How to write a paper

How to Write a Paper www.ATIBOOK.ir How to Write a Paper FIFTH EDITION Edited by George M Hall Professor of Anaesthesia Department of Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine St George’s University of London London, UK A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication www.ATIBOOK.ir This edition first published 2013, © 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd First published 1994 by BMJ Second edition 1998 Third edition 2003 Fourth edition 2008 BMJ Books is an imprint of BMJ Publishing Group Limited, used under licence by Blackwell Publishing which was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007 Blackwell’s publishing programme has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley com/wiley-blackwell The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought The contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting a specific method, diagnosis, or treatment by physicians for any particular patient The publisher and the author make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions Readers should consult with a specialist where appropriate The fact that an organization or Website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or a potential source of further information does not mean that the author or the publisher endorses the information the organization or Website may provide or recommendations it may make Further, readers should be aware that Internet Websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read No warranty may be created or extended by any promotional statements for this work Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any damages arising herefrom Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data How to write a paper / edited by George M Hall – 5th ed p ; cm Includes bibliographical references and index Summary: “This concise paperback is about writing a paper for publication in biomedical journals Its straightforward format – a chapter covering each of part of the structured abstract – makes it relevant and easy to use for any novice paper writer How to Write a Paper addresses the mechanics of submission, including electronic submission, and how publishers handle papers, writing letters to journals abstracts for scientific meetings, and assessing papers This new edition also covers how to write a book review and updated chapters on ethics, electronic publication and submission, and the movement for open access” – Provided by publisher ISBN 978-0-470-67220-4 (pbk.) I Hall, George M (George Martin) [DNLM: Writing Publishing WZ 345] 808.06'661–dc23 2012030230 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books Set in 9.5/12 pt Minion Regular by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited 2013 www.ATIBOOK.ir Contents List of Contributors, vii Preface to the Fifth Edition, x Preface to the Fourth Edition, xi Chapter Structure of a scientific paper, George M Hall Chapter Introduction, Richard Smith Chapter Methods, 16 Gordon B Drummond Chapter Results, 22 Charles W Hogue Chapter Discussion, 29 George M Hall Chapter Titles, abstracts and authors, 33 Kevin W Eva Chapter Who should be an author?, 42 Richard Horton Chapter References, 47 Simon Howell and Liz Neilly v www.ATIBOOK.ir vi Contents Chapter Electronic submissions, 57 Michael Willis Chapter 10 Open access, 64 Mark Ware Chapter 11 How to write a letter, 71 Michael Doherty Chapter 12 How to prepare an abstract for a scientific meeting, 78 Robert N Allan Chapter 13 How to write a case report, 83 Martin Neil Rossor Chapter 14 How to write a review, 89 Paul Glasziou Chapter 15 How to write a book review, 98 Mark W Davies and Luke A Jardine Chapter 16 The role of the manuscript assessor, 102 Domhnall MacAuley Chapter 17 The role of the editor, 115 Jennifer M Hunter Chapter 18 What a publisher does, 124 Gavin Sharrock and Elizabeth Whelan Chapter 19 Style: what it is and why it matters, 133 Sharon Leng Chapter 20 Ethics of publication, 141 Chris Graf and Elissa Wilson Index, 151 www.ATIBOOK.ir List of Contributors Robert N Allan Editor, Clinical Medicine Royal College of Physicians London, UK Formerly: Consultant Physician and Gastroenterologist University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham, UK Mark W Davies Senior Staff Specialist in Neonatalogy Associate Professor of Neonatalogy Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital Queensland, Australia Michael Doherty Professor of Rheumatology University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK Formerly: Editor, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Gordon B Drummond Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer University Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, UK Formerly: Editor, British Journal of Anaesthesia Kevin W Eva Senior Scientist, Centre for Health Education Scholarship Associate Professor, Director of Education Research & Scholarship Department of Medicine University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Editor-in-Chief, Medical Education Paul Glasziou Director Centre for Research in EvidenceBased Practice (CREBP) Bond University Queensland, Australia Formerly: Editor, Evidence-Based Medicine vii www.ATIBOOK.ir viii List of contributors Chris Graf Editorial Director Health Sciences Wiley Richmond, Australia George M Hall Professor of Anaesthesia Department of Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine St George’s University of London London, UK Formerly: Chairman, British Journal of Anaesthesia Charles W Hogue Professor of Anesthesiology & Critical Care Medicine The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, USA Associate Editor, Anesthesia & Analgesia Richard Horton Editor-in-Chief/Publisher, The Lancet London, UK Simon Howell Senior Lecturer in Anaesthesia University of Leeds Leeds, UK Editor, British Journal of Anaesthesia Jennifer M Hunter Emeritus Professor of Anaesthesia/ Honorary Clinical Fellow University of Liverpool Liverpool, UK Formerly: Editor-in-Chief, British Journal of Anaesthesia Luke A Jardine Senior Staff Specialist in Neonatalogy Associate Professor of Neonatalogy Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital Queensland, Australia Sharon Leng Technical Editor, BJU International Wiley Oxford, UK Domhnall MacAuley Editor, Primary Care BMJ London, UK Liz Neilly Medical Librarian University of Leeds Leeds, UK Martin Neil Rossor Professor of Clinical Neurology Editor, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry Dementia Research Centre Institute of Neurology, University College London The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery London, UK Gavin Sharrock Publisher Health Sciences Journals Editorial Wiley Oxford, UK www.ATIBOOK.ir List of contributors Richard Smith CBE Director Ovations, UnitedHealth Group London, UK Formerly: Editor, BMJ Mark Ware Vice President & Lead Analyst Outsell (UK) Ltd London, UK Elizabeth Whelan Associate Editorial Director Health Sciences Journals Editorial Wiley Oxford, UK ix Michael Willis Editorial Services Manager Wiley Oxford, UK Elissa Wilson Associate Journal Publishing Manager Life Sciences Wiley Richmond, Australia www.ATIBOOK.ir Preface to the Fifth Edition For the fifth edition, it is a pleasure to welcome Mark W Davies, Kevin W Eva, Chris Graf, Charles W Hogue, Luke A Jardine, Sharon Leng, Gavin Sharrock, Elizabeth Whelan and Michael Willis as new contributors A new chapter ‘How to Write a Book Review’ has been added I am grateful to all the authors for revising their chapters and, in particular, to Robert N Allan, Michael Doherty, Gordon B Drummond and Richard Smith for contributing to all five editions George M Hall x www.ATIBOOK.ir Preface to the Fourth Edition For the fourth edition, it is a pleasure to welcome Paul Glasziou, Jennifer M Hunter, Liz Neilly, Martin Rosser and Mark Ware as new contributors An additional chapter ‘Open Access’ has been added I am grateful to all the authors for revising their chapters and, in particular, to Robert N Allan, Michael Doherty, Gordon B Drummond, Richard Smith and Alex Williamson for contributing to all four editions George M Hall xi www.ATIBOOK.ir Ethics of publication 143 Designing your study You may have been required to submit your study design for ethical review board approval within your institution, perhaps for regulatory purposes, and particularly if your study involves people or animals You should describe these aspects of your study briefly in your paper It is good practice to define (and register) your study protocol and to specify your data analysis plan before you start your study You should describe these aspects of your study design in your paper and, if you registered your study design, give information on this These approaches are designed to help reduce bias in the resulting research (like those that are introduced by post hoc analysis, for example, or by under-reporting of negative or inconclusive results) We encourage you to follow them! While you are designing your study it is possible that you will be able to identify who will become a named author on your paper (or papers) We address authorship later But it is worth stating here that the intellectual input required during study design means that those who make that kind of input are either most (or all) of the candidates for co-authorship, or should have their contributions listed in an acknowledgement It is a good idea to discuss and agree your authorship criteria with your research collaborators at this stage, to avoid confusion and possible disagreement later [2] Collecting your data, analysing your data, deriving your results If your study design changed while you were conducting your study, you should explain how (in an ideal world your design wouldn’t change, but if it did then you must clarify) You should describe how your data analysis was performed and whether this was in accordance with or differs from your initial plan (again, it shouldn’t differ) If you did perform analyses that you did not specify in your original research design, you should provide details and ensure that the results of these analyses are clearly identified as ‘post hoc’ This extra level of explanation is to help editors and readers assess the impact of these possible sources of bias Writing your paper Authors Working out who is and who isn’t an author is important, given the rewards that authorship can bring and the importance of appropriate attribution www.ATIBOOK.ir 144 How to write a paper and accountability (see Chapter 7) Some simple principles include the following: • Your authors should be those who actually did the work • You shouldn’t give or accept gift authorship • You should demand that everyone who meets your authorship criteria is listed as an author • You should require that everyone who has made a significant contribution, but who does not quite meet your authorship criteria, is acknowledged There are differences between disciplines in the approaches that researchers use to decide who is named as an author In biomedicine there is a gold standard that most researchers and journals seem to be comfortable with, which allows a degree of flexibility This is the definition begun in 1978 (in Vancouver, hence the name this definition sometimes takes) by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and incorporated into their guidance in 2009 [3] A short passage from this definition is directly below, and these authors recommend you use this to decide who should be listed as the authors of your paper The other guidance and thoughts from the ICMJE on group authorship, ‘guarantors’, public responsibility and acknowledging contributions are also worth reading [4]: Authorship credit should be based on 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 [4] All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed [4] Reporting standards You should follow established approaches to report your study completely and accurately The EQUATOR network curates a central resource for reporting standards in biomedical research (Box 20.1) [5] Using these reporting standards will help you ensure that you include all the information that is needed to report your work fully and clearly It will also help you write an easy-to-understand paper, from an editor’s, peer reviewer’s and a reader’s point of view This may ease your journey through peer review and improve your chances of rapid acceptance and publication www.ATIBOOK.ir Ethics of publication 145 Box 20.1 Types of reporting guidelines curated by EQUATOR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Biospecimen reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies Economic evaluations Experimental studies Mixed methods studies Observational studies Qualitative research Quality improvement studies Reliability and agreement studies Reporting data Sections of research reports Specific conditions or procedures Statistical methods and analyses Systematic reviews and meta-analysis How many papers from one research study? How long is a piece of string? We believe that you should make a decision to publish your results in usefully sized pieces, not the smallest possible publishable unit More than one paper is fine, if each paper stands alone You should take care to reference the original (primary) paper in any papers that follow, and to explain the relationships between the multiple papers and the results they present Duplicate publication causes confusion among readers, may distort results of meta-analyses and practice guidelines, and can cause legal problems by infringing copyright You must avoid publishing the same results in more than one paper without making it clear to readers that you have already published those results elsewhere You should treat ideas for analyses that you specify after collecting and analysing your data with caution and, if you decide to take this path and write a new paper to present that analysis (which we recommend that you don’t), you must make this potential source of bias clear in your manuscript to journal editors and readers Can I present my work at a conference and still publish it in a journal? If only the abstract was published in conference proceedings you will have no concerns However, if a full paper was published you will need to make www.ATIBOOK.ir 146 How to write a paper sure that the paper you submit to a journal is not identical to the paper published in conference proceedings The amount that these should differ will vary from journal to journal so you should check with the journal editor, and you should always fully disclose previous publication You will be free to publish your results on your own web site or blog and your institution’s digital repository; however, guidelines will vary so you should follow the copyright information for each journal References You should provide as complete a reference list as is practical, focusing particularly on research that’s related to your own that will help readers put your findings in context There are many reasons why people choose particular references to include in their papers, not all of which are ethical or sensible An interesting exploration about this is archived on the World Association of Medical Editors record of listserve discussions (http://www.wame.org/ wame-listserve-discussions/authors-quoting-themselves-extensively-in-thereferences), from which reference [6] makes interesting reading If you conducted a systematic review as part of your funding application, then the references you collected for that review may be too many to include in your research paper itself Nevertheless your systematic review will be a useful source of information We think you should consider your systematic review as a separate paper in itself, for publication prior to your results, and for reference in your research paper Avoiding plagiarism You should attribute all previously published material whether it is someone else’s work or indeed your own While having to reference your own words from previous publications may seem unnecessary, it is important to remember that the copyright may now be held by the owner of those publications so you must acknowledge prior publication Most publishers will use programs like CrossCheck to analyse levels of duplication (see ‘Surviving Peer Review’) It is advisable to attribute all recycled material Funding statement You should describe the grant or other funding sources that support your research, or the absence of such funds Disclosures Conflicts of interest continue to be a hot topic, particularly financial conflicts You should report potential sources of conflict related to your research www.ATIBOOK.ir Ethics of publication 147 Box 20.2 Sample authorship description/acknowledgement Drs A, B and C designed and conducted the study, including patient recruitment, data collection and data analysis Dr A prepared the manuscript draft with important intellectual input from Drs B and C All authors approved the final manuscript (Insert name of organization) provided funding for the study, statistical support in analyzing the data with input from Drs A, B and C, and also provided funding for editorial support Drs A, B and C had complete access to the study data We would like to thank Dr D for her editorial support during preparation of this manuscript Reproduced with permission of John Wiley and Sons Ltd, from Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A et al [7] that are not only financial, but also political or personal We think that reporting conflicts of interest should be treated separately from reporting research funding, and that this information should be reported separately in your manuscript But different journals take different approaches, and you will be doing an ethical job if you report both funding sources and potential conflicts of interest no matter how you report them Acknowledgement You should publish a short acknowledgement to the people who made contributions to your research (Box 20.2) It’s important to get permission from these people before acknowledging them, which is another reason to consider authorship while you are designing your study Images, data We think that you should submit uncropped, unedited, original images alongside images that you have prepared for publication to the journal (e.g for Blots or gels) You should also, where appropriate, deposit these original images and original numerical data in an accessible database [8] Choosing your journal You should submit your paper to one journal at a time, and wait for the decision from that journal before moving on to submit to a second journal You should not, generally speaking and as discussed above, publish the same results and analysis more than once [9] www.ATIBOOK.ir 148 How to write a paper Surviving peer review When you submit your paper to a journal, its editors and peer reviewers will assess the quality of your work according to their journal’s particular criteria (usually a mix of soundness of methods, novelty of results, relevance to their audience and priority or possible impact) As well as assessing the quality of your work, the editors and peer reviewers will assess the ethical aspects of your research and how you have reported these in your manuscript Some journals have begun using computerised plagiarism detection systems at this stage, such as CrossCheck (iThenticate), to help prevent plagiarism and address duplicate publication before it happens These systems compare submitted manuscripts with already published material (in journals and on the Internet) and identify possible cases of plagiarism by matching strings of related text Human intervention, usually from the journal’s editorial team, is then needed to interpret the algorithm-derived results and to address possible problems appropriately The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has published flow charts that illustrate how investigations often proceed [10] If your paper doesn’t make it through peer review at the first journal you submit to, is it ethical to submit to a new journal without addressing the peer reviewers’ comments? We believe that if a peer reviewer has correctly identified a flaw in your work, then it is ethically important for you to address it before continuing In simple cases this may mean recognising the limitations of your research But the flaw that a peer reviewer identified may not be important, the peer reviewer may have asked for additional work that is not possible or you may disagree with the editor’s decision and peer reviewers’ comments entirely And your appeal to the journal about its decision may have been turned down Even so, anecdote suggests the chances are reasonably high that the same peer reviewer will see your paper again when you submit it to your next journal, especially if you work in a specialised area So addressing comments before submission to your next journal seems to us to be both pragmatic and ethical Dealing with the press and embargoes Some journals have embargo policies that you will need to follow when discussing your soon-to-be-published paper These embargoes exist to ensure that the general public is presented with accurate, peer-reviewed research in complete form, rather than in snapshots in a newspaper However, www.ATIBOOK.ir Ethics of publication 149 embargoes may still allow you to talk about your research findings in general terms on a personal web site or blog, for example [11] Publishing your paper Congratulations You published your paper in a top journal You have included your new reference in your next grant application And editorials discussing your paper, not to mention citations from your peers around the world, are stacking up It doesn’t stop there You must be ready to correspond with readers who have valid questions or comments, either through letters to the editor or, increasingly, in ‘comments’ on journal web sites You must also be ready to correct mistakes that you or your readers identify, by working with the journal to publish a correction (or erratum) When something particularly significant has gone wrong, a retraction is in order These are usually reserved for major flaws in a piece of research that mean that the results are unreliable Sometimes they are published because of intractable disputes between authors Most seriously they are published for proven cases of research misconduct (typically defined as research that’s fabricated, falsified or plagiarised) Conclusion Writing your paper is when it all comes together You know your results You listened to suggestions from the people you spoke with when you presented your work at a congress You’re ready to share what you’ve found with your peers, your competitors, your research funders (in fact, with everyone) Your paper will become an important (and measurable) output from your research and may help you secure your next round of funding, or a new job Much rides on getting your work published in a good journal And much rides on reporting your work ethically We wish you the best of luck Disclosures Chris Graf and Elissa Wilson are employed by John Wiley & Sons, and as such benefit from the success of the company’s publishing programme Chris publishes clinical and research journals including a number for Societies and Royal Colleges in Australia and New Zealand, the International Journal of Clinical Practice and the global Wiley open access journals in health sciences, is the treasurer of the COPE (a UK registered charity), and leads the www.ATIBOOK.ir 150 How to write a paper Wiley-Blackwell publication ethics programme Elissa publishes a number of life science journals for societies in Australia and is involved in the WileyBlackwell publication ethics programme References Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia [Internet] Systematic review Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review (accessed 25 July 2012) Albert T, Wager E How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers In: White C, ed The COPE Report 2003 [Internet], 2004 pp 32–4 Available at: http://publicationethics.org/static/2003/2003pdfcomplete.pdf (accessed 25 July 2012) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [Internet] Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Statement of Purpose: About the Uniform Requirements 2009 Available at: http://www.icmje.org/sop_ 1about.html (accessed 25 July 2012) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [Internet] Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Ethical Considerations in the Conduct and Reporting of Research: Authorship and Contributorship 2009 Available at: http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html (accessed 25 July 2012) EQUATOR Network [Internet] Oxford: The EQUATOR Network 2007 Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/ (accessed 25 July 2012) Rose S What’s love got to with it? Scholarly citation practices as courtship rituals Lang Learn Discip 1996;1:34–48 Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, Fiack S, Scott-Lichter D, Robinson A Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: a publisher’s perspective Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61(s152):1–26 Graf C, Vaux D Editorial Cancer Med 2012;in press Wager E Why you should not submit your work to more than one journal at a time Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med 2010;7:160–1 10 Committee on Publication Ethics [Internet] Flowcharts Available at: http:// publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts (accessed 25 July 2012) 11 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [Internet] Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication in Medical Journals: Medical Journals and the General Media 2009 Available at: http://www.icmje.org/publishing_9media.html (accessed 25 July 2012) www.ATIBOOK.ir Index Page numbers in italics refer to figures, those in bold refer to tables, and those underlined refer to boxes abbreviations 80, 85, 138 in tables and figures 26, 27 unhelpful 12, 23, 139 abstracts 33, 134 for case reports 85 conciseness 35–36 improving 39, 39–40 length 35 in literature searches 50, 51 for meetings see meeting abstracts purpose 35 selling your work 36, 36–38 what to include 34–35, 35 accuracy 20, 26, 136–137 acknowledgements 31–32, 38, 45, 87, 147, 147 acronyms 85, 138 advertisements 77, 121, 129–130 Albert, Tim 13, 14, 38 Annals of Emergency Medicine 110 apparatus 19–20 appeals 109–110, 118 appearance of journal 120–121 archiving 67, 68, 69 attribution 143–144, 146 see also authorship audience 7, 12, 37, 77, 99 audio 10, 27, 28, 61 authorship 38, 40, 42, 147 of case reports 87 vs contributorship 43–45 criteria 38, 42, 42–44, 143–144 responsibility 44 b error 17 bias 22, 90–91, 109, 143, 145 bibliographic databases 47–50, 48, 92, 104 and reference management software 52, 53 BioMed Central 59, 112–113 blind reviews 108 blind studies 18–19 BMJ author guidelines, link to 34 authorship criteria 42, 44 ELPS system peer reviews 108, 109, 113 book reviews 98, 119 becoming a reviewer 98–99 elements 100 length 99 purpose 98 reading the book 99 reasons for writing 101 writing the review 99–100 British Society of Gastroenterology 79 Burgess, Anthony 14 Callaham, Michael 111 case reports 77, 83 authorship 87 choosing journal 85 consent of patients 86–87 length 85 peer reviews 107 reasons to publish 83–84 How to Write a Paper, Fifth Edition Edited by George M Hall © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 151 www.ATIBOOK.ir 152 Index case reports (cont’d) structure 85–86 submission 87 charts 26 CINAHL database 48, 92 citations see references/referencing clarity 3, 135, 135–136 in discussion 29 in introduction 12 and subheading use 25, 77 Cochrane Collaboration 108 Cochrane Library 48 colours 24, 26 comments in letters 74, 77 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 38, 60, 112, 122, 148 conciseness 138, 138–139, 139 of abstract 35–36 of letters 71 of reports 76 in results 3, 22 conclusion section 31 conferences, presentations at 145–146 see also meeting abstracts conflicts of interest 31, 99, 110–111, 146–147 Conrad, C.C 42 consent 80, 86–87 consistency 24, 26, 136 CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) contractions 135 contributorship 38, 42–43, 44, 44–45 copyright 64, 67, 126, 145–146 Copyright Transfer Agreement (CTA) 126 corrections 127, 149 correspondence 50, 53, 149 see also letters to journals courtesy 74, 117, 118 cover letters 83, 87 CrossCheck 60, 69, 146, 148 data 3, 137, 143, 147 analysis of see discussion section in figures see figures missing over-presentation in results section supplemental 10, 27–28, 61 in tables see tables databases, bibliographic 47–51, 48 Davidoff, Frank 111 design of study 13, 18–19, 30, 93, 143 diagrams 19, 89 Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) 66 discussion section 3–4, 4, 29, 134 acknowledgements 31–32 in case reports 86 common errors comparison with earlier studies 30 conclusion 31 format 30 further studies 31 implications 31 length methodology 29–30 principal findings 29 distribution of data 17, 23 distribution of journals 128 dosages 19 duplicate publication 112, 122, 145, 148 earlier studies awareness of 11–12 comparison with 8, 11, 30 referencing see references/referencing researching 11–12, 47 see also literature searches; systematic reviews Earthly Powers (Burgess) 14 editing manuscripts 127 editorial board/team 118, 119, 121, 123, 124–126 editor-in-chief (EIC) 115, 123 advertisement checks 121 appearance of journal 120–121 assembling an issue 120 chasing work 118 complaints, dealing with 122 confidentiality 123 correspondence 119–120 editorials 119 ethical issues, dealing with 122–123 finding reviewers 103, 104–105 impact factor of journal 120 liaison with other editors 122 new manuscripts, dealing with 116 pleasing 117 problem manuscripts, dealing with 117–118 rejection of manuscripts 116, 118 reviews 119 revised manuscripts, dealing with 116–117 teams 121 transparency of journal 121 electronic journals 51, 107, 112 www.ATIBOOK.ir Index 153 electronic publishing 7, 9, 107, 130–131 open access see open access and peer reviews 112–113 electronic submissions 57 benefits 57–58, 58 ethics 60 multimedia 61 speed 59–60 statistics 60–61 drawbacks 61 future of 61–62 embargoes 148–149 EMBASE database 48, 49, 52 EMBO 113 EndNote software 52 EQUATOR network 10, 16, 113, 144, 145 errata 122, 149 errors 118, 122, 134 common 4, 7, 12 reporting 100, 105 ethical approval 19, 80 ethics 141, 142, 149 acknowledgements 147, 147 authorship criteria 143–144 conflicts of interest 31, 99, 110–111, 146–147 data collection and analysis 143 EIC’s, issues for 122–123 and electronic submissions 60 embargoes 148–149 funding application 142 funding statement 142, 146 images and data 147 journal choice 147 misconduct 106, 111–112, 122, 149 multiple presentations of study 145–146 new understanding, research for 9, 47 number of papers from study 145 peer reviews 108, 110–111, 148 plagiarism 35, 60, 122, 146, 148 post-publication 149 references 146, 147 reporting standards 144, 145 study design 143 European Journal of Epidemiology 34 evidence, levels of 93, 94 exclusion criteria 19 figures 26–28, 27, 134, 137, 139 restrictions on 22, 71, 85, 87 formats, print and electronic 7, Fotion, N 42 Fourth International Congress on Peer Review 111 fraud 44, 122 funding bodies 31, 142 open access policies 69–70 funding statement 146 further work 31 Godlee, Fiona 108 graphs 26 guarantors 44 guidelines 10, 22, 115, 117 on case reports 87 on ethical issues 122 journal-dependent 61 on letters 71, 73 on meeting abstracts 78, 79, 81 on methods 16 on peer reviews 106, 113 on reference formats 54 on reporting 145 on tables 24 on titles and abstracts 34, 34 see also ‘Instructions to Authors’ from publishers Hanscomb, Mike 13 Harvard referencing format 54–55 Helsinki Declaration HMIC database 48 Horton, Richard 111 humour 77 hyphens 136 hypothesis 16–17, 80 illustrations see figures images/photographs 26–27, 86, 147 impact factor of journal 120 implications 31 IMRAD structure 1, 5, 91 inclusion criteria 19 The Independent 13 Index Medicus database 47 ‘Instructions to Authors’ from publishers 4, 115, 117, 139 about case reports 85, 87 about figures and tables 24 about introduction about letters 71 about meeting abstracts 78, 79, 81 about references 54, 55 about results 22 about supplemental material 28 see also guidelines www.ATIBOOK.ir 154 Index integrity 44, 60, 111 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) 38, 60, 144 see also Vancouver Group Internet ‘24/7/365’ access 58 access to 61 ‘added-value’ components 125–126 bibliographic databases see bibliographic databases changes for editorial team 125 marketing, journal 131–132 mobile applications 62 multimedia publications 28, 61 open access see open access ‘pay-per-view’ 130, 131 post-publication peer review 62 rights 130 see also electronic publishing; electronic submissions introduction section 2, 6, 14, 134 before beginning 6–7 for case reports 85 clarity 12 contribution to existing knowledge 8–9 convincing readers 12 earlier studies, awareness of 11–12 guidelines 10 journalistic devices 13–14 length 10–11 reason for study references 53 search strategy 12 study design 13 summary of systematic reviews 8–9 JAMA 34 journalistic devices 6, 13–14 journal publishing managers 124, 125–126 journal styles 4, 133 abstract and title 34–35 authorship 45 case reports 85 references 55 JULIET database 70 keywords 49, 104, 134 Lancet 42, 44 language 135, 135, 139 see also terminology; vocabulary Laurance, Jeremy 13 letters to journals 71–73, 119–120 article response 73, 73–76 case reports 77 etiquette and style 73–76 general or political comments 77 guidelines 73 length 71–73 purposes 72 short studies 76, 76–77 tone 74–76 ‘level’, use of 137 librarians, help from 11, 48, 49, 52 licensing 129 literature reviews see reviews; systematic reviews literature searches 8–10, 30, 56 abstracts 50, 51 bibliographic databases 47–51, 48 for case reports 85, 86 electronic journals 51 managing references 51–53 for manuscript assessments 105–106 questions to ask 92–93 see also systematic reviews manuscript assessment see peer reviews marketing, journal 131–132 materials 19–20 measurements 3, 137 Medical Education 34 medical subject headings (MeSH) 49–50, 92 Medline database 48, 49, 50, 53, 89, 92 meeting abstracts 78, 82 editing draft 81 online submission 78–79 preparation and headings 79–81 presentation 82 selection 78 snail mail submission 79 meta-analysis 91, 94, 95, 96 methods section 2–3, 16, 20, 21, 134 apparatus 19–20 assessments and follow-ups 20 design of study 18–19 hypothesis, testing 16–17 materials 19–20 participants 19 pre-study writing of 16 purpose 2–3 questions answered by 20 statistics 17 what to include 18 misconduct 106, 111–112, 122, 149 www.ATIBOOK.ir Index 155 mobile applications 62 multimedia 61 Nature 108 Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium 59, 113 new journal launches 126 New Scientist 51 non-human subjects 19 non-systematic reviews 90, 90–91 null hypothesis 16–17 numbers 26, 136, 137 N values 137 objectives 1, 2, 7, 16 offprints 126 open access 64–65, 120, 126 benefits 68 charges 65–66 criteria 64 criticisms of 68–69 hybrid and partially open access journals 66 open access publication 65–66 peer reviews 66–67, 112 reasons to use 65 research funders’ policies 69–70 scope of 66 self-archiving 67 ways of using 65 outcomes 23, 84 OvidSP interface 49, 50 ‘parameter’, use of 136 participants 19, 22 confidentiality of 23, 28, 86, 87 ‘pay-per-view’ 130, 131 peer reviewers 102–103, 110 appeals, dealing with 109–110 bias 109 conflict of interest 110–111 intimidation, dealing with 109 training 109 peer reviews 40, 102–103 appeals 109–110 blind vs open 108 cascading model 59 case reports 107 changes in 112–113 checklists 113 criticisms 106–107 electronic submissions 59 ethics 108, 110–111, 148 examples 106–107 guidelines 106, 113 improving process 107–109 light touch 112–113 literature searches 105–106 open access 66–67, 112 post-publication 62, 112–113 process 104–105 purpose 105 research misconduct 111–112 specialist vs generalist journals 103 structure 106 timing 104 photographs/images 26–27, 86, 147 phrasal verbs 135, 135 plagiarism 35, 60, 122, 146, 148 planning 16, 39 PLoS 59 post-prints 67 post-publication peer review 62, 112–113 power of study (b error) 17 prefixes 135 printing 128 probability (P-value) 16–17, 24, 25, 137 production team, publisher’s 127–128 Psychological Science 34 PsycINFO database 48, 49 public domain 64, 108 publishers 124, 132 editorial tasks see editorial board/team; editor-in-chief (EIC) finance 132 marketing 130–132 production tasks 127–130 sales 128–130 PubMed interface 49, 50, 67, 93, 127 P-values 16–17, 24, 25, 137 quality of study, assessing 93, 94 questions to self about methods 20 about publishing your paper about title 37 about writing letter 71 about writing review 89–90 in BMJ guidelines for literature searches 92–93 randomisation 18–19 randomised parallel design 18, 18 reference management software 52–53, 53–54 references/referencing 4, 47, 56, 134 books or monographs 55 chapter in multi-author book 55 www.ATIBOOK.ir 156 Index references/referencing (cont’d) ethics 146 formats 54–55 in introduction journal articles 55 literature searches see literature searches managing 51–53 reference management software 52–53 rejections 2, 81, 116, 118 Rennie, Drummond 42 reporting standards 144, 145 reports as letters 76, 76–77 repositories, open access 67, 69 reprints 130 reproducibility 3, 20 Research Excellence Framework (REF) 112 results section 3, 22, 28, 134 consistency of numerical 24 figures 26–28, 27 past tense, use of 24 statistical analysis tables 24–26, 25 terminology 24 text 22–24, 23 retractions 141, 149 Retraction Watch web site 141 reviews 89–90, 96 book reviews see book reviews content 90–91 format 91, 91 non-systematic 90, 90–91 peer reviews see peer reviews reasons for writing 89 steps 92 1) formulating questions 91–92 2) finding studies 92–93 3) assessing quality 93, 94 4) synthesizing 93–94, 95 systematic see systematic reviews types 90 revisions 116–117 rights 64–65, 130 rigor 136–137 ROARMAP database 70 ROMEO web site 67 sales, journal 128–131 sample size 29, 91 search strategy 12, 50 self-archiving 67, 69 selling your work 36, 36–38 ‘significant’, use of 137 smartphones 62 Smith, Richard 111 statistical analysis 3, 25, 137 statistics editorial 60–61 in methods 3, 16, 17 structure style 133 clear and accurate presentation 135–137 concise presentation 138, 138–139 importance 139 journal styles see journal styles logical presentation 134 second opinion, asking for a 139 subjects see participants subscriptions 128–129 summary supplemental issues 130 systematic reviews 8–9, 90, 91, 146 bibliographic databases see bibliographic databases requirement for 142 steps 92 structure for reporting 91 see also reviews Système International d’Unités (SI) units 137 tables 24–26, 25, 134, 137, 139 in case reports 85, 86 restrictions on 22, 71, 85 tablets 62 tautology 135 technology 10, 62 see also bibliographic databases; Internet tense 24, 136 terminology 24 see also language; vocabulary therapeutic trials 16 Third International Congress on Peer Review titles 4, 33, 134 improving 39, 39–40 selling your work 36, 36–38 style 37 what to include 34–35 topic sentences 23 treatment, form of 19–20 typesetting 59, 127 www.ATIBOOK.ir Index 157 underpowered studies 91 Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals 54 units 25–26, 134, 137 variability of results 23 variables 25, 136 video 10, 27, 28, 61 vocabulary 133, 135, 135, 136 see also language; terminology Vancouver Group acknowledgements 45, 45 authorship criteria 42, 43, 144 referencing format 54 Wager, E 38 Wiley-Blackwell 59 World Association of Medical Editors 109, 111, 146 www.ATIBOOK.ir [...]... may need to describe some of the practical problems of obtaining informed consent or a satisfactory comparative treatment Keep a note of eligible participants who are approached and then decide not to take part Are there many of these? Could they be systematically different from the participants who agree to take part? In a laboratory study, you must detail the source and strain of animals, bacteria... work already published It then becomes essential to make clear how your work adds importantly to what has gone before www.ATIBOOK.ir 8 How to write a paper Clarify what your work adds Editors will not want to publish – and readers will not want to read – studies that simply repeat what has been done several times before Indeed, you should not be undertaking a study or writing a paper unless you are... the Web, while the paper version might include a short and simple summary Usually, however, a full systematic review is probably best dealt with as a separate paper www.ATIBOOK.ir 10 How to write a paper One interesting feature of revising a chapter 18 years after you wrote the first version is to reflect on how much scientific papers have changed We might have expected that the appearance of the World... not read: Archaeologists have hypothesised that a primitive version of Ecstasy may have been widely used in ancient Egypt Canisters found in tombs www.ATIBOOK.ir Introduction 11 of the pharaohs Sociological evidence shows that Ecstasy is most commonly used by males aged 15 to 25 at parties held in aircraft hangars The respiratory problems associated with Ecstasy may arise at the alveolar–capillary... began a piece: This is a story of sex, fear, and money It is about a new treatment for an embarrassing problem which could prove a money spinner in the new commercial National Health Service www.ATIBOOK.ir 14 How to write a paper Sex, fear, and money are emotive to all of us, and we may well want to know how a new treatment could make money for the health service rather than costing it money My favourite... only to be sure that you collect appropriate and relevant data and do the correct statistical tests Logical errors in statistical thinking abound: a clear hypothesis allows clear thinking Statistics State the exact tests used to analyse the data, and include an appropriate reference if the test is not well known State the software, and the version, that you used State clearly the assumptions made about... scientific paper rather than a descriptive essay or a long paper rather than a short one Increasingly journals and other publications have separate paper and electronic editions You may have to think about two formats at once Usually the paper version is shorter and intended for more casual readers There may be no limit on the length of the electronic version, which can be a terrible curse for authors who are... sevoflurane was 25 ± 3% of the area at risk Myocardial infarction size in controls was 40 ± 3% of the area at risk’ This sentence not only repeats data better presented in a table or illustration, it requires the reader to interpret the findings A more appropriate approach would be to first direct the reader to where the data are listed and state ‘Myocardial infarction size was less in animals given sevoflurane... studies take years to conduct and sometimes years to get into published reports Editors increasingly want to see evidence that authors have worked hard to make sure that they know of studies directly related to theirs This is particularly important when editors’ first reaction to a paper is ‘Surely we know this already’ We regularly had this experience at the BMJ, and we then looked especially hard to make... accordingly Some journals give detailed instructions, often annually, and these can be a valuable way of learning some of the basic rules A grave mistake is to submit a paper to one journal in the style of another; this suggests that it has recently been rejected At all stages of preparation of the paper, go back and check with the instructions to authors to make sure that your manuscript conforms It ... Doherty Chapter 12 How to prepare an abstract for a scientific meeting, 78 Robert N Allan Chapter 13 How to write a case report, 83 Martin Neil Rossor Chapter 14 How to write a review, 89 Paul Glasziou... descriptive essay or a long paper rather than a short one Increasingly journals and other publications have separate paper and electronic editions You may have to think about two formats at once Usually... short and simple summary Usually, however, a full systematic review is probably best dealt with as a separate paper www.ATIBOOK.ir 10 How to write a paper One interesting feature of revising a chapter