Writing for publication

1
Writing for publication

• Dr. Edwin van Teijlingen
• Dr. Padam Simkhada

2
Overview session

• Why?
• What?
• When?
• Where?
• Who?
• How?

3
Why?

• Tell people about your research findings.
• Tell people about your ideas or plans.
• Required by funders.
• Raise awareness about your research.
• Raise your profile (self promotion).
• Make some money.
• RAE
• Other ?

4
What to publish I?

• Research findings
• Research plans
• Insight into research methods
• Theoretical debate
• Overview of problem (lit. review)
• Review of book, report, software, etc.
• Opinion piece
• Lectures
• Policy review

5
Who is your audience?

• Academic
• General academic audience
• Specialists
• Lay
• Popular press
• Specialist / focused publications, professional
  journals.
• Policy makers
• (Short) reports

6
What? (some examples)

• Simkhada B. et al. (2006) Major problems key
  issues in Maternal Health in Nepal (Review),
  Kathmandu University Med J, 4 261-66.
• Simkhada P. et al. (2006) Importance of piloting
  a questionnaire on sexual health research,
  Wilderness Environmental Med J, 17 295-96.
• Teijlingen van, et al. (2007) Embarrassment as a
  key emotion in young people talking about sexual
  health, Sociol Res Online 12 (2) Web
  www.socresonline.org.uk/12/2/van_teijlingen.html

7
What type of publication?

• Academic articles
• Books
• Newsletters
• Reports
• Manuals
• Book chapters
• Newspaper articles
• Leaflets
• Posters
• Web
• Etc. ..

8
What to publish II?

• From same data / material you can publish in
  different formats and/or places not at same
  time.
• Findings overall
• Findings individual methods
• Sociological or health econ findings
• Paper for professional journal

9
What to publish III?

• Length short or long piece
• Style academic / lay
• Audience lay, mixed, academic, etc.
• Public health audience
• Clinical epidemiology
• Medical sociology
• Cancer clinicians
• Etc.
• Message academic / political

10
What to publish IV?

• Books
• Books are commercial projects Find publisher
  first.
• Edited books are hardest to complete, often
  experience delay.
• Books have higher status in humanities and social
  sciences.
• Apart from some text books, selling more than
  1,000 copies is rare.

11
When?

• When your study is finished?
• When there is a big debate about your field?
• When Government wants your report?
• When a journalist comes along?
• When you have a plan / idea?
• When you have comments on methods?
• When you have pilot data?
• When you have presented a conference paper?
• Etc.

12
Write early I

• You cant start writing early enough!
• It is only when presenting a study publicly that
  'flaws and problems appear' sometimes
  necessitating returning to the data. In other
  words, writing makes you think about your
  research and helps the analysis!

13
Write early II

• Until you have at least a rough draft there is no
  chance of improving it. Start there.
• No one other than yourself needs ever see your
  early drafts.
• (Wolcott 2001 183)

14
Write early, but ..I

• Dont announce how many articles you hope to
  produce from your thesis get busy and begin
  drafting one of them. (Wolcott 2001 171)
• If you dont publish immediately after your
  report/ thesis, you may get a new job, project,
  etc. etc.

15
Write early, but ..II

• Dont rush as some ideas need to mature.
  Perhaps more methodological papers, e.g.
• Teijlingen van, E. (2005) A critical analysis of
  the medical model as used in the study of
  pregnancy and childbirth, Sociological Research
  Online, 10 (2) Web address http//www.socresonlin
  e.org.uk/10/2/teijlingen.html

16
Conference paper

• Write up your conference papers!
• You had the initial idea / data
• You have prepared the presentation and abstract
• Hopefully, you had useful feedback from the
  conference audience.

17
Where to publish?

• Audience?
• To whom is your research most useful?
• Who will want to read it?
• Type of publication?
• Open access journals
• Book chapter
• University of Aberdeen web pages?
• Webpages funding body?
• International Journal of XXX? (prestige / impact
  factor)
• Appropriateness of particular journal
• Waiting time?

18
Publish a book review I

• Easy (first) publication for novice academic
  author.
• If you have to read the book for your study any
  way, why not write a short review about?
• Also some journals publish reviews of computer
  software (e.g. analysis packages).

19
Publish a book review II

• Follow review editors instructions, which vary
  from journal to journal!
• General advice on how to write a book review
  Teijlingen van, E. (2006) Book Editors Note for
  Novice Reviewers, Sociological Research Online
  see webpages http//www.socresonline.org.uk/info/
  Bookreviews.htmlvan2005

20
Who authorship?

• You
• Co-authors?
• Brit Med J advice on authorship.
• (http//bmj.bmjjournals.com/advice)
• Who has been involved in the study (the work),
  the analysis, the writing of the drafts, etc.

21
Writing is a skill

• Skills needed to write an article are
• Planning
• Critical thinking (in relation to content)
• Written communication / language
• Time management
• Motivation / stamina.

22
Select journal I
Academic journals differ in 1. Disciplinary
background 2. Readership 3. Type of articles
accepted 4. Quality of papers accepted 5.
Submission requirements.
23
Select journal II

• Submission requirements
• Word length (1,500-10,000 words paper journals),
  even shorter for letters to the editor.
• Layout
• Maximum number of named authors
• Maximum number of tables figures
• Style of referencing.

24
Planning
Select your target journal have strategy /
ranking What do you want to say? You are not
able to include everything you know. Structure
your paper! Who is most likely going to publish
it? What is word length? What is writing
style? How are references used (what style of
referencing)?
25
Dont tell everything you know!

• Your 3,000 word academic paper is not a summary
  of your thesis / dissertation / report!
• Stick to the word limit!
• Stick to one or two ideas in one paper.
• Write a coherent story!
• Stick to the point, be concise and precise.

26
Structure of paper I
Introduction / background
(200) Methods (300) Results
(800) Discussion (1,000) Conclusion
(500) Recommendations (200) References not
counted Tables / Figures / etc.
27
Drafting a paper
Stick to planned structure Write sections from
scratch. Dont try to condense your
thesis/report from 100,000 words to
3,000! Writing is a process, every draft is
(should be) an improvement on the previous
one. Research is science, writing is an
art. Check youre using correct style of
referencing
28
Writing is a process I

• Write in sections
• Start without thinking about grammar/style
• Edit your writing later
• Use your inspiration
• Make notes of ideas for later, e.g. things that
  dont fit your argument exactly, points that may
  end up in Discussion or Recommendations.
• Let others read your drafts.

29
Writing is a process II

• I write because I want to find something out. I
  write in order to learn something that I didnt
  know before I wrote itnot to write until I knew
  what I wanted to say, until my points were
  organized and outlinedthis static writing model
  coheres with mechanistic scientism and
  quantitative researchIt ignores the role of
  writing as a dynamic, creative process it
  undermines the confidence of beginning
  qualitative researchers because their experience
  with research is inconsistent with the writing
  model. (Richardson 1990)

30
Be critical!

• Which information is important?
• What does reader need to know in terms of
  background?
• Dont use what is irrelevant.
• Dont try to say too much in 2,500 words.
• Ask yourself Has the question I set myself in
  this paper been answered?

31
Writing rules I

• Eats, shoots and leaves / Eats shoots and leaves.
• UK versus USA English
• Commas are, arguably, hardest to place.
• Its, its / whose, whos / theirs, theres
• et al.

32
Writing rules II

• Dont start sentence with number. 45 said ..
  try Some 45 said.. OR Nearly half (45)
• Plurals The majority of men were was .
• Get names right
• E.g. Macdonald, McDonald or MacDonald
• Edwin van Teijlingen stated , BUT Paul Van
  Look stated AND Van Teijlingen was wrong to
  say

33
Writing style

• Logical, well reasoned argument
• Good use of grammar, punctuation, etc.
• Third person / passive Smith et al. said ...
• We argue that .
• Evidence-based / objective
• Theory-based / logical and convincing
• To the point / precise

34
Structure of a paper II

• Introduction
• Sets the scene, tell reader why your topic is
  relevant, important and worth reading.
• Identify issues on which your paper focuses.
• Refer to one or two papers published in the
  journal you are writing for.

35
Structure of a paper III

• Methods
• Briefly explain type(s) of methods used, e.g.
  qualitative, historical, quantitative, secondary
  analysis, mixed methods.
• Justification for choice of particular method or
  methods.
• Sampling frame / sampling technique
• Analysis method

36
Structure of a paper IV

• Findings
• Start with response rates
• Outline key findings.
• Focus on some key findings, note some papers
  stipulate maximum number of Tables, Figures
  Illustrations.

37
Structure of a paper V

• Discussion
• Highlight interesting results.
• Discuss your findings in light of existing
  literature on the topic ( give references).
• Highlight contradictory points.
• Discuss the strengths weaknesses of your
  particular study.

38
Structure of a paper VI

• Conclusion
• Conclude what comes out of your study as
  discussed in your Discussion.
• Avoid using (too many) references in your
  Conclusion.
• No news material in the Conclusion!
• Link back to title if you can!

39
Structure of a paper VII

• Recommendations
• Highlight recommendations that flow logically
  from your Discussion Conclusion.
• Recommendations can be research based,
  practice-based, education or training-based
  or policy-based

40
Structure of a paper VIII

• Abstract or Summary
• Summarises your paper, not your entire research!
• Write this last to ensure you cover the key
  points of the paper.
• Often structured in same way as paper.
• Maximum word length (250/ 300 words)

41
Structure of a paper IX

• References
• Find out journal style.
• Not all papers in the same journal have exactly
  the same style! Check several if you are looking
  for an example.

42
Structure of paragraphs
1st sentence Introduces subject /main idea of
that paragraph Subsequent sentences Develop
theme, include relevant examples, details,
evidence, quotations, references. Last sentence
Summary or leads into next paragraph
43
Reference styles I

• Harvard style
• Simkhada and Bhatta (2005) suggested that xxxx
  xxxx , whilst others disagreed with this idea
  (Smith 1999).
• Reference list in alphabetical order
• Simkhada, P., Bhatta, P. (2005) Interesting
  paper, Journal of Research. 34 (3) 234-241.
• Smith, A. (1999) Also interesting paper, Study of
  Nepal. 7 (1) 12-15.

44
Reference styles II

• Vancouver style
• Simkhada and colleagues suggested that xxxx
  xxxx,1 whilst others disagreed with this idea.2
• Reference list in numerical order
• 1. Simkhada, P., Bhatta, P. Interesting paper,
  Journal of Research. 2005 34 (3) 234-241.
• 2. Smith, A. Also interesting paper, Study of
  Nepal. 1999 7 (1) 12-15.

45
Submitting your paper I

• Time consuming
• Check spelling / tables/ references /etc.
• Now often electronically
• Read author instructions
• Some journals screen on length / reference style
  / line spacing.

46
Submitting your paper II

• Contents of cover letter why should editor
  consider your brilliant, stimulating, unique
  piece of work? NB If you cant get passed the
  editor you will not get into the journal!
• Some journals ask you for names and addresses of
  potential referees.
• Some ask you even for ones that you dont want to
  review your paper.

47
Before submission

• Read paper one more time
• Ask colleague / friend to read and to be critical
• Check submission details for journal (No. copies/
  electronic)
• Check cover letter for style grammar!

48
Editors role

• Four hurdles!
• 1. Screen for appropriateness!
• 2. Reviewers
• 3. Editors assessment of reviews
• 4. Editorial board on overall fit amongst other
  well reviewed papers!

49
Peer review I

• Some papers ask you to summit details of four or
  five possible reviewers. Some also ask you who
  you dont want!
• In limited field you can get same reviewer(s)
  when resubmitting to different journal, but often
  you dont know.

50
Peer review II

• Editors will ask their own reviewers! E.g.
  recent request
• We hope you will help us with suggestions for
  reviewers and/or agree to review a paper which
  was submitted for possible publication in the
  journal ..  By way of explanation your name was
  in the References for the paper.

51
Peer review III

• If paper is appropriate for the journal good
  enough on quick reading (probably just the
  abstract it will get peer-reviewed).
• This means editor will send it out for review to
  two or more (anonymous) reviewers.
• Peer review takes time, be patient!

52
After peer review I

• If reviewers consider your paper worthwhile you
  might be
• 1. accepted (very rare)
• 2. asked to resubmit (very common)
• 3. rejected outright.
• Expect about 3 months for editors verdict on
  your paper.

53
After peer review II

• Being asked to resubmit is not a rejection!
• I am very sorry to tell you that we are unable to
  publish your article. The decision was based
  largely upon the findings of reviewers which are
  included at the bottom of this letter.
• However, a new manuscript may be submitted which
  takes into consideration these comments.
• Please note that resubmitting your manuscript
  does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that
  your resubmission will be subject to review by
  the reviewer(s) before a decision is rendered.

54
On resubmission I

• If reviewers have been relatively helpful and you
  have been able to incorporate their suggestions,
  resubmit your paper with a cover letter outlining
  changes you have made in response to reviewers
  and which comments made by reviewers were
  inappropriate and therefore did not lead to
  changes in the text.

55
On resubmission II

• However, keep cover letter to the point. E.g.
  combine similar comments from different reviewers
  into one reply!
• Perhaps how not to do it
• Author's response to reviews for paper Does a
  referral from home to hospital affect
  satisfaction with childbirth? A cross-Title
  national comparison, Version 2 Date 19 April
  2007
• http//www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/15190040501405
  84_comment.pdf

56
On rejection

• If reviewers have been negative, but helpful
  consider submitting elsewhere. Swallow your
  pride! Some journals, e.g. BMJ have a very high
  rejection rate (currently about 90).
• Some editors will suggest more appropriate
  journals for your type of paper.
• Consider appeal?

57
Publication expect delays!
2003 study 2004 submitted 2005 revised 2006
accepted 2007 published
58
On publication

• Tell your colleagues, family friends.
• Put details of new publication on your
  institutions web pages your CV.
• Check journal for letters to the editor in reply
  to your paper, and reply to those if appropriate.
• Start planning the next publication!

59
References

• Pitchforth E et al. (2005) Writing up and
  presenting qualitative research in family
  planning reproductive health care, J. Fam Plann
  Reprod Health Care 31 132-135.
• Richardson L. (1990) Writing Strategies reaching
  diverse audiences Newbury Park, Cal. SAGE
  Publications.
• Trask, R.L. (2002) Mind the Gaffe The Penguin
  guide to common errors in English, London
  Penguin Books
• Truss, L. (2003) Eats, shoots leaves The zero
  tolerance approach to punctuation. London
  Profile Books
• Turabian KL (2007) A manual for writers of
  research papers, theses dissertations (7th
  edn), revised by W.C. Booth et al. (eds.)
  University of Chicago Press.
• Wolcott, H.F. (2001) Writing up qualitative
  research (2nd Edn), London Sage.