Presenting and publishing work Dr Gillian Mead Senior Lecturer in Geriatric Medicine

Why publish or present? Wider scientific/medical community Even a small pilot or feasibility study, if published, can provide impetus for future studies (and grant applications) Small clinical trials can be included in meta-analyses Benefits to researcher Develop generic skills in writing/presenting See your name in print Conferences in exotic (?) locations Important for future job applications

Analyses Seek advice well in advance Grant giving bodies will require information on proposed analysis/statistical power Involve a statistician (either to advise on methods or perform analyses) Useful seminars/courses on analysis e.g. WTCRF (http://www.wtcrf.ed.ac.uk/education/courses.htm)

Where should you present? Depends on Type of research Likely audience and networking opportunities Location of meeting Do you want it published as an abstract? Possible meetings General e.g. BGS, Scottish BGS, Scottish Society of Physicians Specialist e.g. European Stroke Conference, UK Stroke Forum

How to present Poster Advance preparation (medical illustration require 1 month notice) Bulky to carry May not get so much audience attention as an oral (depends on organisation of poster sessions) Sometimes posters facilitate more intimate discussions with other researchers Oral Advance preparation Practise, practise and practise! Nerve-racking? Guaranteed audience attention Quick!

General points about writing papers Helpful to think about likely journal in advance (don’t aim too high or too low) Check instructions for authors for that journal and format paper accordingly Ensure clear, succinct, free from errors Document ethical approval RCT: Consort statement http://www.consort-statement.org/index

Possible formats for publication Full paper Short report Case report Letter

IMRAD Introduction Methods Why is this area important? Summarise relevant previous work Identify knowledge gaps State your research questions and aims Methods Exclusion/inclusion criteria, recruitment methods, technical aspects of study, power and statistical analysis State ethical approval obtained

IMRAD Results Discussion Describe patients (maybe best in a table) Data (text, table or graph) Discussion Brief one/two sentence summary of key findings Discuss how it fits with what others have found Strengths (but don’t exaggerate!) Weaknesses (but don’t be too critical, and try to ‘rebuff’ any weaknesses) Implications for clinical practice and research

Acknowledgements Not the ‘A’ in IMRAD Patients Funders Colleagues involved in research but who do not fulfil criteria for authorship Anonymous peer-reviewers?

When your paper is ready for submission Check instructions for authors Electronic submission for most journals Sent out to referees (2-3) Editorial team makes final recommendation Outcome Accept with no revisions Accept minor revisions Resubmit with major revisions Reject

Impact factors Total number of citations of all eligible articles published in previous two years divided by the total number of eligible articles An attempt to measure impact on academic community and quality of research http://scientificthomson.cim/isi/ Ranges from close to zero to over 30

Problems with impact factors Heavy citation of reviews Self-citation Vagaries of peer review (so important research may get published in ‘low’ impact journals) Some articles in ‘good’ journals are never cited BUT…we have to have some way to measure quality…

Take home messages Important to get research published or presented Analyses: plan in advance Presentations Papers: IMRAD structure Impact factors are probably here to stay GOOD LUCK AND ENJOY WRITING!