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

2. 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

3. 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 (

4. 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

5. 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!

6. 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

7. Possible formats for publication
Full paper
Short report
Case report
Letter

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

12. 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
Ranges from close to zero to over 30

13. 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…

14. 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!