john h. burton, md chair department of emergency medicine carillion clinic james r miner md research...
Post on 14-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Reading, Writing and Rejection: How to Get
PublishedJohn H. Burton, MDChairDepartment of Emergency MedicineCarillion Clinic
James R Miner MDResearch DirectorDepartment of Emergency MedicineHennepin County Medical Center
Writing a manuscript and doing clinical research are very different
Writing up good research is much easier than writing up bad research
It all starts with the research
Writing
A good argument is a work of art – every word matters
Acknowledge and compliment the correct aspects from the other discussants
Directly state your opposing viewpoint Leave room for alternative viewpoints Concede when you’re wrong Don’t write angry
Written Arguments
Participating in written arguments on list serves, blogs, and social media can be a great way to have your writing critically appraised and to improve your skills
Remember that its going to exist for ever
Online
Can be a fun way to review a topic Take a lot of time that should be spent
writing up your research and innovations Don’t make you better at writing science If you do a lot of good research, you’ll have
all the opportunities you want to do this later, don’t let it bog you down at the beginning
Chapters, Reviews, etc.
Critically read everything you can related to your work
Carefully thought our arguments over clinical questions with colleagues by email are an excellent way to refine your writing skills
Getting started
Abstracts◦ Model your writing on abstracts that were well
received and on the same topic as yours◦ Every word matters◦ Sets up the structure of your subsequent
manuscript Put your focus on publishing abstracts
rather than non-peer reviewed work to get your career on track
Getting Started
Structure and convention are important◦ A lot of aspects of a research project are not
written in a manuscript, if you’re manuscript is sloppy, readers will assume your research is as well
◦ Nobody reads scientific manuscripts for entertainment
◦ Always make clear distinctions between what you think and what you know whenever you write Both are important as long as you know the
difference
Writing scientific findings
Starts when you write your protocol Add you results Discuss what your found out between
writing the protocol and analyzing your results
Include all limitations your readers may not have been able to deduce
Writing Manuscripts
Your protocol is the methods section of your paper
The background section of your IRB or IACUC application is your introduction
Having your manuscript half way written before you collect any data leads to getting it finished in the end
The Protocol
What is the question What is known about the question What is left to find Describe your model Describe the theoretical validity of your
model Specifically state your hypothesis and
primary outcome measures
The Introduction
What is validity?◦ Internal validity
Truth in the study Nobody should read the paper if its not there,
describe it in the introduction◦ External validity
Truth in the universe The goal of your manuscript is to help the reader
judge this for your study, you need to help them get there
Validity
Never conclude that further research needs to be done
Don’t present 2-D data in 3-D Don’t avoid the elephant in the room
◦ Know your limitations and state them clearly◦ State why and which part of your work is
important anyway◦ If you don’t acknowledge a limitation readers
assume you didn’t know about it
Common Errors
Carefully describe how the assignment of patients to treatments accounts for confounders (I/E criteria, randomization)
Describe all of the patients who were screened and entered the trial and account for them
Common Errors in Studies of Therapy
Was there an independent, blind comparison with a reference standard?
Did the patient sample include an appropriate spectrum of the sort of patients to whom the diagnostic test will be applied in clinical practice?
Common Errors in Studies of Diagnosis
Were there clearly identified comparison groups that were similar with respect to important determinants of outcome (other than the one of interest)?
Were outcomes and exposures measured in the same way in the groups being compared?
Common Errors in Comparisons
Were there clearly identified comparison groups that were similar with respect to important determinants of outcome (other than the one of interest)?
Were outcomes and exposures measured in the same way in the groups being compared?
Is the study designed around the primary outcome?
Common Errors in Outcomes
The weaknesses in a study must be balanced with the relevance of the findings◦ This is what the discussion is for◦ If you can’t describe why your data is still
important given the flaws in your study, you should probably repeat the experiment with an improved design
◦ Fixing these flaws may lead to a line of research that keeps you writing for your whole career
If we only write perfect research we’ll have a big pile of internally valid irrelevant data◦ There are journals that specialize in this
Exceptions to the Rule
Read the paper and decide if and what part of the findings can be used to reveal some
piece of truth in the Universe
Prioritize Let go of your failures Write every day If you don’t know what to write, just write
something
Organizing your efforts
Don’t always go for the low hanging fruit Don’t get bogged down for ever on
something really hard
Prioritize
I work on revisions as soon as I get them If I don’t have anything in press, I finish and
submit the thing closest to being ready to publish
If I have don’t have anything under review anywhere, I finish and submit the thing closest to being ready for submission
If I have data from a finished study that isn’t written up, I start writing that manuscript
If I have an idea without a protocol, I start writing that
My work flow (in order)
Therefore, the goal is to always have at least one:◦ Manuscript in press◦ Manuscript under review◦ Manuscript being written◦ Protocol being written
You always need something that needs writing if you want to write every day
My work flow
If your manuscript is getting rejected everywhere you send it due to its flaws, you may need to repeat the study with improvements
If your manuscript gets rejected without flaws noted, it may be that only you find it interesting ( I have a lot of these)
If you haven’t written something up after a long time, it might not be that interesting to you (give it away)
Save it somewhere; big pieces on rejected papers usually end up published in subsequent manuscripts
Let go of your failures
Write down your ideas Sometimes writing takes a lot of focus for a
long time Sometimes your best stuff will pop up out of
nowhere◦ Allow yourself to do both
Write Every Day
Make an outline Add to it wherever you can Eventually it will start to form prose Write the whole 1st draft yourself Editing is a lot easier than writing, even
when your editing yourself◦ Don’t be afraid to cut◦ Work with coauthors who are better at writing
than you
Just Write Something
In general, submit to the journals you read Peer review can sometimes be random,
rejection is not the end of the road Read the reviewers comments, revise if you
agree, and resubmit before inertia takes over
Impact Factor has received a lot of attention
Which Journal?
*Education – stop doing those lectures*Research – stop doing surveys
WRITE THE MANUSCRIPT
Stop Doing the Easy Stuff:
A good paper starts with good research Learn the rules Follow the rules Its easier to cut than to add Don’t get bogged down by one thing Once you’ve written something, keep
submitting It’s not as hard as you may think…
Conclusions
top related