marietjie van rooyen stewart mennin writing papers that get published © s. mennin & m. van...

Marietjie van Rooyen Stewart Mennin

Writing Papers that Get Published

© S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Programme

What worksProblems encountered/anticipated

getting published?What makes a good paper?Reasons for rejection / acceptanceWriting Skills & StyleGuidelinesAuthorshipConflicts of interest & Ethics


TASK 1:Discuss in Groups Summarize on Flip Chart (15 min)

What works (has worked) for you?What problems do you (have you)

encountered?


What makes a good paper?


Journal criteria

Relevance Rigour

Originality Importance

Written well Ethically sound

Timely Interesting© S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Common problemsFinding time How to writeForest & treesNot sure what good writing is Writer’s block

‘Perfect first sentence’ syndromeReview processRejection


Critical appraisal: Ask and answer at least the following questions:

Who was this written for?What is the author trying to achieve &

why?What did they do? Why did they do it that

way?What did they find?So what?

Equally important: ask others!© S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

What makes a paper publishable?

What Do Editors & Reviewers Say?


Quality Six Criteria

1. Critical literature review2. Conceptual or theoretical

framework3. Explicit statement of study intent4. Explicit statement of study

design5. Definitions of all interventions6. Human subjects’ rights

(Cook, Beckman & Bordage, Med Ed 2007)


The Editors Look to See if

Is the paper in journal style?Is relevant to journal’s mission?Been published before?- Where?Pass the So What test?


Key Question for ReviewersDid you learn something?Clear conceptual frameworkMethods clearConsistent analysis Discussion

Summarize findings & relevanceAcknowledge limitations -method & conclusions


Reasons Papers Are Rejected


Decisions on manuscripts to Medical Education (2007)

Total number = 1185Reject 52%Accept 23%


Reasons for Rejection

INTEREST, ORIGINALITY, AND IMPORTANCE

Topic & results not interesting for general readers

Doesn’t add anything new to literature

Not confident in validity of the message

Findings difficult to generalise– too specific to locality or organisation


Methods

The research question not stated clearly The methods not described clearly Methods don’t match research question Confounding variables, bias, insufficient

statistical power Response rate too low

Non-response bias Not sufficiently evidence based Conclusions not justified by the data© S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

OTHER

We do not generally publish this type of paper

More suitable for a general journalMore suitable for a specialist journal


Most commonly (this year)

Work doesn’t advance understanding in fieldWriting trick: Don’t emphasize or mention local context until methods section

Outcome measures are weak (e.g., only satisfaction ratings, non representative sample)© S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

If asked to reviseDo it quicklySpecifically indicate what changes made

& exactly where they are in mansript

Rejected—happens to everyone--don’t give up!

Consider a different journal? Different format?


•Authorship•Duplicate publication•Conflicts of interest•Ethics

Some big issues in publication


Decide early about authorship


Conception & design, or analysis and interpretation

Drafting or revising article critically for important intellectual content

Final approval of the version to be published

Authorship based on


Not sufficient to justify authorship:

Gift, ghost or guest authorshipParticipation solely in acquisition of funding or data collection; general supervision; being head of department etc.

Many journals now ask for a statement about relative contributions


Ethical Issues

Most (if not all) journals require a statement about ethical approvalWhether soughtIf not, why not

Some grey areasConsentOriginal purpose of dataPossibility of identification of subjects‘Evaluation’ versus ‘research’

Committee On Publication Ethicswww.publicationethics.org.uk


Guidelines for Writing Articles That Get Published


“I didn’t have time to write a short paper, so I wrote a long one”

(Unknown)© S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Suggestions

KISS -Keep It Short & SimpleUse active rather than passive voice‘We did’ rather than ‘It was done’

Be positive rather than negative‘Usually late’ rather than ‘Not on time’

Prefer simple words and short sentences

Avoid needless words‘Vast majority’ versus ‘Majority’© S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Compare‘Examples are described which demonstrate that in normal individuals the lowest concentration in which sucrose can be detected by means of gustation differs from the lowest concentration in which sucrose (in the amount employed) has to be ingested in order to produce a demonstrable decrease in olfactory acuity and a noteworthy conversion of sensations interpreted as a satiety associated with ingestion of food.’


With-

‘Experiments are described which show that normal people can taste sugar in water in quantities not strong enough to interfere with their sense of smell or take away their appetite.’


Selection of Journal

Decide on your target audienceResearchers? Teachers? Specialty?

International?

FactorsDoes journal publish this type of article?Acceptance & turnaround ratesEase of acceptanceImpact Factor of journal


Suggested Writing Sequence

Research QuestionsMethodsResultsDiscussionIntroductionAbstract© S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

Research QuestionsWritten before project beginsChanges as project unfolds


Introduction: Engage, Frame & Contextualize

What we know (literature review)What we don’t know What are research questionsWhy we did this studyProvide conceptual framework


Methods

What we didEnough detail to allow replicationFlows from Intro to Results

Be specific InstrumentsSamplingComparisonsProcedureAnalysis


ResultsDescribe who-what was studied

What was foundDescriptiveNarrativeRelational

Numbers, Tables, Figures etcAvoid introducing interpretation and discussion


DiscussionWhat was shown?

Start with brief and clear synopsisLink your work to literature

Significance What does it add to our understanding?

Link back to Aims/Research Qs


DiscussionAvoid reiteration of ResultsSimilarities and differences with other studies

Address limitationsNext steps?


Writing is about editing

‘Get others to read an advanced draftSpecialists’ & people who don’t know much about the subjectListen to them

Spell checkThen check again!

First & last sentences of paragraph


The Title?Important part of the paper

Catchy and descriptiveDifferent styles for different

journals:DeclarativeDependent variable, dependent

variable, interventionPose/answer a question


SummaryRelevantInterestingGrounded in literatureClear succinct writingPeer review AuthorshipEthicsIt’s about editingWriting gets better with Practice and

feedback© S. Mennin & M. van Rooyen, 2009

marietjie van rooyen stewart mennin writing papers that get published © s. mennin & m. van...

Documents