Being A Good Writer & Reviewer · 2019-09-24 · Being A Good Writer & Reviewer John Mulhall MD MSc FECSM FACS Director, Sexual & Reproductive Medicine Program ... uStudy design,

Being A Good Writer & Reviewer

John Mulhall MD MSc FECSM FACS

Director, Sexual & Reproductive Medicine ProgramUrology Service, MSKCC

Editor-in-Chief, JSM

The 4 R’s of Scientific Publishing

uRelevant

uRigorous

uReproducible

uReadable

© 2019 John P. Mulhall MD

The 5 Sins in Scientific Publishing

uPlagiarism

uFalsification

uFabrication

uAuthorship manipulation

uFailure to declare conflicts of interest


Why do we Write Papers?uAdvance the field of sexual medicine

uIntroduce new therapies

uEstablish independence

uCollaboration

uInsight into own research via critique

uAdvance our career

uProof of one’s competence through peer review

uProof of proper spending of funding


Authorship

uNumber of authors – check journal policy

uFirst author criteria

uJoint first authors

uCorresponding author

uPromotion considerations

uMiddle author listing


Criteria for an Author?

uWhat type of contribution justifies authorship?

uConcept, Content, Critique substantial and direct

uSubstantial commitment: physical or intellectual

uAll authors must approve in writing


Sections of a PaperuTitle

uAbstract

uIntroduction

uMethods

uResults

uDiscussion

uReferences

uFigures/Tables


Title

uIdentifies the topic or message

uGrab the reader

uLength

uAccurate

uSpecific

uStyle: indicative vs informative vs question


AbstractuSkimming & dipping

uImportant – often only thing read – indexed in Pubmed

uMust make sense as stand alone piece

uBe specific but selective with information

uStructured abstract required by most journals

uSentence structure: short

uWord choice: simple

uMake it clear and concise


IntroductionuThe beginning of story – foundation for your question

uKeep short – setting the stage

uBrief review of background

uBrief review of deficiencies of current data

uFinish with clear statement of aim/objectives

uTips

- Do not answer the question- Do not include results- Do not include too much information


Introduction: Common Criticisms

uToo long

uInsufficient statement of problem

uStudy question not original

uIncomplete, inaccurate, outdated review of literature

uIncludes results


Methods

uStudy design, experimental design or protocol

uState, condition, or intervention studied

uSubjects

uDetailed methods for interventions and treatments

uTechniques, measurements and assays

uData analysis (Statistics)


Methods:The Dos

uDO: structure with subsections

uDO: ensure reader can reproduce study or experiments

uDO: use past tense

uDO: use ‘we’

uDO: Include technical references

uDO: include detailed statistical analysis section

uDO: avoid including results


Methods: Common Criticisms

uPoorly structured

uSection did not allow authors to test their hypothesis

uInappropriate study/experimental design

uIncomplete methods description

uSample population issues: power analysis

uInappropriate statistical analysis


Results

uAnswering your question

uClearly state the data

uStructure the section

uText and graphics need to complement each other

uNumber of graphics: strike a balance

uCorrect numbering and call-outs for graphics

uThe data is the data: do not be selective

uAvoid result interpretation here


DiscussionuState the answer to the question

uSupport it with your evidence

uPresent tense

uCite relevant literature – accurately

uGo to the source data

uCritique the literature

uCompare and contrast your data to others’

uDiscuss predictors (multivariable analysis)

uInterpret your data: postulate

uClinical implications

uStrengths and limitations


Conclusion

uTake home message

uBrief

uFocused

uImplications


Getting Started: Planning

uDo I have something to say?

uIs the paper worth writing?

uHave others already published such a paper?

uWhat is the correct format?

uWho is the best audience for this message?

uWhat is the right journal for the paper?

Adapted from Huth, 2nd ed. 1990© 2019 John P. Mulhall MD

Is this publishable?uInnovative?

uControversial?

uMethodologically sound?

uDoes it add to the field of sexual medicine?

uDoes it complement existing literature?

uIncremental data

uThe “so what” factor?


Choosing a JournaluAim high, but be realistic

uChoose the best audience

uImpact factor

uKnow your journals- Editorial process- Turnaround time- Stature- Readership- Society journals

uInstructions to authors- Word length- Abstract format- Reference format


Strategy for WritinguPaper outline

uNumerous drafts

uMake sure you use spell check

uGrammar

uEnglish language editor

uCo-author input – sign-off

uStop trying to write the perfect paper


NO NOs in Publishing

uThere is nothing more valuable in academics that your reputation

uMinimum unit fit for publicationuPlagiarism (including self-plagiarism)uDouble-publishinguFailure to acknowledge a contributoruFailure to acknowledge source of fundinguFailure to disclose conflicts of interest


Getting Better

uWrite, write, write!

uFind a writing mentor

uLiaise with peers

uMock reviews

uDo not take reviewer critiques personally

uRead: Gopen GD, Swan JA. American Scientist. 78:550-558, 1990 “The Science of Writing.”


Submitting a RevisionuDo not take comments personally

uBe civil and courteous in your responses

uMake the editor’s/reviewer’s task easier

uAddress comments in a letter

uHighlight changes (yellow) in the manuscript

uAddress EVERY reviewer comment

uBe selective when you disagree with a reviewer

uBe timely in your response letter


Why Review?

uLearning

uCommitment to our medical society

uAcademic advancement

uEnsuring best science gets published


Accept/Decline the Invitation?

uDo you have expertise in topic?

uDo you have interest in topic?

uDo you have COI?

uDo you have time?

uBeware of predatory journals?


Purpose

uTo ensure scientific rigor

uTo ensure question posed is answered (testable hypothesis)

uTo ensure authors are not over-selling the conclusions

uTo optimize data presentation

uTo make the paper the best it possibly can be


TasksuMake sure paper is within your area of expertise

uMake sure you are not conflicted

uDo the authors have COI? Failed to declare COI?

uMake sure paper is formatted correctly, written well

uIs the information novel? Confirmatory?

uReview every part of the paper (Title References)

uBe constructive

uChoose wording carefully

uDo not indicate your decision to the authors


Structure of Review

uComments to editor should be to the point

uComment to authors should be critical, balanced, fair and kind

uPlease number your points

uSingle point comments


Title

uDoes the title reflect the purpose and conclusions?

uIs the number of authors appropriate?

uAre key words present?

uIs a running header present?

uIs a funding statement present?


Abstract

uEnsure new JSM formatting is complied with

uPurpose of the abstract

u400 words - new sections

uFocus on Methods and Results

uDoes abstract stand alone and communicate the message(s)?


Introduction

uPurpose is to set the stage for why study has been done

uIt is not a section for a full review of the literature

uAre aims clearly stated? (testable hypothesis)

uLength


MethodsuFacilitates other investigators reproducing study

uEncourage authors to use sub-headers

uAre checklists completed? (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA etc)

uAre the methods/design appropriate?

uPower analysis

uValidated instrument use

uIs there a detailed statistics section?

uDo you recommend a statistics consult?


Results

uEncourage authors to use sub-headers

uPresent data – all the data

uAppropriate data presentation (means, medians etc)

uStatistically significant vs clinically meaningful (MCID)

uDuplication of text and tables/figures

uAppropriate call-outs (Table 1, Figure 1 etc)


Discussion

uIs the length appropriate? (original research vs review)

uRelevant literature cited and critiqued

uData compared and contrasted

uClinical implications presented?

uStrengths and limitations presented?

uFuture directions?


Conclusions

uTo the point - brevity – take home message

uAre the results/implications over-stated?


Tables/Figures/IllustrationsuJudicious use of tables/figures

uAre they readily understandable?

uAxes labeled?

uLegends informative?

uAbbreviations explained?

uStandard error bars?

uP values?

uAre photos of high quality?

uDo images look manipulated?


References

uAre they contemporary?

uDo they represent the literature in the area?

uIs there a lot of self-citation?


Communicating Your Decision

uReject, major revision, minor revision, accept

uYour comments to the editors need to justify your decision

uSummarize your concerns


Reviewing a Revised Paper

uYou might not see the revised paper

uFollow aforementioned guidelines

uMake sure authors addressed all your comments

uWhat if the authors address and disagree?

uTry not to introduce new suggestions on second review


Reviewer Assessment

uRead other reviewers’ comments

uTimeliness of review

uComprehensive nature of the review

uConstructive nature of the review

uExcellent scores – ‘Outstanding Reviewer’

uConsistently excellent scores – Editorial Board membership


Take Home Messages

uIf you review for our journals – THANK YOU!

uReviewing correctly takes time

uUse JSM template which is appended to your invitation

uBe constructive

uGood reviews = advancement


Being A Good Writer & Reviewer · 2019-09-24 · Being A Good Writer & Reviewer John Mulhall MD MSc FECSM FACS Director, Sexual & Reproductive Medicine Program ... uStudy design,

Documents