Enhance Your Success as a Published Author Jane Carver Jan 23, 2014 Why Write? . Educational requirement . Advance your institution . Educate others . Increase competitiveness for funding . Gain recognition . Achieve promotion Why Write? “I would urge you to write not because it is a good thing, not because it is nice to see your name in print, but rather because you will really get to know a field only if you contribute to it.” Mahoney MJ, Psychology of the Scientist, 1979 What to Write . Original research . Case report . Letter to editor . Commentary . Reflective writing . Editorial . Review article . Book chapter . Book or chapter review Always Be Writing . Always have a “work in progress” on your desk – New projects – Revisions . Keep up with the literature . Save examples of good writing – Organization, layout – Tables and graphs – Statistics . Use templates of previous manuscripts – Don’t self-plagiarize! JPMed.2013.0302-Decision Rejection without Peer Review Dear Dr. X: Thank you again for submitting your manuscript entitled "X" to Journal of Perinatal Medicine (JPMED). I have carefully read your article and we checked the similarity index. The automatic plagiarism check of your article discovered that the overall similarity index percentage is high. I therefore decided not to initiate the peer review process. I regret that I cannot accept your manuscript for publication in JPMED. This decision must be regarded as final. Thank you for considering JPMED for publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from submission of future manuscripts. Kind regards Dr. Joachim W. Dudenhausen FRCOG Professor of Obstetrics Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Perinatal Medicine . Set aside protected time each week . Identify most productive time . Create a suitable environment . Develop a publication plan before you start – Timetables and deadlines – Authorship Authorship Wren et al., EMBO reports, 8:988, 2007 Authorship . Number, order and responsibilities of each author should be agreed upon before starting your project – Part of your publication plan . Include author list on first page of first draft Author Order . Levels of participation First author (primary) Last author (senior or supervisory) Second author (contributing) Baerlocher et al., J Invest Med 2007 ICMJE: Authorship 1. Substantial contributions to conception, design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, AND 2. Drafting or critically revising article for important intellectual content, AND 3. Final approval of version to be published, AND 4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved ICMJE: Authorship . Not justified: acquisition of funding, data collection, general supervision . All designated should qualify and all who qualify should be listed . Should have participated enough to take public responsibility for appropriate portions . Large, multi-center groups guarantors Authorship Abuses . Promiscuous authorship – Coercion – Honorary, guest or gift . Ghost authorship . Denial Strange K. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 295:C567, 2008 Acknowledgements • Contributors who don’t meet authorship criteria Technical help, writing assistance, department chair • Financial or material support • “Participating investigators”, “scientific advisors,” “provided and cared for study patients” Obtain written permission Authorship . Keep your authorship name consistent . Use middle initial – Pubmed hits w/ and w/o middle initial: • carver j 376 • carver jd 36 . Avoid hyphenated or other surname format Use Standardized Formats and Published Guidelines . IMRaD: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion . CONSORT, Equator, MIBBI, GPP2 guidelines Common Reasons for Acceptance . Importance or timeliness of the problem studied . Well-designed study . Well-written Common Reasons for Rejection . Poorly written . Poor experimental design . No clear hypothesis/objective . Statistics – Sample size too small or biased Sample size calculations! – Inappropriate or incomplete statistics Consult a statistician before you start your study!! “To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of.” Sir Ronald Fisher, 1890-1962 Common Reasons for Rejection . Incomplete or outdated literature review . Insufficient data presented to support conclusions . Not appropriate for chosen journal Choose the Right Journal – and Choose it Before You Write . Who is the target audience – Clinicians, investigators, both? – Specialists or generalists? . How do I intend to reach them? – Electronic, print media or both? – Pay-per-view or open-access? . Institutional considerations – Non-indexed journal promotion? Choose the Right Journal . How soon do I want/need it to be published? . Submission/Publication costs? – Submission, page charges, color figures, supplemental data, public access fee . Supplemental data? . Negative data of specialized interest? – www.mpip-initiative.org Choose the Right Journal . Review bibliography/directories to find journals that have published similar papers – PubMed, Directory of Open Access Journals . Review Instructions to Authors – Length restrictions, types of articles typically published Consider Journal Impact Factor Example: 2011, Pediatrics Total # citations to everything published in Pediatrics 2009 + 2010 divided by Total # articles published in Pediatrics 2009 + 2010 2011 Impact Factors All Journals RANK JOURNAL IMPACT # FACTOR ARTICLES 1 CA-Cancer J Clin 102 19 2 New Engl J Med 53 349 3 Annu Rev Immunol 53 23 4 Rev Mod Phys 44 38 5 Chem Rev 40 196 2011 Impact Factors Pediatrics RANK JOURNAL IMPACT # FACTOR ARTICLES 1 J Am Acad Child Psy 6.4 99 2 Pediatrics 5.4 698 3 Arch Pediat Adol Med 4.1 144 4 J Pediatr 4.1 319 5 Dev Disabil Res Rev 4.0 Finding Journal Evaluation Measures Shimberg Library . All eResources –Web of Knowledge –Journal Citation Reports (header) Getting started . Make sure your objective is clear . Summarize the message – Single overriding communication objective – Make sure your co-authors agree! – Describe it outloud – Version control • Keep copies of all versions Blank Page Panic . Suggested order: – Methods – Results – Discussion – Introduction Keep Focused on the Message . Clearly define the research question or hypothesis . What is your response to the research question? . How does your response compare with that of others? . What are the implications? – New paradigm, clinical approach The Manuscript Draft . It’s OK if it’s too long and not polished . Review data for errors . Put it aside revise . Have co-authors, colleagues/friends review – English second language? . Review instructions to authors . Spell check – Use the “add to dictionary” feature Beware the Spellcheck! To rite with care is quite a feet Of witch won should bee proud And wee mussed dew the best wee can Sew flaw’s are knot aloud AMWA Journal, 23:88, 2008 The Manuscript Draft . Review references – Up to 30% misquoted – Use a referencing program – Use references from journal submitting to – Don’t leave out references from potential reviewers Revise and Revise Again . “The important thing is not writing, but rewriting.” Lester King, JAMA editor Pre-Submission Inquiry . Streamlines the submission/review process . Suitable for the journal? . Suggest a more suitable journal? . Useful for : – Time-sensitive study – Unusual circumstances . Cultivates close working relationship with editor – PLOS Medicine: “It is essential that authors submit a presubmission inquiry before submitting a full paper. Presubmission inquiries allow authors to quickly find out whether their paper is likely to be broadly suitable for PLOS Medicine”. The Cover Letter – Sell the Product! . What is the purpose of the study? . Why is it important? . How does it relate to existing literature? . Mention any prior communications Peer Review Write with peer review in mind Instructions to Reviewers Pediatrics . Is this manuscript important or trivial? . Is it redundant or new? . Is it relevant to clinicians, or only to those involved in research? . Is it of interest to a limited number of sub- specialists? . Have you reviewed the statistics? Peer Review 1. Accept with no revisions (rare!) 2. Accept with minor modifications 3. Accept only after major revision and further review 4. Reject 5. Suitable for another journal Accept/Reconsider with Revisions Accept/Reconsider with Revisions . Carefully consider each of the reviewer comments with your co-authors . Decide which revisions should be made . Justify – politely – why you reject suggestions Reject . Appeal? . Carefully consider each of the reviewer comments with your co-authors . Decide which revisions should be made You may get the same reviewer(s) next time, and they don’t appreciate having their suggestions ignored! Unqualified Rejection . Reformat and submit to another journal the next day – Use a referencing program Revise and Re-submit “Manuscripts are unlikely to get much better sitting on one’s desk.” El-Serag, HB, 2006 After your paper is accepted Technical Editing There are no perfect manuscripts . Instructions to authors not followed . Referencing errors . Language use errors . “House style” – Statistics – Repetition of data – British vs American The Proofs . The author is responsible for ensuring that the final edited copy is correct Clinical