3. What was a journal?
Journal des sçavans & Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society both started in 1665
Late 1800’s see the emergence of ‘theory-
experiment-discussion’ structure of articles
1980’s see IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results
and Discussion) adopted widely as a reflection of
the process of scientific discovery
Print only, limited readership, limited number of
titles
Sunday, 9 June 13
4. What is a journal?
Electronic-only, or e-leading, peer-reviewed
selection of articles judged to be of a certain
quality within a certain, narrow, field.
Many papers publicly available via open access or
PubMed
>20,000 active journal titles
>5,500 papers per day published (2m/year)
How to stand out in this crowd?
Sunday, 9 June 13
5. Anatomy of a paper
Modern papers conform to the Uniform
Requirements for Manuscripts submitted to
Biomedical Journals
http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html
Read it.
Doesn’t cover all article types, or other integral
parts of a successful submission (cover letter,
abstract, figures, tables, acknowledgements) but
gives a good indication for main text
Sunday, 9 June 13
6. Trial reporting standards
Transparent reporting of medical trials is essential.
CONSORT (1996, 2001, 2007, 2010)
http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-
statement/
Publication of trials is dependent on their
registration before enrolling first participant
ANZCTR, clinicaltrials.gov, isrctn.org, trialregister.nl, EudraCT, WHO-
ICTRP. See ICMJE website for full details.
Sunday, 9 June 13
7. Strengthening
epidemiology studies
Observations, cohort studies, case-control, cross-
sectional studies.
Very valuable, but have a history of being weak or
poorly-described
Enter STROBE http://www.strobe-statement.org
For articles and conference proceedings
Sunday, 9 June 13
8. Review articles
Comprehensively cover a specific biomedical topic
and require the author to review all relevant
literature and come up with some general
statements and conclusions about the practical
implications for patient care.
Most often they are commissioned, but if you want
to write one, it is worth approaching an editor with
a proposal.
Highly accessed, highly cited.
Sunday, 9 June 13
10. Editorials
Written by Editor or invited guest
May be narrative reviews, but on a short, select
and narrowly focused review on a handful of
papers
May not be reviews at all
Sunday, 9 June 13
11. Commentaries
Commentaries may be narrative reviews, but
somewhat more opinionated.
Little research methodology, biased synthesis of a
collection of articles.
Usually there to provoke controversy or academic
debate.
Sunday, 9 June 13
12. Narrative reviews
Typically comprehensive narrative synthesis of
previously published information, often
summarising each key article.
Bibliographic research methodology frequently a
part of narrative reviews (although is not strictly
required). Reputable sources only.
Will provide in-depth snapshot of a field, convey a
clear message and draw conclusions supported
by data analysis.
Sunday, 9 June 13
14. Qualitative systematic
reviews
Detailed, rigorous, explicit methods. Bibliographic
research based on a specific topic or question.
More powerful evidence-based source than
narrative reviews, case studies, cohort studies...
Qualitative: individual studies are integrated and
critiqued for their systematic methods. However,
no statistical combination of studies.
Sunday, 9 June 13
15. Quantitative systematic
reviews or meta-analyses
Critically evaluates each paper in the review and
statistically combines the results of the studies.
Qualitative + gathers original patient data from
each study, pools it together and produces
statistics on the larger sample.
Highest level of evidence
Guidelines in PRISMA and Cochrane Collaboration
Sunday, 9 June 13
17. Background information
Bibliographic research to set research question in
context.
Make sure it is up-to-date (consider revising if first
draft is more than 3 months old) - reviewers get
very suspicious about missing citations.
Papers over 10 years old, use with caution.
Sunday, 9 June 13
18. Target journal
Think about this before you start to write.
Best journal for your article may not necessarily be
best in the field.
Has similar work been published in that journal?
Check the I4As
Tyranny of the Impact Factor.
Sunday, 9 June 13
21. Authorship
Sort this out before writing the manuscript*.
Consult with coauthors, gather their ORCIDs.
Otherwise, preferred name listing and affiliation.
ICMJE have guidelines on this.
Usually listed in decreasing order of their
contribution (although this can vary)
Determine who is the corresponding author
* READ THIS: Liz Wager’s excellent guide “Recognition, reward and repsonsibility: why the
authorship of scientific papers matters” Maturitas 2009; 62:109-12
Sunday, 9 June 13
22. Ethical issues
Fabrication of data
Duplicate publication
Plagiarism
Misuse of statistics
Manipulation of images
Inadequate or false citations
READ THIS: HTTP://PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG/ MAINLY FOR EDITORS AND
PUBLISHERS, BUT GIVES A GREAT INSIGHT INTO PROBLEMS SOME PAPERS FACE
Sunday, 9 June 13
24. Title
Title is THE most important part of the paper.
Decide on best title after writing the manuscript.
CONSORT, STROBE and others have clear
indications on what should be in the title.
Should be descriptive, not cute, and match the
abstract. Not too general, not too much jargon.
Sunday, 9 June 13
25. Examples
GOOD TITLE
A study of thrombocytopenia in hospitalized
vivax malaria patients
BAD TITLES
Physics of waves
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
Gravity
Read more about this at http://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/
Sunday, 9 June 13
27. Abstract
In Medline/PubMed/Scopus/Google Scholar.
Think of it as a ‘teaser’ or ‘trailer’ for your paper.
DON’T make it too long. Shorter is ALWAYS better
DON’T introduce and define lots of acronyms
DON’T include references to citations
DO pitch it to non-specialists in your broader field
DO write (or rewrite) it at THE END.
Sunday, 9 June 13
32. Passage from the Wikipedia article on "The English Language"
The following paragraph has a Gunning Fog Index of 24.4.
As a result of the military, economic, scientific, political, and cultural
influence of the United Kingdom from the 18th century, and of the United
States since the mid 20th century, it has become the lingua franca in many
parts of the world, and the most prominent language in international
business and science. It is used extensively as a second language and as
an official language in the European Union and many Commonwealth
countries, as well as many international organisations.
Analysis
■ There are 79 words in two sentences.
■ The 17 italic words are considered complex.
■ 0.4 ((79/2) + 100(17/79))
■ 0.4 x ( 39.5 + 12.79)
■ Fog index = 24.4
Sunday, 9 June 13
33. The same passage simplified
The following paragraph has a Gunning Fog Index of 7.07.
English has become the standard language around the world. This was
the result of many factors. In the 1700s, the British affected English
with the army, economy, science, politics and culture. In the mid-1900s,
the United States caused change. It is the most used language in world
business and science. It is a famous second language and an official
language in most of Europe and in Commonwealth countries. It is also
the case in groups around the world.
Analysis
■ There are 79 words in seven sentences.
■ The 5 italic words are considered complex.
■ 0.4 ((79/7) + 100(5/79))
■ 0.4 x ( 11.28 + 2.5)
■ Fog index = 7.07
Sunday, 9 June 13
35. Introduction
Introduce topic to readers in an accessible way
Should be short and focused
Aim for 3 paragraphs only.
PARA1: Question or issue, context, relevance [What is known]
PARA2: Importance of problem/unclear issues [What is unknown]
PARA3: Rationale, hypothesis, main objective [Why study was done]
Can be written at any point, but good to revisit at
the end.
Sunday, 9 June 13
36. Materials and methods
Details required to replicate the study
Very precise guidelines from CONSORT, STROBE
and PRISMA
Should include; study design, data collection
details, analysis principles and rationale.
Describe sample selection and exclusion criteria
Ethical considerations and a description of the
randomization or group assignment.
Sunday, 9 June 13
37. Results
Organised presentation of collected data.
Measurements described in M&M section should
be reported in Results in same order.
Should be a distant semantic description.
Include negative results and reasons for non-
collection of information on important non-
measured variables
OConnor, T. R., & Holmquist, G. P. (2009). Algorithm for writing a
scientific manuscript. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education,
37(6), 344-348. doi:10.1002/bmb.20329
Sunday, 9 June 13
38. Discussion
Explain the meaning of the results, structured as a
natural flow of ideas.
Key findings should be linked to study objectives,
along with an acknowledgement of the strengths
and weaknesses of the study
Describe logically, links between results and
mechanistic interpretations of cause and effect.
Are results consistent with other studies? If not,
why not?
Sunday, 9 June 13
39. Discussion
Don’t repeat yourself.
Don’t present results not mentioned in Results
Don’t overstate importance of results
Do feel free to criticise study limitations
Don’t repeat yourself.
Sunday, 9 June 13
40. Conclusion
It’s not another Abstract or Introduction.
Keep it short
‘Take home’ message
Do not write: ‘further study is needed’ or any
variation thereof.
Sunday, 9 June 13
41. Acknowledgements etc.
Contributors who do not qualify for author status
Conflicts of interest
Financial support for the research
Group name if appropriate
Author contributions
Sunday, 9 June 13
42. References
Keep a good reference library (Mendeley/Zotero)
Make sure references adhere to journal style
Avoid abstracts and ‘personal communications’
Exclude articles ‘in submission’
Authors responsibility to make sure they do not
refer to retracted articles.
Sunday, 9 June 13
44. Reviews & revisions
View peer reviewers as collaborators rather than
enemies
They often make constructive remarks which
should improve the quality of the paper
Good editors will shield you from performing more
experiments (unless it’s Nature or Science)
For each point the reviewer makes, provide a brief
note explaining how you have incorporated their
remark, or a rebuttal.
Sunday, 9 June 13
46. Promotion
You are the marketer of your own work (usually)
Link to your article from your facebook/twitter/
linkedin/orcid page
Departmental website, institution PR department?
Mendeley, scribd, list-servs, other discussion
boards and lists
Sunday, 9 June 13
