Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to How_to_get_published_what_journals_look_for.ppt
How_to_get_published_what_journals_look_for.ppt
- 1. How to getresearch published, and what journals look for Dr Trish Groves Deputy editor, BMJ
- 2. What I aimto cover Planning research The research question Why you need to publish What editors want How to write a paper Useful resources Publication ethics How to please editors and peer reviewers
- 3. Why conduct andpublish research? say something important share your work change practice promote thought or debate educate get into high impact journal advance your career Keep your job make money entertain/divert/amuse
- 4. Steps in startingresearch turn your ideas into a research question review the literature enlist coauthors, statistician, supervisor agree who’ll do what design the study and develop your methods think about the ethics of your study design write your research proposal apply for funding and ethics approval
- 5.
- 6. What is aresearch question? The researcher asks a very specific question and tests a specific hypothesis. Broad questions are usually broken into smaller, testable hypotheses or questions. Often called an objective or aim, though calling it a question tends to help with focusing the hypothesis and thinking about how to find an answer
- 7. What makes apoor research question? a question that matters to nobody, even you hoping one emerges from routine clinical data/records – the records will be biased and confounded – they’ll lack information you need to answer your question reliably, because they were collected for another reason fishing expedition/data dredging – gathering new data and hoping a question will emerge
- 8. How to focusyour question brief literature search for previous evidence discuss with colleagues narrow down the question – time, place, group what answer do you expect to find?
- 9. Turning a researchquestion into a proposal who am I collecting information from? what kinds of information do I need? how much information will I need? * how will I use the information? how will I minimise chance/bias/confounding? how will I collect the information ethically? * sample size – ask a statistician for help http://www.bmj.com/collections/statsbk/13.dtl
- 10. Minimising bias andconfounding Chance - measurements are nearly always subject to random variation. Minimise error by ensuring adequate sample size and using statistical analysis of the play of chance Bias - caused by systematic variation/error in selecting patients, measuring outcomes, analysing data – take extra care Confounding - factors that affect the interpretation of outcomes eg people who carry matches are more likely to develop lung cancer, but smoking is the confounding factor – so measure likely confounders too
- 11. Ethical issues –the wider aspects • what information will you give participants before seeking their consent? • how much will the study deviate from current normal (accepted, local) clinical practice? • what full burden will be imposed on participants? • what risks will participants/others be exposed to? • what benefit might participants or others receive? • how might society/future patients benefit in time? • might publication reveal patients’ identities?
- 12. Exactly what areyou planning to do? PICO/PECO P - who are the Patients or what’s the Problem? I or E - what is the Intervention or Exposure? C – what is the Comparison group? O - what is the Outcome or endpoint?
- 13. Study designs Descriptive studiesanswer “what’s happening?” research questions Analytic observational studies answer “why or how is it happening?” Analytic experimental studies answer “can it work?” Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, UK www.cebm.net
- 14. Who will dowhat?
- 15. agree authorship before startingthe study!
- 16. Authorship and contributorship thesedenote credit and accountability but many authors on papers have done little people’s names are left off papers authors do not know the authorship criteria contributorship statement more inclusive
- 17. Authorship Authorship credit shouldbe based only on substantial contribution to: • conception and design, or data analysis and interpretation • drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content • and final approval of the version to be published All these conditions must be met. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship. All authors included on a paper must fulfil the criteria No one who fulfils the criteria should be excluded
- 18. Contributorship contributors (not allnecessarily authors) who took part in planning, conducting, and reporting the work guarantors (one or more) who accept full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish researchers must decide among themselves the precise nature of each contribution
- 19. Who did what? HelenC Eborall, post-doctoral research fellow1, Simon J Griffin, programme leader2, A Toby Prevost, medical statistician1, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, professor of general practice1, David P French, reader in health behaviour interventions3, Stephen Sutton, professor of behavioural science1 Contributors: SS, DPF, ATP, A-LK, and SJG conceived and designed the original protocol. All authors were involved in amending the protocol. HCE coordinated the study throughout. Data entry was carried out by Wyman Dillon Ltd, Lewis Moore, and HCE. HCE cleaned the data and ran preliminary analysis with input from Tom Fanshawe. ATP analysed the data. ADDITION trial data were supplied by Lincoln Sargeant and Kate Williams. HCE wrote the first draft of the manuscript with ATP and SS. All authors contributed to subsequent and final drafts. HCE is guarantor of the paper.
- 20. Writing a researchpaper
- 21. General guidance onwriting papers International Committee of Medical Journal Editors uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals http://www.icmje.org/ reporting guidelines for research, at the EQUATOR network resource centre http://www.equator-network.org/
- 22. More on studymethods and reporting Centre for Evidence Based Medicine http://www.cebm.net/ Statistics at Square One http://www.bmj.com/collections/statsbk/index.dtl BMJ advice to authors http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors
- 24. Writing a paper 1.The message What …is the research question? …is the right article format for your study? …does the audience need to know?
- 25. Writing a paper 2.IMRaD Introduction: why ask this research question? Methods: what did I do? Results: what did I find? Discussion: what might it mean?
- 26. Writing a paper 3.The introduction brief background for this audience 3-4 paragraphs only what’s known, and what’s not, about your research question don’t bore readers, editors, reviewers don’t boast about how much you have read the research question state it clearly in the last paragraph of the introduction say why it matters
- 27. Writing a paper 4.Methods like a recipe most important section for informed readers describe: inclusion and exclusion criteria outcome measures intervention or exposure give references for standard methods follow reporting guidelines as explained at (http://www.equator-network.org/ explain ethics issues
- 28. Writing a paper 5.Results include basic descriptive data text for story, tables for evidence, figures for highlights confidence intervals essential summary statistics leave out non-essential tables and figures don’t start discussion here
- 29. Writing a paper 6.Structured discussion don’t simply repeat the introduction include – statement of principal findings – strengths and weaknesses of the study – strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies (especially systematic reviews), and key differences – meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and implications for clinicians or policymakers – unanswered questions and future research go easy on the last two
- 30. Abstract: general rules important allauthors must approve it editors may screen by abstract for BMJ: usually 300-400 words use active voice p values need data too %s need denominators no references trial registration details
- 31. Structured abstract objectives -research question design –prospective, randomised, placebo controlled, case control, etc setting – primary or secondary care? number of centres, country participants – entry and exclusion criteria, numbers entering and completing the study, sex, ethnic group as appropriate interventions - what, how, when and for how long main outcome measures - those planned, those finally measured results - main results, 95% confidence intervals, statistical significance, number need to treat/harm conclusions – primary conclusions, implications; don’t go beyond data trial registration - registry and number (only for clinical trials)
- 32. How to pleaseeditors and reviewers
- 33. How to pleaseeditors and peer reviewers make sure the message is clear in the paper and abstract, not just in the cover letter include extras eg STROBE checklist cite (and send) any closely related papers send previous peer review reports communicate clearly and promptly
Editor's Notes
- #7 The two main problems introduced by multiple analyses are, firstly, the increased probability of detecting intervention effects where none exist (“false positives” owing to multiple comparisons — type I errors), and secondly, the limited capability (“power”) of trials to detect a true treatment effect in secondary outcomes if not enough participants are enrolled to show a statistically significant difference in these outcomes (“false negatives” — type II errors).
- #9 Credit: Developing a research project. Part 1. Developing a research question. Dr Sarah Larkins PHCRED Program http://www.jcu.edu.au/medicine/idc/groups/public/documents/form_download/jcudev_016738.pdf
- #10 Types of bias: selection bias non-response bias observation bias records show or participants recall information inaccurately different interviewers may elicit different responses misclassification loss to follow up
- #12 Richardson et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club 1995;A-12 Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:380-7 What’s your question about? cause/aetiology [cohort, case-control] impact of an intervention eg treatment or health service [RCT] prognosis [cohort] harm [cohort, case-control] diagnosis [cross-sectional, case-control] economics [cost-effectiveness analysis, etc]
- #13 From http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1039 Doesn’t include before and after studies descriptive studies case report, case series, qualitative study, cross sectional survey show what’s happening in a population and in subgroups analytic studies examine effect of intervention (I)/exposure (E) on outcome (O) compare frequency of outcomes in a comparison (C) group with frequency in intervention or exposed group to quantify effect may be experimental or observational Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, UK cebm.net Prospective A prospective study watches for outcomes, such as the development of a disease, during the study period and relates this to other factors such as suspected risk or protection factor(s). The study usually involves taking a cohort of subjects and watching them over a long period. The outcome of interest should be common; otherwise, the number of outcomes observed will be too small to be statistically meaningful (indistinguishable from those that may have arisen by chance). All efforts should be made to avoid sources of bias such as the loss of individuals to follow up during the study. Prospective studies usually have fewer potential sources of bias and confounding than retrospective studies. Retrospective A retrospective study looks backwards and examines exposures to suspected risk or protection factors in relation to an outcome that is established at the start of the study. Many valuable case-control studies, such as Lane and Claypon's 1926 investigation of risk factors for breast cancer, were retrospective investigations. Most sources of error due to confounding and bias are more common in retrospective studies than in prospective studies. For this reason, retrospective investigations are often criticised. If the outcome of interest is uncommon, however, the size of prospective investigation required to estimate relative risk is often too large to be feasible. In retrospective studies the odds ratio provides an estimate of relative risk. You should take special care to avoid sources of bias and confounding in retrospective studies. http://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm
- #16 Authorship The uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to medical journals state that authorship credit should be based only on substantial contribution to: conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published. All these conditions must all be met. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship. We want authors to assure us that all authors included on a paper fulfil the criteria of authorship. In addition we want assurance that there is no one else who fulfils the criteria but has not been included as an author. We believe that the definition of authorship, produced by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (or Vancouver Group, see www.icmje.org), has some serious flaws. The current definition of authorship does not make clear who has contributed what to the published study, nor does it clarify who is responsible for the overall content. It also excludes those whose sole but often large contribution has been to collect data. We now list contributors in two ways. Firstly, we publish a list of authors' names at the beginning of the paper and, secondly, we list contributors (some of whom may not be included as authors) at the end of the paper, giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work. One or more of these contributors are listed as guarantors of the paper. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. See bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7313/588 Contributorship and guarantorship are concepts that were applied first to original research papers, and are sometimes hard to define for other articles. Each contributorship statement should make clear who has contributed what to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article, and should identify one, or occasionally more, contributor(s) as being responsible for the overall content as guarantor(s). For BMJ articles that do not report original research such as editorials, clinical reviews, and education and debate please state who had the idea for the article, who performed the literature search, who wrote the article, and who is the guarantor (the contributor who accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to any data, and controlled the decision to publish). For non-research articles that include case reports such as lessons of the week, drug points, and interactive case reports, please also state who identified and/or managed the case(s). Researchers must determine among themselves the precise nature of each person's contribution, and we encourage open discussion among all participants. Authorship Posted January 10, 2007 Authorship is a way of making explicit both credit and responsibility for the contents of published articles. Credit and responsibility are inseparable. The guiding principle for authorship decisions is to present an honest account of what took place. Criteria for authorship apply to all intellectual products, including print and electronic publications of words, data, and images. Journals should make their own policies on authorship transparent and accessible. Criteria for Authorship. Everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the study on which the article is based (for example, to the research question, design, analysis, interpretation, and written description) should be an author. It is dishonest to omit mention of someone who has participated in writing the manuscript (“ghost authorship”) and unfair to omit investigator who have had important engagement with other aspects of the work. (See the WAME policy statement, “Ghost Writing Initiated by Commercial Companies”) Only an individual who has made substantial intellectual contributions should be an author. Performing technical services, translating text, identifying patients for study, supplying materials, and providing funding or administrative oversight over facilities where the work was done are not, in themselves, sufficient for authorship, although these contributions may be acknowledged in the manuscript, as described below. It is dishonest to include authors only because of their reputation, position of authority, or friendship (“guest authorship”). Many journals publish the names and contributions of everyone who has participated in the work (“contributors”). Not all contributors necessarily qualify for authorship. The nature of each contributors’ participation can be made transparent by a statement, published with the article, of their names and contributions and WAME encourages this practice. One author (a “guarantor”) should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole. Often this is the corresponding author, the one who sends in the manuscript and receives reviews, but other authors can have this role. All authors should approve the final version of the manuscript. It is preferable that all authors be familiar with all aspects of the work. However, modern research is often done in teams with complementary expertise so that every author may not be equally familiar with all aspects of the work. For example, a biostatistician may have greater mastery of statistical aspects of the manuscript than other authors, but have somewhat less understanding of clinical variables or laboratory measurements. Therefore, some authors’ contributions may be limited to specific aspects of the work as a whole. All authors should comply with the journals’ policies on conflict of interest. Number of Authors. Editors should not arbitrarily limit the number of authors. There are legitimate reasons for multiple authors in some kinds of research, such as multi-center, randomized controlled trials. In these situations, a subset of authors may be listed with the title, with the notation that they have prepared the manuscript on behalf of all contributors, who are then listed in an appendix to the published article. Alternatively, a “corporate” author (e.g., a “Group” name) representing all authors in a named study may be listed, as long as one investigator takes responsibility for the work as a whole. In either case, all individuals listed as authors should meet criteria for authorship whether or not they are listed explicitly on the byline. If editors believe the number of authors is unusually large, relative to the scope and complexity of the work, they can ask for a detailed description of each author’s contributions to the work. If some do not meet criteria for authorship, editors can require that their names be removed as a condition of publication. Order of Authorship. The authors themselves should decide the order in which authors are listed in an article. No one else knows as well as they do their respective contributions and the agreements they have made among themselves. Many different criteria are used to decide order of authorship. Among these are relative contributions to the work and, in situations where all authors have contributed equally, alphabetical or random order. Readers cannot know, and should not assume, the meaning of order of authorship unless the approach to assigning order has been described by the authors. Authors may want to include with their manuscript a description of how order was decided. If so, editors should welcome this information and publish it with the manuscript. Authorship Disputes. Disputes about authorship are best settled at the local level, before journals review the manuscript. However, at their discretion editors may become involved in resolving authorship disputes. Changes in authorship at any stage of manuscript review, revision, or acceptance should be accompanied by a written request and explanation from all of the original authors. http://www.wame.org/resources/policies#authorship
- #19 Example from a real BMJ paper
- #30 Please ensure that the structured abstract is as complete, accurate, and clear as possible—but not unnecessarily long—and has been approved by all authors. We may screen original research articles by reading only the abstract. For randomised controlled trials please provide all the information required for a CONSORT style abstract.