Educational Workshop EW13: Scientific writing: how to go about it Convenors: Judith Crane (Paris, FR) Panayotis T. Tassios (Athens, GR) Faculty: Sherwood Gorbach (Boston, US) Trish Groves (London, UK) George Schmid (Geneva, CH) Panayotis T. Tassios (Athens, GR) INTRODUCTION Scientific writing: how to go about it Respect the acknowledged Include the features conventions of a research paper that could make your paper stand out among the many A topic worthy of publication… … and a style that makes this obvious An honest assessment of the scope… … and a text that impresses without exaggerating The right group of authors… … and a coherent text despite multiple authors A Title that is specific to the content… … and also appeals to the non-specialist An Abstract that is clear… … and also gets attention An Introduction that poses a question… … and keeps the reader reading Methods and Results that are complete… … and as concise as possible Data that are accurate… … and that make a (citeable) point A Discussion that puts ideas into a context… … and also generates a novel idea Careful use of language and terminology… … and one unique statement A Conclusion that is relevant … and also memorable Judith Crane, Managing Editor, Clinical Microbiology and Infection ([email protected]) http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cmi Gorbach –What an editor wants to see WHAT AN EDITOR WANTS TO SEE IN A SUBMISSION Sherwood L. Gorbach, MD Editor, Clinical Infectious Diseases Tufts University School of Medicine Boston, MA EDITOR’S DESIDERATA Original, informative, accurate and n topical Newsworthy n Generalizable beyond confines of n authors’ locale. Broad applicability Discourage case reports, unless new n information or novel treatment PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE IN CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES Write a clear abstract with concise n conclusions. Include a strong cover letter with the n rationale for publishing this paper. Use clear English; avoid misspellings and n grammatical errors. Must not be BORING! n Gorbach –What an editor wants to see CID POLICIES An article must be directly related to clinical issues n –purely laboratory or animal studies are declined. Original clinical research papers are preferred over n case reports. Invited mini-reviews in 16 topic areas are solicited n by Special Editors. Some reviews are author- initiated. Editorial commentaries are invited for ~4 articles n per issue. THE EDITOR RELIES ON REVIEWERS: What Makes a Good Reviewer The characteristics of reviewers i.e. those actively n involved in research, occupying academic positions, in clinical practice, and members of research funding bodies, have little association with the quality of the reviews they produced. People nearer 40 than 60 years of age produced n better reviews. Review quality increased with time spent on a n review, up to 3 hours but not beyond. Black et al., JAMA, 1998 A REVIEWER’S MANDATE Help the editor n Help the author n Help Mankind! n The review should be n Comprehensive n Critical n Even-handed n Adapted from M. Callaham, D. Schriger, R.J. Cooper, 2004-5 Gorbach –What an editor wants to see CHALLENGES TO ACADEMIC ID JOURNALS - 2009 Number of subscribers is limited, especially in a n small specialty like ID Specialty journals must publish articles on topics n with limited general interest but with high importance to specialists, e.g., Buruli Ulcer, Rift Valley Fever, treatment of Leishmaniasis. This policy lowers the IF since there are few citations n Specialty journals have lower IF, which means n Less interest in publishing articles by academics n Lower prestige n Fewer readers n CHALLENGES TO ACADEMIC ID JOURNALS Special issues associated with a “Society” journal Editor reports to a Publications Committee, which is often n composed of elected members who have little experience in academic publishing. Famous examples of firing an editor for insubordination and refusal to follow demands of the Society (e.g., JAMA, NEJM). Profits of the journal, if they exist, go to support the Society, n which may produce pressures to increase advertising, sales, supplements. In commercial publishing it’s dog eat dog, and in academic n publishing, it’s said to be the reverse. Society members have a sense of entitlement about n publishing their own papers. Editor must devote pages to Society affairs: news, committee n reports, Guidelines –usually without peer review. WHAT MAKES A JOURNAL EDITOR LOSE SLEEP Lyme Disease IDSA Guidelines published in CID (2007) n evinced: multiple angry letters to the editor n threats to the authors n lawsuits against IDSA n a criminal investigation by the Attorney General of the State of n Connecticut (restraint of trade). From In the Literature, CID, Mar 15, 2008: “The report of n viscerotrophic leishmaniasis in 8 US soldiers who had been deployed to eastern Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War served as a warning that soldiers would likely be returning from the latest military misadventure with similar problems.” Two letters were received from medical officers in the US Army n Medical Corps protesting the mixing of “pejorative” political asides into a scientific report. Gorbach –What an editor wants to see FATE OF ARTICLES REJECTED BY A GENERAL MEDICAL JOURNAL 350 articles rejected by Ann Int Med n (1993-4) 240 (69%) published subsequently in a n specialty journal; mean time to appear 552 days (found in PubMed) Mean IF 3.09 vs. 9.6 (Ann Int Med) n Cited by Rowe, RC. "Publish or Perish." Drug Discovery Today. 9:590-591, 2004 Groves –Impression on reviewers How to make the most favourable impression on reviewers Dr Trish Groves Deputy editor, BMJ [email protected] What I plan to cover Peer review • how reliable is it anyway? • models at different journals • how to please reviewers How reliable is peer review? Groves –Impression on reviewers “Peer review is like democracy, which is, to use Churchill's phrase, the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Rennie D. More Peering into Editorial Peer Review. JAMA 1993;270:2856-58. Is peer review a game of chance? Neff and Olden (2006) used a Bayesian approach and citation data from biological journals to model the process and found that –the process includes a strong “lottery” component, independent of editor and reviewer integrity –top journals tend to use prescreening then three reviewers; about a quarter of published papers still poorly cited –element of chance is greater if journals use only two referees and do no prescreening (or if only one editor prescreens); about half of published papers poorly cited How often do two reviewers agree? At journals eg NEJM (Ingelfinger F 1974) • rates of agreement “moderately better than chance” • agreement greater for rejection than acceptance At funding bodies • Cole et al, 1981. Real vs sham panel, 75% agreement • Hodgson C, 1997. Two real panels reviewed the same grants, with 73% agreement Are two reviewers enough? • Fletcher and Fletcher 1999. At least six reviewers, all favouring rejection or acceptance, are needed to yield a reliable conclusion Groves –Impression on reviewers Should we mind if reviewers don’t agree? No, we shouldn’t, if: • reviewers are chosen for differing views • very high reliability might mean that all reviewers think the same • we accept that false positives and false negatives are inevitable • reviewers often advise rather than decide But… Biases in peer review Author-related • prestige (author/institution) • gender • where they live and work Paper-related • positive results • English language Reviewer-related • competing interests • personal issues How to minimise bias Closed Open • declared competing • declared competing interests interests • double blind review • open (signed) review • single blind review • open (to all) review –authors’ identity • post-publication masked openness –reviewers’ identity masked Groves –Impression on reviewers Peer review at different journals Which models at which journals? • named, pre-publication review: BMJ, JRSM, BioMed Central medical journals • open and permissive peer review (preprints published if authors successfully solicit 3 reviews): Biology Direct • community peer review: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Nature trial • two step review (invited signed review then community review): Journal of Interactive Media in Education • permissive peer review, post-publication commentary and annotation: PLoS One • no formal peer review, post-publication commentary: Nature Proceedings Matt Hodgkinson http://journalology.blogspot.com/2007/06/open- peer-review-community-peer-review.html Groves –Impression on reviewers BMJ open (signed) peer review What we say to reviewers “The BMJ uses open peer review so that authors know who has reviewed their work. This means that you will be asked to give your name and position, and any relevant competing interests, in your report on any article we send you. It does not mean that authors should contact you directly…nor should you contact the author directly. … We will pass on your signed report to the author, so please do not make any comments that you do not wish the author to see. If you experience any adverse event arising from open peer review, or would like to tell us your views, please email [email protected]” How to please reviewers Before you start your study • have a clear research question • seek statistical advice • use the right study design • keep an open mind and minimise bias • agree who will be principal investigator • agree who will be authors and contributors • agree to publish