1 / 23

Medical Writing How to get funded and published

Medical Writing How to get funded and published. November 2003. The key to successful writing is organisation and planning It is NEVER too early to start For example use a reference manager system from the beginning and make notes about all papers you read. Know what you are writing.

ashely-caldwell
Download Presentation

Medical Writing How to get funded and published

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Medical WritingHow to get funded and published November 2003

  2. The key to successful writing is organisation and planning It is NEVER too early to start For example use a reference manager system from the beginning and make notes about all papers you read

  3. Know what you are writing • Original article (IMRaD) • Case report • Review/commentary • Book review • Letter • Grant

  4. Know what you are writing • Message • Market • Length • Co-authors • Set a deadline

  5. Introduction 3 paragraphs Don’t state the obvious state hypothesis and aims Methods Succinct Web section? Answer how? Stats Results Logical (simple to complex) Don’t duplicate text/tables 3-4 tabs/figs Discussion What are the implications? Original articles IMRaD

  6. Know your journal • Read the “instructions for authors” • Read the journal • Remember the editor is under a number of pressures • Think marketing!

  7. How good is your journal?Impact factors Cell 40 Nature 27 NEJM 23 Lancet 18 BMJ 6 AJRCCM 5 Thorax 4 ADC 3

  8. Now the pain… • First author takes the responsibility • Write a plan • Start with methods & results then discussion, introduction, abstract • Editing • Co-authors • Independent

  9. Peer Review

  10. Peer Review • Like democracy peer review is the worst way to assess research apart from all the others • Peer review is sensitive to the basics of good presentation, structure, language and style. • Badly presented papers or grants will not do well • Obey “instructions for authors” or grant instructions!!!

  11. Grant Review • Usually grants are awarded by a committee of 10 or more. • The majority will not have much working knowledge of your specialist area. • One member will be allocated your application. • Two or more peer reviewers • You may have an opportunity to address reviewers comments by mail or at interview.

  12. Grant Review • Your grant may be discussed for 5 - 20 minutes • There is usually some form of marking system • Decisions are usually final but occasionally you will be asked to re-submit.

  13. Peer Review - Abstracts

  14. Reviewers Responsibilities • Honest assessment of the MS • Usually works to a structure (eg Thorax / Blue Journal) • Ask to recommend acceptance or not and often to grade the paper • Usually has a confidential note to the Editor • Should reviewer be identified?

  15. Manuscript Review Author MS Submitted Statistical review Editors Recommendations - Accept - Minor - Major - Revise + Resubmit - Reject Associate Editor 2 or 3 Peer Reviewers

  16. Reviewers Responsibilities • Honest assessment of the MS or grant • Usually works to a structure (eg Thorax / Blue Journal) • Ask to recommend acceptance or not and often to grade the paper • Usually has a confidential note to the Editor • Should reviewer be identified?

  17. Critical appraisal • Is it of interest? • Why was it done? • What was found? • Are the stats ok? • What are the implications? • Will it be cited?

  18. Statistical review • Sample size • Are the outcome measures valid? • Is the basic data well described? • Are the analyses valid? • How was significance assessed? • Have confounders/bias been considered?

  19. Major Criticisms • Nothing new • No hypothesis • Over stating results • Under powered • Poor statistical analysis • Wrong journal • Methodology of assays etc

  20. Too long Introduction: 1 side Methods: 1-2sides Results: 1-2sides Discussion: 3-4sides References <30 Too many figs/tables Poor English Spelling mistakes Over statement of results No acknowledgement of limitations Missed refs Minor Criticisms

  21. Responding to Reviewsreject • Don’t take it personally • Don’t dissect comments until you have cooled down • Most rejections are justified • Appeal? • Modify MS before resubmission – the same reviewer may get it again! • Do resbmit

  22. Responding to Reviewsaccept/resubmit • Be honest and true to what you believe • Address all the issues raised • Don’t be aggressive or wounded • Concede about 50 - 75% of the issues raised as they are usually correct. • Return the revised MS promptly

  23. Paper accepted • Celebrate • Wait for the proofs (pdf) and respond quickly • Start the next paper!

More Related