Criteria for good scientific writing

1. Criteria for good scientific writing Elina Hemminki STAKES National Research and Development center for Welfare and Health First joint seminar of Research Schools in Public Health on Scientific writing and global determinants of health Lammi 13-14 Sept. 2008

2. Outline 15.15- 15.45 EH - how the next 2.5. hours are structured - general on scientific articles as part of research and PhD degree 15.45-16.15 EH - structure of an article and common problems - abstract, structure, common problems - use of references - writing process 16.15-17.00 MP - common problems in the structure - typical language problems 17.1-17.15 group work on….MP 17.15.18.00 dinner 18.00-18.30 feed-back from the group work

3. General: scientific articles as part of research "Everyone has to write and publish, but no one has time to read" (Carol Norris 2008) Selling your writing, understanding the business of publishing

4. Publishing and interests • Getting knowledge >< letting others to know • Transferring results to other researchers has been a key of academic research • Getting knowledge: commercial and military research. • Transferring information: traditionally publishing ("so detail that others can repeat/ check the quality") • More complicated: 1) in academic research also other interests to publish, 2) other ways of transferring results

5. Other interests than transferring information to other researchers • personal merits (researcher career, China!) • institutional merits (what has been made) • feed-back to financers (what the money has been used for) • payment for work (compensation with money would collapse the system) • publishers' interests (big business): not same as research world (what sells, what interests (impact factors) • establishment's interests (e.g. specialist associations, science associations).: advancement of their case

6. Different interest groups: simplified • researchers: their results published in the form they prefer, quickly, without costs, for wide audience • institutions: -"- , in a respected forum • gate-keepers: protect science + censor dissident or competing papers • publishers: selection by content and form, useful for their purposes (e. case of CMJ: owners' interests threatened by articles published); varies who is the publisher

7. Variation • Policies of the journals vary • Some rules and practices apply to most journals • Always study the journal pages, and if possible, consult others

8. Biomedicine divided group work writing = reporting facts impersonal short papers valued speed: being first commercial aspects open libraries, early IT-use many researchers Social sciences individual/ joint writing = the work style personal books valued final outcome - commercial publishers few Group and publishing, traditions

9. Biomedical journals have been active Editors of major medical journals have been initiators / facilitators of many major changes in research reporting, including • authorship • registration of research /publication bias, all results published) • ethics pre-review • open access publishing

10. Additional information • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) www.icmje.orgns Vancouver-rules • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) www.publicationethics.org.uk

11. Changes in publishing, e.g. Escalating number of researchers, projects and journals Escalating costs of journals Changes in reporting requirements (space) Changes in primary audience New technology (especially internet) --> open access journals --> "blogs", own publishing/ institute series in web Referee burn-out

12. Typical process, as it still often is Writing the report; decision of language Selection of journal; journal format Language check if not your native language A. Sending the article • used to be a letter, several copies • web-Based, Scholar-one etc, note: fire-walls and disappearance Immediate response: thank you, thank you no (editors, on the basis of topic usually) Referee round: searching referees, getting their acceptance, getting their reports, getting good reports Editor's decision (via associate editors): yes, modify, no New submission, same or different journal, starts from A

13. Choice of journal "Choice of journal: most difficult part of (interdisciplinary) research" How to find: • studies cited, their reference lists, Medline: related articles • Medline (Pubmed) journals database; EBSCO • potential journals: study previous issues, read advice to authors, read advice to referees • asking others, learning from own experiences • journal citation index • costs (open access)

14. Peer review process • The key of scientific publishing • Editors, groups to think of: owners, scientific community, authors, (advertisers), referees • Review work: without payment; competition of good referees, overloaded • --> keeping them well, avoiding too much work

15. Editor's typical process Receiving an article (processes depend on the size etc. of the journal); usually web-based Immediate response: • thank you no (on the basis of topic usually); big journals • thank you, will go to editors' consideration • thank you, searching referees, Finding referees, getting their reports, getting good reports Editor's decision: yes, modify, no, (more categories usually) Revised versions, their handling, with or without referees

16. Editors' experiences • Too many articles • Too many (potentially) good articles • Too many half finished papers • All authors do not read instructions • Some think they have "subjective right" if their paper is good (or think it is good) • Finding referees may be hard (reputation of the journal) and is getting harder • Have to think impact on citation index

17. Rejection • Common reason: better articles, wrong journal • Not indication of the quality of the paper itself • Standard papers safer to accept than novel ones (referees) • Balance between unfair rejection and extra work of revisions • NJEM accepts 1.5%, SJPH ~30%, i.e. most are rejected at least once

18. Rejection, what to do • No protest (usually); no subjective right • Read the comments, if any: useful? • Correct selectively • Think: was it the right journal? • Consult your co-authors, colleagues • Try again… and again (iron paper)

19. Revision to same journal read the cover letter (how near acceptance the paper is) • take everything seriously • show the changes, answer the comments (need not to repeat the new text but indicate what has been made and where) • often the same referees are used (my experience "could less care") • what service from the journal in editing?

20. Revision to other journal • Does the paper need revision? The new journal may have different views. • Look at the comments received critically • Change the format if needed

21. Still: • above: play • still: good writing helps • saddest: good research, poor writing • (trash in a nice package: dangerous; not usually student problem)

22. Structure of an article • Look at the journal you think of • In biomedical field, usually straight forward and easy for empirical studies • Difficulties in other type of articles, e.g. editorials, analysis, clinical review, practice, case reports, letters, personal view

23. Structure of an article 2 Note: referees and readers are unlikely to read your report in the order you write them My usual order: • summary conclusions • summary methods • tables/ figures • methods (main characteristics) • the rest --> readers do not have the information in the other sections

24. Typical structure • title page • abstract, key-words • introduction • methods (with sub-headings) • results • discussion/ conclusions • additional things: acknowledgements, appendix, boxes • note: possibilities provided by electronic version/ electronic only

25. Common problems • Underestimation of the Abstract • Introduction too long and loose, too wordy, too many side-issues ("gradu style"); • Not searching previous literature well, not integrated to own study findings • Purpose of the study/ article not clear or not consistent with rest of the paper • Statistical methods either too superficial or filled with details ("lay-language"); not appreciating the multi-professionalism of readers (in public health)

26. Common problems 2 • Tables and figures not possible to read independently, technical skill getting worse? (computer production) • Distinction between Methods and Results • Distinction between Results and Discussion (new results in D, comments in R) • Main message not clear, around (see BMJ Boxes what was known before, what after)

27. Common problems 3 • "Finns tend to view their readers as informed colleagues who will work hard to understand a text" (Carol Norris 2008)

28. Abstract structure • Varies from a journal to another --> study the advice/ journal • Most important part of the article --> put time and thinking • Most readers read only the abstract/ decide about further reading on its basis

29. Abstract structure, BMJ • ensure that the structured abstract is as complete, accurate, and clear as possible • but not unnecessarily long • and has been approved by all authors. • We may screen original research articles by reading only the abstract. • For randomised controlled trials please provide all the information required for a CONSORT style abstract.

30. BMJ structured abstract • objectives - a clear statement of the main aim of the study and the major hypothesis tested or research question posed • design - including: prospective, randomisation, blinding, placebo control, case control, crossover, criterion standards for diagnostic tests etc  • setting - include the level of care eg primary, secondary; number of participating centres. Be general rather than give the name of the specific centre, but give the geographical location if this is important • participants(instead of patients or subjects) - numbers entering and completing the study, sex, and ethnic group if appropriate. Give clear definitions of how selected, entry and exclusion criteria • interventions - what, how, when and for how long. This heading can be deleted if there were no interventions • main outcome measures - those planned in protocol, those finally measured (if different, explain why) • results - main results with (for quantitative studies) 95% confidence intervals and, where appropriate, the exact level of statistical significance and the number need to treat/harm.  • conclusions – primary conclusions and their implications, suggesting areas for further research if appropriate. Do not go beyond the data in the article. Conclusions are important because this is often the only part that readers look at.

31. BMJ Qualitative research article • objective • design • participants • setting • results • conclusions

32. Common problems in abstract • too little thinking put into it • too general, essential features of the design lacking • odd details picked; p values given without supporting data • main results not properly described • difficult to select the key results (qualitative especially)

33. Use of references • To do proper search; also those not available electronically (review and Medline reference) • Changed worse • Read the reports you cite • If number restrictions --> web-appendixes • Introduction vs Discussion • technicalities: reference managers (easier?)

34. Common problems • only easily available studies are included • only studies from own discipline/ country • uncritical (context) • too lengthy citation --> pooling strategy (in drafting stage table forms) • own findings not reflected against previous reports _________ Citation indexes and evaluation: importance!

35. Writing process Each has her/ his own; no best style Find you own If problems in producing text, suggestions: • write without details, fill afterwards (correct text if needed) • make table of contents + sub-titles (to be deleted later) • make help-tables of your results • make help-tables of previous literature • take an example article and imitate the items, or detailed journal advice • first version: put all important things there, do not try perfect in the first round (many rounds) • in your native language?

36. Course in Helsinki University • Carolyn Norris: Academic writing in English