Download - How to get research published, and what journals look for Dr Trish Groves Deputy editor, BMJ
How to get research published, and what journals
look for
Dr Trish GrovesDeputy editor, BMJ
What I aim to cover
Planning research The research questionWhy you need to publishWhat editors wantHow to write a paperUseful resourcesPublication ethicsHow to please editors and peer reviewers
Why conduct and publish research?
say something important share your workchange practicepromote thought or debateeducateget into high impact journaladvance your career Keep your jobmake moneyentertain/divert/amuse
Steps in starting research
turn your ideas into a research questionreview the literatureenlist coauthors, statistician, supervisor agree who’ll do whatdesign the study and develop your methodsthink about the ethics of your study designwrite your research proposalapply for funding and ethics approval
The research question
What is a research question?
The researcher asks a very specific question and tests a specific hypothesis. Broad questions are usually broken into smaller, testable hypotheses or questions.
Often called an objective or aim, though calling it a question tends to help with focusing the hypothesis and thinking about how to find an answer
What makes a poor research question?
a question that matters to nobody, even you
hoping one emerges from routine clinical data/records– the records will be biased and confounded– they’ll lack information you need to answer your
question reliably, because they were collected for another reason
fishing expedition/data dredging – gathering new dataand hoping a question will emerge
How to focus your question
brief literature search for previous evidence
discuss with colleagues
narrow down the question – time, place, group
what answer do you expect to find?
Turning a research question into a proposal
who am I collecting information from?what kinds of information do I need?how much information will I need? *how will I use the information?how will I minimise chance/bias/confounding?how will I collect the information ethically?
* sample size – ask a statistician for helphttp://www.bmj.com/collections/statsbk/13.dtl
Minimising bias and confounding
Chance - measurements are nearly always subject to randomvariation. Minimise error by ensuring adequate sample size andusing statistical analysis of the play of chance
Bias - caused by systematic variation/error in selecting patients,measuring outcomes, analysing data – take extra care
Confounding - factors that affect the interpretation of outcomeseg people who carry matches are more likely to develop lungcancer, but smoking is the confounding factor – so measure likelyconfounders too
Ethical issues – the wider aspects
• what information will you give participants beforeseeking their consent?• how much will the study deviate from currentnormal (accepted, local) clinical practice?• what full burden will be imposed on participants?• what risks will participants/others be exposed to?• what benefit might participants or others receive? • how might society/future patients benefit in time?• might publication reveal patients’ identities?
Exactly what are you planning to do?
PICO/PECO
P - who are the Patients or what’s the Problem?
I or E - what is the Intervention or Exposure?
C – what is the Comparison group?O - what is the Outcome or endpoint?
Study designs
Descriptive studies answer “what’s happening?” research questionsAnalytic observational studies answer “why or how is it happening?”Analytic experimental studies answer “can it work?”
Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, UK www.cebm.net
Who will do what?
agree authorship before starting the study!
Authorship and contributorship
these denote credit and accountability
but many authors on papers have done little
people’s names are left off papers
authors do not know the authorship criteria
contributorship statement more inclusive
Authorship
Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contribution to:
• conception and design, or data analysis and interpretation
• drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content
• and final approval of the version to be published All these conditions must be met. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the
collection of data does not justify authorship. All authors included on a paper must fulfil the criteria No one who fulfils the criteria should be excluded
Contributorship
contributors (not all necessarily authors) who took partin planning, conducting, and reporting the work
guarantors (one or more) who accept fullresponsibility for the work and/or the conduct of thestudy, had access to the data, and controlled thedecision to publish
researchers must decide among themselves the precise
nature of each contribution
Who did what?
Helen C Eborall, post-doctoral research fellow1, Simon J Griffin, programme leader2, A Toby Prevost, medical statistician1, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, professor of general practice1, David P French, reader in health behaviour interventions3, Stephen Sutton, professor of behavioural science1
Contributors: SS, DPF, ATP, A-LK, and SJG conceived and designed the original protocol. All authors were involved in amending the protocol. HCE coordinated the study throughout. Data entry was carried out by Wyman Dillon Ltd, Lewis Moore, and HCE. HCE cleaned the data and ran preliminary analysis with input from Tom Fanshawe. ATP analysed the data. ADDITION trial data were supplied by Lincoln Sargeant and Kate Williams. HCE wrote the first draft of the manuscript with ATP and SS. All authors contributed to subsequent and final drafts. HCE is guarantor of the paper.
Writing a research paper
General guidance on writing papers
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals
http://www.icmje.org/ reporting guidelines for research, at the
EQUATOR network resource centre
http://www.equator-network.org/
More on study methods and reporting
Centre for Evidence Based Medicinehttp://www.cebm.net/
Statistics at Square Onehttp://www.bmj.com/collections/statsbk/index.dtl
BMJ advice to authorshttp://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors
Writing a paper1. The message
What…is the research question?…is the right article format for your
study?…does the audience need to know?
Writing a paper2. IMRaD
Introduction: why ask this research question?Methods: what did I do?Results: what did I find?Discussion: what might it mean?
Writing a paper3. The introduction
brief background for this audience3-4 paragraphs onlywhat’s known, and what’s not, about your research
questiondon’t bore readers, editors, reviewersdon’t boast about how much you have read
the research questionstate it clearly in the last paragraph of the introductionsay why it matters
Writing a paper4. Methods
like a recipemost important section for informed readersdescribe:
inclusion and exclusion criteriaoutcome measuresintervention or exposure
give references for standard methods follow reporting guidelines as explained at(http://www.equator-network.org/ explain ethics issues
Writing a paper5. Results
include basic descriptive datatext for story, tables for evidence, figures for
highlightsconfidence intervalsessential summary statisticsleave out non-essential tables and figuresdon’t start discussion here
Writing a paper6. Structured discussion
don’t simply repeat the introductioninclude
– statement of principal findings – strengths and weaknesses of the study – strengths and weaknesses in relation to other
studies (especially systematic reviews), and key differences
– meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and implications for clinicians or policymakers
– unanswered questions and future research
go easy on the last two
Abstract: general rules
important
all authors mustapprove it
editors may screen by
abstract
for BMJ:
usually 300-400 words use active voice p values need data too%s need denominatorsno referencestrial registration details
Structured abstractobjectives - research question
design –prospective, randomised, placebo controlled, case control, etc
setting – primary or secondary care? number of centres, country
participants – entry and exclusion criteria, numbers entering andcompleting the study, sex, ethnic group as appropriate
interventions - what, how, when and for how long
main outcome measures - those planned, those finally measured
results - main results, 95% confidence intervals, statistical significance,number need to treat/harm
conclusions – primary conclusions, implications; don’t go beyond data
trial registration - registry and number (only for clinical trials)
How to please editors and reviewers
How to please editors and peer reviewers
make sure the message is clear in the paper andabstract, not just in the cover letter
include extras eg STROBE checklistcite (and send) any closely related paperssend previous peer review reports
communicate clearly and promptly