Writing & Publishing Your Research

“Publish or Perish”

Marc Swiontkowski, MDProfessor

Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Minnesota

PDA Writing Club December 16, 2014

www.pda.umn.edu

Slides courtesy of Michael J Franklin, M.Sc.frank061@umn.edu.

Robert Boyle’s descriptions of his experiments are important as some of the first explicitly intended to enable his peers to reproduce his experimental work.

“I thought it necessary to deliver things [in detail], that the person I addressed them to might, without mistake, and with as little trouble as is possible, be able to repeat such unusual experiments…”

--Robert Boyle, 1660

Why Write?Advance professionallyQualify for grantsContribute to your institution (eg,

program accreditation)Contribute to your fieldImprove practice (eg, primary care’s role

in translating basic science to clinical)Personal satisfaction & development –

you can learn

Learning objectives

• To understand the purpose and structure ofthe main sections of a research manuscript

• To recognize and address common challenges in organizing and writing a manuscript

• To appreciate some ethical issues in scientific publication

Selecting a Journal

Major considerations in selecting a journal

• Impact Factor (Journal Citation Reports)• Audience – is journal in your field?• Indexed by major search engines /

subscription• Society journal – usually has higher circulation

due to society member subscriptions• Open access (no subscription but author fee)• Publication lag time (quarterly vs. monthly)• Review lag time

Journal guidelines:• Before you start writing:

– Manuscript and abstract length (word count)– Number of figures and tables (resolution

minimums)– Number of references (formatting and order

of references)– Format: IMRaD, Science/Nature, etc.

The IMRaD articleI – IntroductionM – MethodsR – Resultsa – andD – Discussion

The “IMRAD” structure is not an arbitrarypublication format but rather a direct reflection of the process of scientific discovery.

Basic sections of an IMRaD article

1. Title page2. Abstract3. Main Text

– Introduction—Why did you do it?– Methods—How did you do it?– Results—What did you find?– Discussion—What might it mean? Why is it

important?

4. Acknowledgements5. References facilitates modular

reading

Structure of IMRaD article

Start broad and narrow inon specific study question.

Describe experiments doneto answer the question.

Start with study answer and endaddressing broader implications.

Describe results found that answer the question.

Study answer

Study question

Why did you study this problem?

What might it mean?

What did you find?

How did you do it?

Formulate a clear study question/purpose

Single study question

Multiple study questions– First study logically leads to next study (and so on)– Studies are only topically related

• Manageable when there are 2 study questions• A paper’s focus suffers when there are >2

topically related study questions

IMRaD: IntroductionPurpose

– To interest your audience– To describe why the study was performed

Content overview– Provide sufficient baseline knowledge for readers

to understand your study (but don’t overdo it).– Explain how your study differs from

previous publications.– State the study question.

Introduction: content overview

Start with general background information.

Move to specific details about what is known and unknown.

State the study question and describe the experimental approach.

KEEP IT SHORT(500 words)

General knowns/problems

Specific knowns

Gaps in research

Question and approach

Multiple iterations possible

How to end the Introduction?

Link the unknown to the study purpose:– Unknowns or what is

inadequate about previous research– Study question/purpose

Signal the study question to the reader:– “The purpose of this study was to…”– “To determine whether…”– “In this study, we examined whether...”

Describe how your study is different from previous studies.

How to end the Introduction…when there aremultiple, logically related study questions?

Problem: The rationale for original study question is detailed in the Introduction, but the rationale for the next study question is based on the answer to the original question.

Solution: Summarize the series of study questions/answers at the end of the Introduction.

How to end the Introduction…when there aremultiple, topically related study questions?

Problem #2: The rationales for the study questions are independent of one another.

Solution #2: There is no elegant solution.Short of writing up separate papers, you can write “mini-introductions” for each study question.

Introduction: Editing checklist

Is the gap in knowledge explicitly stated? Is the purpose and approach of the study

explicitly stated? Can the first paragraph be deleted

or shortened? Are distinct topics linked with

transitions?

IMRaD: Methods

Purpose– To allow readers to interpret your results and

evaluate your conclusions– To enable readers to replicate your findings

Content overview– Include materials and methods, but not results.– Provide enough experimental details and references

to enable a trained scientist to evaluate or repeat your work.

– Identify where you obtained reagents andequipment (manufacturer, city, state).

Methods: Overall structure

Arrange experimental details as protocolsdescribed in separate subsections.

– Technical step-by-step procedure– Explain the purpose of the protocol

Use a chronological order– Begin with the study design and end with any

statistical analyses.

Common problems in the Methods

No explanation of the purpose of a method

– A purpose statement allows readers to jump back and forth between results and their corresponding methods.

– “To detect serum levels of protein X, we…”No explanation of the purpose of a technique

– “We excluded patients who were febrile because [the test] is known to give false positives in the presence of an active infection.”

IMRaD: Results Purpose

– To report the results of your experiments and answer the research question posed in the Introduction

– To point the reader to the data shown in the figuresand tables

Content overview

– Report the results of the experiments described inthe Methods section.

– Report what happened during the study.

Results: Overall structure

Most to least important– Give the main or most important findings first.– Best for studies with a single main experiment or

focused study design

Chronological sometimes necessary– Report results in the order in which the

experiments were done.– Best for studies in which critical preliminary work is

performed prior to the main experiment or when the results of one experiment determine the next

Results: Structure within subsections

(for single study question)• Purpose or question (if needed)• Experimental approach (briefly)• Results• Immediate conclusion (often necessary)

Results: Structure within subsections

(for single study question)

Results: Structure within subsections

(for multiple study questions)

For a series of logically related studies, the rationales for the study questions are located in two places.

– Introduction: rationale for original study question– Subsections of the Results: rationale for additional

study questions

Results: Structure within subsections

(for multiple study questions)

• Rationale for experiments– Provide supporting citations if needed.

• Purpose (if needed)• Experimental approach• Results• Immediate conclusion (critical)

– Provides rationale for the next experiment

Common problem in the Results

Mean tumor size was 2 cm in mice treatedwith X and 4.2 cm in untreated mice.

Mean tumor size in mice decreased from4.2 to 2 cm after treatment with X.

Mean tumor size in mice decreased by half after treatment with X (Figure 1).

Just data

Direction of change

Direction and proportion of change

Lack of meaningful descriptions of data– Report “raw” data in tables and figures (when

possible).– Summarize and interpret the data that is

presented in the tables and figures.

Results: Editing checklist

Are any of the 4 main components of aResults subsection missing?

Is the meaning or implication of the results clear?

Are meaningful descriptions of the datapresented in the text?

IMRaD: Discussion Purpose

– To provide an answer to your study question– To show how your study advances knowledge– To highlight the implications of your findings

Content overview– Provide an answer to the study question.– Compare and contrast your findings with existing

knowledge.– Discuss the limitations of your study.– Draw conclusions that follow from your findings.

Structure of the Discussion

Answer the study question (cite your key findings and other supporting results as needed)

Interpret your findings in the context of existing knowledge and limitations of your study.

End with general conclusionsand implications.

Answer

Conclusions and implications

Literature review

Limitations

Discussion: First paragraph

Provide answer to the question posed in theIntroduction.

Support your answer with your results and data.

Support your answer with other’s results.– Cite appropriate references.

Discussion: First paragraph

Do not begin the Discussion with a secondIntroduction or detailed repetition of results.

Start with the study answer.

You can briefly restate the study question or context.

“The question addressed by the present study was whether Xis a cause of Y. The main finding of this study is that…”

“Previous studies suggest that X is a common symptom of Y disease. Our results show that X is only common in a subset of…”

Discussion: Middle paragraphs

Difficult section to write– Outline main points to improve flow

Organize from most to least important or according to the science.

– Discuss possible explanations of your findings.

– Discuss your findings in the context of existingknowledge.

– Discuss limitations and assumptions of the study.

Discussion: Last paragraph

Provide a one-paragraph concluding summary.

– Restate the answer to your study question.– Discuss important implications of your study.

• Applications• Recommendations• Theoretical implications• Speculations• Future directions

– Provide a clear payoff to the reader.

Discussion: Editing Checklist

Is the answer to the study question in the firstparagraph?

Is the discussion of the literature focused and well-integrated with the interpretation of your findings?

Is the importance of your study clearly stated in the final paragraph?

Title, abstract, and figure legends

TitlesProvide a precise description of the paper’scontents. Avoid general terms!

– Study design (e.g., randomized control trial)– Variables studied (e.g., dependent, independent)– Material used (e.g., animal model, study

population)

This information will improve electronic retrieval.

Writing a good abstract

Purpose– To provide a succinct and accurate summary of

the content and conclusions of the article

Types of content– Informative abstract – a concise summary of

thelonger work it abstracts

– Indicative abstract – an overview of the types of information contained in a longer work

The abstract is possiblythe only part of an article that is read.

Abstracts were defined as deficient if:

(1) data given differently in abstract and body or

(2) data given in abstract but not in thebody

Journals: Annals, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM, CMAJ

44% of abstracts with discrepancies

Pitkin, R. M. et al. JAMA 1999;281:1110-1111

Abstract: Basic structure

• Background (1-2 sentences)• General problem being addressed by the

study (1 sentence)• Experimental approach (1 sentence)• Results (2-4 sentences)• Conclusion putting results into a more

general context (1-2 sentences).

Figure legends: Overall structure

Title (okay to state conclusion)

Experimental approach– Don’t report results in legends– A figure should show the data message

Definitions of anything that is not defined onthe face of the figure

Statistical information

Figure legends: TitlesFor representational images, identify the type ofimage shown and its content.

– Figure 1. Laser scanning confocal microscopy of X upregulation in Y

For relational graphics, define the independent variable, dependent variable, and subject studied.– Figure 1: X inhibits Y in Z

Ethics in Scientific Publication

PlagiarismPlagiarism is stealing the words or ideas of

another.

Plagiarism covers a broad spectrum.– word-for-word copying of another’s

writing– paraphrasing another’s writing– using another’s ideasCopying text is not plagiarism if you…• Use of quotation marks for text reproduced

verbatim• Cite the original source

without attribution

Text recyclingText recycling or self-plagiarism occurs when an author reuses portions of text that have appeared previously in other works written by the author.

– Acceptable to recycle text from internal documents (e.g., grant proposal) or conference papers

– Questionable to recycle text from previously published studies (e.g., methods, literature reviews)

Authorship Good authorship standards give credit only to those who earn

it. ‘‘Gift authorship’’ abuses this principle. When a senior investigator allows his or her name to be added to a paper out of ‘‘respect,’’ or because he or she has provided mentorship, material support, or patients for a clinical series, that mentor diminishes the efforts—and harms the career advancement—of the protege´ whose career he or she seeks to support.

Good authorship standards protect authors. Clear authorship standards protect authors from being held

responsible for important errors in data collection or acts of scientific misconduct they did not commit.

Good authorship standards recognize that science is a team sport. The advancement of clinically relevant basic science and the well-being of our patients depend on answering those big questions. To get the answers, we will need to collaborate across departments and institutions.

Authorship An ‘‘author’’ is generally considered to be someone who

has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study…An author must take responsibility for at least one component of the work, should be able to identify who is responsible for each other component, and should ideally be confident in their co-authors’ ability and integrity….

As well as:◦ Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general

supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.

◦ All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.

◦ Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

And most importantly:◦ (1) substantial contributions to conception and

design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

◦ (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and

◦ (3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3 (emphasis

added).

Authorship

QUESTIONS

Postdoctoral associationwww.pda.umn.edu

Join us on LinkedIn and facebook