publishing your research Mischa Richter, The New Yorker
publishing your research WHY? the audiences WHERE? the venue HOW? the review WHAT? the writing
publishing your research WHY? professionals – to put knowledge into practice other researchers workforce & public – to advance knowledge – to adopt knowledge into personal – to advance methods behavior – to advocate for changes in workplace & regulatory practice
publishing your research WHERE? professionals – journal read by professionals – journal that gets media attention – open access journal other researchers – respected journal workforce & public (not predatory journal) – journal that gets media attention – open access journal
Neither Extremely Extremely satisfied or Dissatisfied Satisfied dissatisfied satisfied dissatisfied Publishing your research HOW? Source: 2018 Global State of Peer Review, Clarivate Analytics
reviewer declines are increasing l Average # 2.4 2.2 of 2.1 2.0 1.9 reviewer invitations per review 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: 2018 Global State of Peer Review, Clarivate Analytics
thinking about reviewers will be considering whether to review your paper while writing their own papers, conducting research, supervising employees, teaching, supervising graduate students, attending meetings, dealing with administrative responsibilities . . . feel responsible to review as many papers/year as submitted as 1 st author themselves & with students as 1 st authors ... but largely get to choose which ones
attracting reviewers preventing the easy "decline" & reviewing limbo title & abstract critical • is it within your expertise? • is it easy to understand? Is it going to be a slog to review? • does it sound like methods are good? • is it interesting, do you want to know Is it going to be fun to review? more?
the title memorable, focus on 1 main idea more citations with ... • fewer characters • describe results rather than methods • no question marks • no hyphens or colons • no reference to a geographical area Palva et al. Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often Clinics 2012;67:509–513
the abstract may be the only thing read by many people tell a full story ... • context, content, conclusions Mensh & Kording. 10 simple rules for structuring papers. PLOS Computational Biology 2017; 13(9): e1005619 • focus on same main idea as title • chance to entice reviewers & future readers, & frame article for them
CONTEXT publishing your research Background WHAT? - why the issue is important - what is known - gaps in knowledge - what could be done better than before CONTENT Question Methods CONCLUSIONS Results Discussion summary of your results - comparison to previous knowledge - strengths & limitations of your work - implications of your results in broader context -
research question one central contribution focused, clear, testable We examined whether women with breast cancer who were living with an adult during and after treatment survived longer after diagnosis than those who did not.
methods – detail be specific - shows you knew what you We selected cases from the cancer registry and controls from the general population. were doing vs. - allows the reader to All women with primary breast cancer diagnosed between January 1 1995 and December 31 2000, understand registered by the BC Cancer Registry, were invited to participate. One female control, matched to - allows other researchers to each case on year of birth, was selected at random replicate your study from the Ministry of Health Client Registry.
methods linear framework doesn’t mean your ideas can’t be complex means you need to lead the reader through it
methods – linearity: introduce Route types were compared between injury sites and control sites along each participant's cycling trip, based on two sources of data : interviews and site observations . The interviews queried each subject to allow mapping of the injury trip and to collect information about the injury event, the bicycle, trip conditions, and personal characteristics. Site observations identified and recorded characteristics of the route type at each of 3 sites : the injury site ; and two randomly selected sites from the injury trip, one from any point on the route, the other matched to the injury site location, i.e, an intersection or not.
methods - linearity: introduce à explain • list ALL your variables and where they came from • describe ALL your analyses, including descriptive analyses
results same linear framework if you've described your methods well ... they provide the linear framework for your results
results – tables, figures
results – tables, figures
clarity with words avoid do Rarely used words Use the same term for the same thing consistently Jargon throughout Acronyms & other Define terms that might be abbreviations misconstrued Trying to sound complex Aim for simplicity of for the sake of it expression
a good article should read like a good book . . . you can understand it you want to know what happens next & you are excited by the ideas
Comments, questions? ... then some sample abstracts
ergonomics of reading, using white space for framing METHODS Methods This study will use a retrospective cohort design. The BC Linked Health Data Base Cohort identification. This study will use a retrospective cohort design. The BC Linked will be used to identify the cohort. It was developed by the Centre for Health Services Health Data Base will be used to identify the cohort. It was developed by the Centre for and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia, under contract to the Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia, under contract Ministry of Health. It includes all Ministry of Health records related to billings to the to the Ministry of Health. It includes all Ministry of Health records related to billings to Medical Services Plan, as well as vital statistics and other records. Access to these the Medical Services Plan, as well as vital statistics and other records. Access to these health care records for research purposes is made possible by application to the health care records for research purposes is made possible by application to the Ministry Ministry of Health according to their Access Policy for Research Uses of Linked of Health according to their Access Policy for Research Uses of Linked Health Data . Health Data . GI illness events will be identified by linking cohort members to records GI illness event definitions. GI illness events will be identified by linking cohort of their use of medical services in the Medical Services Billings File (e.g., visits to members to records of their use of medical services in the Medical Services Billings File general practitioners and other physicians) and to records of their hospital stays in the (e.g., visits to general practitioners and other physicians) and to records of their hospital Hospital Discharge Records File. Previous linkages between the health-related data stays in the Hospital Discharge Records File. Previous linkages between the health-related files (including the Client Registry) have demonstrated a 97% linkage success rate. A data files (including the Client Registry) have demonstrated a 97% linkage success rate. GI hospitalization event will include any hospital discharge record with a “most responsible diagnosis” with an ICD-9 code listed in Column B of Table 1, or a A GI hospitalization event will include any hospital discharge record with “secondary diagnosis” ICD-9 code listed in column B, with a “most responsible • a “most responsible diagnosis” with an ICD-9 code listed in Column B of Table 1, or diagnosis” of any of the following: disorders of fluid, electrolyte and acid-base • a “secondary diagnosis” ICD-9 code listed in column B, with a “most responsible balance (ICD-9: 276); gastritis and duodenitis (535) blood in stool (578.1); diaper or diagnosis” of any of the following: disorders of fluid, electrolyte and acid-base napkin rash (691.0); pyrexia of unknown origin (780.6); anorexia (783.0); abnormal balance (ICD-9: 276); gastritis and duodenitis (535) blood in stool (578.1); diaper or loss of weight (783.2); symptoms involving digestive system (787); or abdominal pain napkin rash (691.0); pyrexia of unknown origin (780.6); anorexia (783.0); abnormal (789.0). loss of weight (783.2); symptoms involving digestive system (787); or abdominal pain (789.0).
a proof-reading trick One way to help with proofreading is to to reformat the document in a different font, so you can find mistakes that you didn’t see before. One way to help with proofreading is to to reformat the document in a different font, so you can find mistakes that you didn’t see before.
Recommend
More recommend
