Marietjie van Rooyen Stewart Mennin Writing Papers that Get Published © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Programme What works Problems encountered/anticipated getting published? What makes a good paper? Reasons for rejection / acceptance Writing Skills & Style Guidelines Authorship Conflicts of interest & Ethics © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

TASK 1: Discuss in Groups Summarize on Flip Chart (15 min) What works (has worked) for you? What problems do you (have you) encountered? © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

What makes a good paper? © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Journal criteria RelevanceRigour OriginalityImportance Written wellEthically sound TimelyInteresting © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Common problems Finding time How to write Forest & trees Not sure what good writing is Writer’s block ‘Perfect first sentence’ syndrome Review process Rejection © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Critical appraisal: Ask and answer at least the following questions: Who was this written for? What is the author trying to achieve & why? What did they do? Why did they do it that way? What did they find? So what? Equally important: ask others! © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

What makes a paper publishable? What Do Editors & Reviewers Say? © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Quality Six Criteria 1. Critical literature review 2. Conceptual or theoretical framework 3. Explicit statement of study intent 4. Explicit statement of study design 5. Definitions of all interventions 6. Human subjects’ rights (Cook, Beckman & Bordage, Med Ed 2007) © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

The Editors Look to See if Is the paper in journal style? Is relevant to journal’s mission? Been published before?- Where? Pass the So What test? © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Key Question for Reviewers Did you learn something? Clear conceptual framework Methods clear Consistent analysis Discussion Summarize findings & relevance Acknowledge limitations -method & conclusions © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Reasons Papers Are Rejected © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Decisions on manuscripts to Medical Education (2007) Total number = 1185 Reject52% Accept23% © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Reasons for Rejection INTEREST, ORIGINALITY, AND IMPORTANCE Topic & results not interesting for general readers Doesn’t add anything new to literature Not confident in validity of the message Findings difficult to generalise– too specific to locality or organisation © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Methods The research question not stated clearly The methods not described clearly Methods don’t match research question Confounding variables, bias, insufficient statistical power Response rate too low Non-response bias Not sufficiently evidence based Conclusions not justified by the data © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

OTHER We do not generally publish this type of paper More suitable for a general journal More suitable for a specialist journal © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Most commonly (this year) Work doesn’t advance understanding in field Writing trick: Don’t emphasize or mention local context until methods section Outcome measures are weak (e.g., only satisfaction ratings, non representative sample) © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

If asked to revise Do it quickly Specifically indicate what changes made & exactly where they are in mansript Rejected—happens to everyone--don’t give up! Consider a different journal? Different format? © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Authorship Duplicate publication Conflicts of interest Ethics Some big issues in publication © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Decide early about authorship © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Conception & design, or analysis and interpretation Drafting or revising article critically for important intellectual content Final approval of the version to be published Authorship based on © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Not sufficient to justify authorship : Gift, ghost or guest authorship Participation solely in acquisition of funding or data collection; general supervision; being head of department etc. Many journals now ask for a statement about relative contributions © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Ethical Issues Most (if not all) journals require a statement about ethical approval Whether sought If not, why not Some grey areas Consent Original purpose of data Possibility of identification of subjects ‘Evaluation’ versus ‘research’ Committee On Publication Ethics © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Guidelines for Writing Articles That Get Published © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

“I didn’t have time to write a short paper, so I wrote a long one” (Unknown) © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Suggestions KISS - Keep It Short & Simple Use active rather than passive voice ‘ We did’ rather than ‘It was done’ Be positive rather than negative ‘ Usually late’ rather than ‘Not on time’ Prefer simple words and short sentences Avoid needless words ‘Vast majority’ versus ‘Majority’ © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Compare ‘ Examples are described which demonstrate that in normal individuals the lowest concentration in which sucrose can be detected by means of gustation differs from the lowest concentration in which sucrose (in the amount employed) has to be ingested in order to produce a demonstrable decrease in olfactory acuity and a noteworthy conversion of sensations interpreted as a satiety associated with ingestion of food.’ © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

With- ‘Experiments are described which show that normal people can taste sugar in water in quantities not strong enough to interfere with their sense of smell or take away their appetite.’ © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Selection of Journal Decide on your target audience Researchers? Teachers? Specialty? International? Factors Does journal publish this type of article? Acceptance & turnaround rates Ease of acceptance Impact Factor of journal © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Suggested Writing Sequence Research Questions Methods Results Discussion Introduction Abstract © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Research Questions Written before project begins Changes as project unfolds © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Introduction: Engage, Frame & Contextualize What we know (literature review) What we don’t know What are research questions Why we did this study Provide conceptual framework © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Methods What we did Enough detail to allow replication Flows from Intro to Results Be specific Instruments Sampling Comparisons Procedure Analysis © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Results Describe who-what was studied What was found Descriptive Narrative Relational Numbers, Tables, Figures etc Avoid introducing interpretation and discussion © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Discussion What was shown? Start with brief and clear synopsis Link your work to literature Significance What does it add to our understanding? Link back to Aims/Research Qs © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Discussion Avoid reiteration of Results Similarities and differences with other studies Address limitations Next steps? © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Writing is about editing ‘ Get others to read an advanced draft Specialists’ & people who don’t know much about the subject Listen to them Spell check Then check again! First & last sentences of paragraph © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

The Title? Important part of the paper Catchy and descriptive Different styles for different journals: Declarative Dependent variable, dependent variable, intervention Pose/answer a question © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Summary Relevant Interesting Grounded in literature Clear succinct writing Peer review Authorship Ethics It’s about editing Writing gets better with Practice and feedback © S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009