Writing and Writing and Publishing in the Publishing in the

Scientific LiteratureScientific Literature

Mark Parascandola, PhD, MPHEpidemiologistTobacco Control Research BranchUS National Cancer Instituteparamark@mail.nih.gov

Format of Scientific PaperFormat of Scientific Paper

TitleTitle--subject and what aspect of the subject was studied. --subject and what aspect of the subject was studied.

AbstractAbstract--summary of paper: The main reason for the study, --summary of paper: The main reason for the study, the primary results, the main conclusions the primary results, the main conclusions

IntroductionIntroduction--why the study was undertaken --why the study was undertaken

MethodsMethods--how the study was undertaken --how the study was undertaken

ResultsResults--what was found --what was found

DiscussionDiscussion--why these results could be significant (what the --why these results could be significant (what the reasons might be for the patterns found or not found)reasons might be for the patterns found or not found)

IntroductionIntroduction

Catchy opening sentence Catchy opening sentence Keep it shortKeep it short Review literature (selectively)Review literature (selectively) Justify your study based on above Justify your study based on above

(why is your study needed?)(why is your study needed?) End with sharp focus: hypothesis, End with sharp focus: hypothesis,

question question

Methods SectionMethods Section Participants and Recruitment – who is being interviewed/surveyed and Participants and Recruitment – who is being interviewed/surveyed and

how did you find them?how did you find them? Include sampling procedureInclude sampling procedure Sample size calculationsSample size calculations

Protocol – what is the study design? Protocol – what is the study design? Explain study design – focus group interviews, cross-sectional survey, case-control Explain study design – focus group interviews, cross-sectional survey, case-control

study, randomized experimental study study, randomized experimental study

Measures – what did you measure and how? Measures – what did you measure and how? State the exact questions you asked in survey (how did you determine whether State the exact questions you asked in survey (how did you determine whether

someone is a smoker?)someone is a smoker?)

Analysis – what methods were used to analyze the dataAnalysis – what methods were used to analyze the data Include description of statistical methods and software packages used or coding Include description of statistical methods and software packages used or coding

procedures in qualitative studyprocedures in qualitative study

Methods SectionMethods SectionHow much detail is needed? How much detail is needed? Enough to permit replication; or to assess Enough to permit replication; or to assess validity of findings and quality of studyvalidity of findings and quality of study

Could someone else read your methods section Could someone else read your methods section and repeat your study?and repeat your study?

Methods section should not just tell reader Methods section should not just tell reader what technique you used, but give them what technique you used, but give them enough information to understand how you enough information to understand how you did itdid itBetter to provide more detail here than lessBetter to provide more detail here than less

Example: Example: U.S. Hookah Tobacco Smoking U.S. Hookah Tobacco Smoking Establishments Advertised on the InternetEstablishments Advertised on the Internet

In June 2009, two members of the team searched google.com, In June 2009, two members of the team searched google.com, yahoo.com, and bing.com, because at that time these three yahoo.com, and bing.com, because at that time these three search engines accounted for more than 95% of all U.S. search engines accounted for more than 95% of all U.S. searches.searches.

Specific search terms included hookah, hookah bars , and Specific search terms included hookah, hookah bars , and hookah lounges. These searches were deemed sufficiently hookah lounges. These searches were deemed sufficiently comprehensive after additional similar terms did not yield comprehensive after additional similar terms did not yield further sites that met criteria.further sites that met criteria.

Both researchers conducted an individual search and recorded Both researchers conducted an individual search and recorded the first 20 results found for each term and each search engine.the first 20 results found for each term and each search engine.

This yielded 771 hookah tobacco smoking establishments, of This yielded 771 hookah tobacco smoking establishments, of which 367 were associated with web links.which 367 were associated with web links.

Example: Example: Associations between hookah tobacco Associations between hookah tobacco smoking knowledge and hookah smoking behavior smoking knowledge and hookah smoking behavior

among US college studentsamong US college students

First Question: ‘Have you ever smoked tobacco from a First Question: ‘Have you ever smoked tobacco from a hookah, even a puff ?’ (Yes/No)hookah, even a puff ?’ (Yes/No)

Those who responded ‘yes’ then received the question, Those who responded ‘yes’ then received the question, ‘Have you smoked tobacco from a hookah in the past year, ‘Have you smoked tobacco from a hookah in the past year, even a puff ?’ (Yes/No) even a puff ?’ (Yes/No)

Those who responded ‘yes’ to this item were asked, ‘Within Those who responded ‘yes’ to this item were asked, ‘Within the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke tobacco the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke tobacco from a hookah?’ Response choices were none; 1–2 days; 3–from a hookah?’ Response choices were none; 1–2 days; 3–5 days; 6–10 days; 11–20 days and 21–30 days. 5 days; 6–10 days; 11–20 days and 21–30 days.

Our primary outcome was current smoking of hookah Our primary outcome was current smoking of hookah tobacco, defined as having smoked at least 1 day in the past tobacco, defined as having smoked at least 1 day in the past 30 days.30 days.

ResultsResults

Separate results from methods & discussionSeparate results from methods & discussion Report results in clear, Report results in clear, orderlyorderly fashion fashion Organization of results should be consistent Organization of results should be consistent

with methods sectionwith methods section If results report attitudes about smoking, methods If results report attitudes about smoking, methods

should describe how attitudes were measuredshould describe how attitudes were measured Show your dataShow your data

Show what you found, don’t just say itShow what you found, don’t just say it

Discussion/ConclusionDiscussion/Conclusion

Explain what results Explain what results meanmean Place results in perspective (other Place results in perspective (other

studies)studies) Describe limitations Describe limitations Restrict interpretation to these resultsRestrict interpretation to these results Implications for policy or research Implications for policy or research Don’tDon’t conclude “more research needed” conclude “more research needed”

Discussion SectionDiscussion Section Summary of key findingsSummary of key findings

What is ‘take home’ message?What is ‘take home’ message?

Put the results in contextPut the results in context What have other studies found? How do your results compare (similar What have other studies found? How do your results compare (similar

or different?)or different?) What do your findings add that is new?What do your findings add that is new? Is there other research that might help explain your findings?Is there other research that might help explain your findings?

Acknowledge limitations Acknowledge limitations Recommendations or Next Steps?Recommendations or Next Steps?

Are there any recommendations that follow from your findings? What Are there any recommendations that follow from your findings? What specific follow up studies would you propose? specific follow up studies would you propose?

BMJ: What This Paper AddsBMJ: What This Paper Adds What is already known on the subject?What is already known on the subject?

What do we know currently about the topic? What do we know currently about the topic? What gaps exist (what do we not know) What gaps exist (what do we not know) Why is this specific research project needed? (what do we need to Why is this specific research project needed? (what do we need to

know)know)

What does this study add?What does this study add? What do we know as a result of this study that we did not know What do we know as a result of this study that we did not know

before? before?

British Medical Journal Instructions for Authors

Paper Writing ResourcesPaper Writing Resources

The Publication ProcessThe Publication Process

Decision making by editorial Decision making by editorial boardboard

Reject without reviewReject without review Send out for reviewSend out for review Offer to reconsider as brief or letterOffer to reconsider as brief or letter Reject and resubmitReject and resubmit (reviewed papers): Revise & Resubmit(reviewed papers): Revise & Resubmit Reject after review(s)Reject after review(s) ACCEPT!!ACCEPT!!

But what are editors looking for? But what are editors looking for? What’s known about this issue?What’s known about this issue? What does this paper add?What does this paper add? So what? Who cares? Does it matter?So what? Who cares? Does it matter? International implications?International implications? Originality? Originality? Interesting!Interesting! Link to contemporary topics/debatesLink to contemporary topics/debates Likely press/media interest?Likely press/media interest?

Submission “Rules”Submission “Rules”

One journal at a timeOne journal at a time Disclose/cite/send copies of any Disclose/cite/send copies of any

related publications/submissionsrelated publications/submissions May recommend reviewers Y/NMay recommend reviewers Y/N Always disclose funding, COIAlways disclose funding, COI PlagiarismPlagiarism Credit and build on work of othersCredit and build on work of others

Nobel prize work rejected..Nobel prize work rejected.. Have referees rejected some of the most-Have referees rejected some of the most-

cited articles of all times? Journal of the cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences American Society for Information Sciences 1996, 47: 302-10. 1996, 47: 302-10.

Commentary on influential books and journal Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations . Science referees' evaluations . Science Communication 1995;16:304-25. Communication 1995;16:304-25.

Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly hard to publish papers that are later highly cited. Social Studies of Science 1993; 23: cited. Social Studies of Science 1993; 23: 342-62. 342-62.

Why papers are ACCEPTEDWhy papers are ACCEPTED

Well done, well written, well referencedWell done, well written, well referenced Adds something new to the field; raises Adds something new to the field; raises

new questions or fresh viewpointnew questions or fresh viewpoint Likely to be highly cited and of interest to Likely to be highly cited and of interest to

media and/or other researchersmedia and/or other researchers Of interest beyond just one country, or has Of interest beyond just one country, or has

application or relevance to issues in other application or relevance to issues in other countriescountries

Gets editors excitedGets editors excited

Why papers are rejectedWhy papers are rejected1. General1. General

Issue not important, boring, “so what?”Issue not important, boring, “so what?” Not originalNot original Too parochial, not interesting for Too parochial, not interesting for

international readershipinternational readership Not appropriate for journalNot appropriate for journal Data old & now irrelevantData old & now irrelevant

Why papers are rejectedWhy papers are rejected2. Scientific2. Scientific

Unclear hypothesesUnclear hypotheses Poor or weak designPoor or weak design Sample biased or too smallSample biased or too small Statistics inappropriate or misappliedStatistics inappropriate or misapplied Conclusions unjustifiedConclusions unjustified Causal conclusions from cross-sectional Causal conclusions from cross-sectional

datadata References outdated/authors not up with References outdated/authors not up with

current debatecurrent debate

Why papers are rejectedWhy papers are rejected3. Presentation/style3. Presentation/style

Poorly organizedPoorly organized Badly writtenBadly written Careless errorsCareless errors Terrible, multiple tablesTerrible, multiple tables Needless/endless figuresNeedless/endless figures Outdated or improperly cited Outdated or improperly cited

referencesreferences

Keep it short Keep it short

Make it “lean and mean” -- make every Make it “lean and mean” -- make every word justify its existenceword justify its existence

Check word limit; do word countCheck word limit; do word count Even if o.k., shorter is (almost) always Even if o.k., shorter is (almost) always

betterbetter Cut all extra words, phrases, Cut all extra words, phrases,

paragraphsparagraphs Prune, whittle, cutPrune, whittle, cut

Journals need papers!

Global community is interested Everyone—even major researchers—gets

rejected If at first you don’t succeed, try again! Review the literature and get to know what

journals are publishing

Journals that Publish Journals that Publish Tobacco Control PapersTobacco Control Papers

Tobacco Control Tobacco Control Journal of Nicotine and Tobacco ResearchJournal of Nicotine and Tobacco Research American Journal of Public HealthAmerican Journal of Public Health Asia Pacific Journal of Cancer PreventionAsia Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention PLOS OnePLOS One Cancer Causes and ControlCancer Causes and Control

Questions