_rejection_checklist.pdfhttp://www.publishnotperish.org/module3/writing_resources_web.htmhttp://www.publishnotperish.org/module4/documents/the_review_process.pdfhttp://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWtoc.htmlhttp://www.elsevier.com/early-career-researchers/guides-and-recommended-readinghttp://ismedia.exeter.ac.uk/flash/ee/skills/rdo5/player.html

Acknowledgements

• Professor Phillip Calder, University of Southampton

• Nutrition Society - Miss HAJNAL ZDRAVICS Training and Education Coordinator

• Colleagues and peers whose workshops and feedback over the years has helped me develop and informed this presentation.

79