Intensive Course in Research Writing Barbara Gastel, MD, MPH Texas A&M University Summer 2011

Intensive Course in Research Writing: Session 8 (7 July 2011)

Administrative Items Some scheduling items –Please don’t worry that we’re behind the syllabus. Next week includes catch-up time. –If time is short today, should we save for tomorrow the workshop or the material on publishing a paper? –I can give at least one optional session the week of July 18. Drafts that editing students will review Extracurricular items –Dinner 6 p.m. Sunday at home of Barbara Gastel and Tom Vogel –Piano concert Monday 7:30 p.m. (International visitors: If you plan to attend but haven’t signed up, please do so this morning.) Sign-up sheet: individual meetings with Dr. Susan Aiello

Today Presentations by some class members about their work Rest of presentation/discussion: some ethical and other issues Review/discussion: writing an abstract (Presentation/discussion: publishing a paper) (Workshop: drafts of discussion and introduction)

Presentations by Class Members [Names of today’s presenters] Note: After each presentation, please complete the feedback form. Thank you!

Ethical and Other Issues in Journal Publication (continued)

Overview Authenticity and accuracy Originality Credit Ethical treatment of humans and animals Conflict of interest The Council of Science Editors white paper Other resources

Authenticity and Accuracy Authenticity (not fabrication) Accuracy –Providing complete data (not only those supporting one’s hypothesis) –Avoiding inappropriate manipulation of images –Using appropriate statistical procedures

Originality Not republishing the same findings (except under special circumstances, with the original source cited) Not submitting the same manuscript to two or more journals at once Not dividing one small research project into many tiny papers (“salami science”)

Credit Citing sources of information and ideas (also aids credibility, helps in finding out more) Avoiding excessive use of others’ words –Recording sources when copying items or taking notes –Placing in quotation marks, or indenting, items used verbatim –Perhaps drafting some items while not looking at the source materials –Observing copyright and obtaining needed permissions

Ethical Treatment of Humans and Animals Treatment must conform to accepted international standards. Manuscript must document that the study was approved by an ethical review board before it was done. Note: Research on humans tends to be broadly defined, for example to include survey research.

Conflicts of Interest Can involve –Editors –Peer reviewers –Authors Can be –Financial –Ideological –Other

The CSE White Paper –CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2009 update –From the Council of Science Editors –Available at eeditors.org/i4a/pages/in dex.cfm?pageid= eeditors.org/i4a/pages/in dex.cfm?pageid=3331

Another Resource on Ethics On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, 3rd ed (2009) From the US National Academies Largely for graduate students Available at p?record_id= p?record_id=12192 Video available at site

Some Other Resources on Publication Ethics Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): World Association of Medical Editors (WAME):

The Abstract First to Read but Last to Revise

The Abstract As noted, briefly summarizes the paper Gives editors and peer reviewers their first impression of the paper Tends to be widely read Should be organized like the paper (for example, in sort of a mini-IMRAD format) Some journals have structured abstracts (with standardized headings)

The Abstract (cont) Depending on the kind of paper and the journal, can be informative (summarizing the content of the paper) or just indicative (stating the topics included) Should be carefully revised before the paper is submitted Be sure the content is consistent with that in the body of the paper.

Publishing a Paper

Submitting the paper The journal’s decision process Revising a paper Final steps

Submitting the Paper Traditional submission (by mail) Electronic submission –As one or more attachments –Via a journal Web site Inclusion of a cover letter (conventional or electronic) Completion of required forms—for example, regarding conflict of interest

Cover Letter: Some Possible Content Title and author(s) of paper Type of submission (or section of journal) Fact that paper is new and not being submitted elsewhere Sometimes: –Where paper has been presented orally –Why the paper is important –Some possible peer reviewers Note: Sample cover letters for some journals are available online.

Mini-Workshop: Submitting a Paper Look at a set of instructions to authors. What, if anything, does it say does it say about the following? –How to submit a paper –What to include in the cover letter –What forms to submit with the paper –Other aspects of submitting a paper

Some Categories of Editors at Journals Helpful to know because you might interact with each Main categories: –Editor-in-chief (and sometimes associate editors etc)—concerned mainly with content –Managing editor(s)—concerned mainly with administration of the journal –Manuscript editor(s)—also called copyeditors—improve the writing and maintain a consistent style

Initial Screening by the Journal For appropriateness of subject matter For compliance with instructions For overall quality (sometimes)

Peer Review Evaluation by fellow experts in the field Purposes –To help the editor decide whether to publish the paper –To help the authors improve the paper, whether or not the journal accepts it Discussion questions: –What are some advantages of peer review? –What are some possible drawbacks?

Some Items Peer Reviewers Tend to Be Asked to Evaluate Importance of the research question Originality of the research Timeliness of the topic Appropriateness of the methods Soundness of the conclusions Completeness of the content Quality of tables and figures General quality of the writing

Mini-Workshop: Peer Review Did you ever receive peer reviews of a paper you wrote? If so: –What did you like about the peer reviews? –What didn’t you like about them? Have you been a peer reviewer? If so: –What did you like about the experience? –What didn’t you like about it?

The Editor’s Decision Based on the peer reviewers’ advice, the editor’s own evaluation, the amount of space in the journal, other factors Options: –Accept as is (rare) –Accept if suitably revised –Reconsider if revised –Reject

Revising a Paper Revise and resubmit promptly. Indicate what revisions were made. –Include a letter noting the revisions. If you received a list of requested revisions, address each in the letter. –If requested, show revisions in Track Changes. If you disagree with a requested revision, explain why in your letter. Try to find a different way to solve the problem the editor or reviewer identified.

Answering Queries Queries: questions from the manuscript editor Some topics of queries: –Inconsistencies –Missing information –Ambiguities –Other Advice: Respond promptly, politely, and completely yet concisely.

Reviewing Proofs Proof: copy of typeset material to check Commonly provided as a PDF file Must be reviewed promptly; therefore: –If your address changes, be sure to inform the journal. –If you won’t be reachable, arrange to have someone review the proofs for you.

Reviewing Proofs (cont) Some things to check: –Completeness (presence of all components) –Absence of typographical errors in text and references –Placement of figures and tables –Quality of reproduction of figures Note: This is not the time to rewrite the paper.

Celebrate publication of your paper!

Homework for Tomorrow Reading: Chapters 36 and 37 in textbook; also review Chapter 9 Browsing: annotated grant proposal (see syllabus; also being ed) Writing due: draft of entire paper

Wishing you a good afternoon! 36