Writing peer-Writing peer-reviewed reviewed

publicationspublications

Professor Robin RoomProfessor Robin Room

1. Have an idea1. Have an idea• A conceptual piece? A commentary?

Only some journals are interested Probably easier for senior scholars to get published May not count as peer reviewed

• A review of the literature? increased demands that it be systematic Journals like systematic reviews – they get cited a lot

• A meta-analysis? Are there enough more-or-less comparable studies?

• A qualitative study: what’s the question? a conceptual orientation needed – not just a slice of life need to specify methods, etc.

• A quantitative analysis: what’s the question? appropriate analytical methods “bite-size” – how much can fit in one paper?

1a. From report for a government department 1a. From report for a government department to peer-reviewed publication to peer-reviewed publication

• The report as framed for a government department, for instance, is unlikely to make a good journal article

• Switch your thinking from “what’s happening in this population/place?” to “what is of general interest to the field?”

− Whether: methods, patterns, relationships, testing hypotheses

• Situate your thinking/writing in the literature• Pick a journal you are aiming the publication at, and

read its instructions to authors

2. Introduction / background2. Introduction / background

• Give an early indication of your topic and orientation

• Discuss the relevant literature Many of us get hung up on the literature review – don’t obsess You are checking what has been done relative to your idea In the paper, you need to summarise previous findings enough

to situate your paper− Don’t put endless references without any indication of why− Indicate gaps in the literature as well as what is known− Ideally, the literature review should point to the need for

your analysis to “fill a gap”

• Clearly state what the paper is going to do

3. (for an empirical paper:)3. (for an empirical paper:) Material and methods Material and methods

• Describe the material of the study Compress, but be very concrete

− Sample frame and design, size, completion rate− If the frame is a clinical or other social-handling selection

process, something on how people get there − Figure out ways of giving the actual wording of questions

or categories (e.g. in tables)− Refer to technical report etc. (if available), or previous

papers on the same data, for further details

• Statistical methods If you are doing something pretty standard, this can be

very brief

4. Findings4. Findings

A. Quantitative:• You have done a lot of runs, now the problem is how

to compress as much data as possible into four tables or so

One table to set the stage: sample composition, etc. – but try to have it more than just this

Sometimes, the stage-setting is better done in the text

• With logistic regressions, etc., show multiple models• Once you have the tables, writing up what is in them

is a snap But make sure there is text about all the analyses implied by the

tables

The point of multiple modelsThe point of multiple models

• Allows you to sort predictors by conceptual (potential causal) status (different disciplines have different terms for this) Prior to everything/“explanatory” (but are demographics always

prior?) Intermediating/interpreting Specifying

• Comparing results with and without a tranche of predictors e.g., attitudes problems, vs.

attitudes consumption problemsAn example: predicting entry to alcohol treatment in Stockholm ...

Be inventive about summarisingBe inventive about summarising

No. significant/no. of comparisons 15/55 40/82

Beer > wine SE, DK, CA CR, BL, PE, SE, DK, CZ, IM, CA, AU, NZ

Wine > beer NC, KA  

Beer > spirits UG, BR CZ, CA

Spirits > beer CZ, CA BL, IN, KA

Wine > spirits NC, KA  

Spirits > wine SE, DK, CZ, CA CR, BL, KA, DK, CA, AU, NZ

AR (Argentina), AU (Australia), BL (Belize), BR (Brazil), CA (Canada), CR (Costa Rica), CZ (Czech Republic), DK (Denmark), IM (Isle of Man), IN (India),

KA (Kazakhstan), NC (Nicaragua), NG (Nigeria), NZ (New Zealand), PE (Peru), SE (Sweden), SR (Sri Lanka), UG (Uganda), UR (Uruguay)

Beer or spirits inherently more harmful? -- It depends

Significant differences in consequences of drinking, comparing beverages in surveys in 19 countries. > means ”more consequences than”

per 1000 grams of alcohol. for those whose drinking is >2/3 of the type.

4. Findings (continued)4. Findings (continued)

B. Qualitative:• Sort the material into themes, which should add

together into a story• Enough quotes to give verismo• Keep quotes relatively short• Don’t treat qualitative data on a convenience

sample as if it were quantitative OK to say “most”, “a few”, “about half”, but don’t give %

• It’s more convincing if you acknowledge not everything fits together

give an example or two of counter-instances

5. Discussion and conclusion 5. Discussion and conclusion

• One section or two? usually two, but then give them different functions

• Make sense of the findings but not by parading your prejudices

• Fit them into the previous findings in the literature Refer back to the material in the Introduction.

• Mention limitations of the study• What are the next steps?• Summarise towards the end

6. Around the edges6. Around the edges

• Orient your style to the journal you are aiming for! Length of piece, number and format of tables Reference style Abstract style

• Authorship If to be multiply authored, have some agreement

beforehand Keep within guidelines for qualifying for authorship Mostly, junior researchers have more to gain than senior

ones from first authorship

Around the edges (continued)Around the edges (continued)

• Reviewing a topic Good publication material from an editor’s

perspective – high citation rate Suit the approach/method to the topic and its

literature− Conceptual/analytic? Systematic? Meta-analysis?

• Commentaries, Editorials, Book reviews Often commissioned – who does the editor know?

− Make yourself and your interests known− Propose before writing?

Around the edges (cont’d)Around the edges (cont’d)• Choosing a journal

Impact factors and their discontents− In principle, the average number of citations per article in a two-

year period after publication− Jostling for position – how to improve the factor

Alcohol/drug/gambling journals have relatively low rankings− But don’t drive yourself crazy, don’t overreach− What audience would you like to reach? Still a relevant question

Whether in PubMed, ISI, etc. indexes− But less important now because of Scholar.google

Problems for qualitative, historical, policy analyses Online open-access journals -- the wave of the future?

Source: Babor, Stenius & Savva, Publishing Addiction Science, 2004.

The pecking order in 2007 (not a great deal of change since)

Some currentimpact factors:Lancet 38.28JAMA 23.20AmJPubH 3.93MJAust 2.89ANZJPH 1.20

The tyranny of the two-year windowThe tyranny of the two-year windowRank Impact Factor 2009 Impact 2005-09 Impact 1981-2009

1 Addiction(3.84)

Addiction(8.03)

British Journal of Addiction(25.56)

2 Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment(2.90)

Journal of Studies on Alcohol(7.01)

Journal of Studies on Alcohol(24.70)

3 Psychology of Addictive Behaviors(2.68)

Alcoholism – Clinical and Experimental Research(6.69)

Journal of Substance Abuse(21.21)

4 International Journal of Drug Policy(2.54)

Drug and Alcohol Dependence(6.67)

Addiction(21.15)

5 Addictive Behaviors(2.25)

Addiction Biology(6.31)

Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems(20.90)

6 Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs(2.07)

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors(5.38)

Alcoholism – Clinical and Experimental Research(20.57)

7 Drug and Alcohol Review(1.65)

Alcohol(5.35)

Drug and Alcohol Dependence(17.21)

8 American Journal on Addictions(1.53)

Journal of Substance Abuse and Treatment(5.10)

Addictive Behaviors(15.44)

9 American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse(1.34)

Alcohol and Alcoholism(4.54)

Alcohol(15.21)

10 Journal of Gambling Studies(1.28)

Addictive Behaviors(4.22)

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors(15.10)

The table compares the citation impact of journals in substance abuse as measured over three different time spans. The left-hand column ranks journals based on their 2009 "impact factor," as enumerated in the current edition ofJournal Citation Reports®. This is calculated by taking the number of all current citations to source items published in a journal over the previous two years and dividing by the number of articles published in the journal during the same period--in other words, a ratio between citations and recent citable items published. The rankings in the next two columns show impact over longer time spans, based on figures from Journal Performance Indicators.Here, total citations to a journal's published papers are divided by the total number of papers that the journal published, producing a citations-per-paper impact score over a five-year period (middle column) and a 29-year period (right-hand column). SOURCE: Journal Citation Reports and Journal Performance Indicators. http://www.sciencewatch.com/dr/sci/11/apr10-11_2/

Addiction journal or disciplinary journal?Addiction journal or disciplinary journal?

Source: Babor, Stenius & Savva, Publishing Addiction Science, 2004.

Reference sources for our fieldReference sources for our field

• Available on the web: Babor, Stenius & Savva, Publishing

Addiction Science, 2004 http://www.parint.org/isajewebsite/isajebook/isajewebbook.htm

Miller, Strang & Miller, Addiction Research Methods, 2010

http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405176636.html