Writing for publication: the role of literature reviews March 29 th 2018

1. Writing for publication: the role of literature reviews March 29th 2018 SuratthaniRajabhat University, Thailand Dr Ros Kane, Reader in Healthcare, University of Lincoln, UK. Dr Christine Jackson, Honorary Fellow, University of Lincoln, UK and Visiting Professor, University of Maribor, Slovenia.

2. Aims • To present some tips for writing academic articles • To discuss opportunities for writing • To examine common difficulties encountered • To suggest some workshops for future writing sessions www.lincoln.ac.uk

3. Exercise: Reflection 1 What are your reasons for considering publishing in academic journals?

4. A way in? - Opportunities for writing • Course work? • This is modelled on academic writing requirements and so is a good starting point. • There needs to be a shift though from writer focused to reader focused. • Academic staff on courses have to read your work. • Reviewers for journals don’t!

5. Joining the pile – how to make sure you are read! • 2 million articles published in 20,000 health journals each year • Equivalent to a pile of paper 900m high. • If you tried to stay current by reading two articles each day, within 1 year you would fall 55 centuries behind! • Put another way, if you try to read everything of possible relevance, you would have to read 5,500 articles per day. • Really focusing on your writing helps your work stand out. 381m

6. Exercise: Reflection 2 • What are your feelings about the writing that you do now? • What do you like / dislike about writing? • What kinds of writing habits do you have? • What kinds of things might / do stop you from writing?

7. Reasons for not writing? • I don’t have time • I can’t write where I work • I’m not that ambitious • My practice comes first • I’m too tired and over committed to find more time • No one will read it • I don’t want to be rejected • I’m not a very good writer • I’m not audacious enough • I don’t have anything interesting to say • I’m afraid I won’t be able to do it

8. Getting started • Get to know the journals • Review their websites (see next slide) • Articles in journals • Abstracts • If you are note sure which journal try the following: • http://jane.biosemantics.org/

9. In what subjects is the journal interested? What type of papers does the journal publish? What do you have to do prior to submitting an article

10. Standard structure to academic research papers • Abstract • Introduction • Literature Review • Research methodology/approach • Findings • Discussion • Conclusion

11. Identifying your contribution to the topic • What makes your paper unique. • What angle/perspective do you bring to the topic. • How will it move the subject on? • What are the connections between your work and the work of other scholars? • Main distinctions between your work and theirs? • What is the main connection between your paper and their publications? • What is the main distinction between your paper and theirs?

12. Defining the gap? • Deficient • Open to debate • Incomplete • Missing certain components • Narrow • Application in a different context?

13. Abstracts: Essential Elements Succinct summary of most important content in the paper Writing is clear and concise Abbreviations are fully spelled out with first use Free of reference citations Free of bias in selected content and manner of expression Free of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors Format and inclusions meet all journal requirements Word count is less than journal’s specified maximum (usually about 250 words) Alspach, J. G. (2017) Writing for publication 101: why the abstract is so important. Critical Care Nurse. Vol 37 (4) pp12-15

14. Abstracts: common mistakes Are cursory, i.e, lack adequate information for readers to understand what was done and how Miss important information, e.g, sample size(s) or research instrument(s) Are excessively detailed and lack focus Are too long, exceeding the word limit (usually about250 words) specified by the journal Are verbose and lack economy in expression Include extraneous content, e.g, literature findings peripheral to topic Include reference citations Are disorganised; unstructured abstracts may lack orderly transitions or progression, structured abstracts may have misplaced information Confuse, reuse, or transpose the abstract and the paper’s introduction Introduce new information (not mentioned in article) Overstate the data from the current project/study in the Conclusions Lack correlation between Conclusions and the current project/study findings Contain grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors Alspach, J. G. (2017) Writing for publication 101: why the abstract is so important. Critical Care Nurse. Vol 37 (4) pp12-15

15. Practice and developing and revising your paper • Clarity • Concise • Avoiding unnecessary jargon • Engaging the audience • Remember who your audience is • Different approaches to writing • Revising / editing

16. Submission and review There are many different forms of review: Editor Review, Open Review, Double Blind Peer Review. The Editor(s) do an initial read to determine if the subject matter and research approach is appropriate for the journal. This is why the abstract is so important. The Editor(s) identify and contact two reviewers Reviewers usually have 6-8 weeks to complete their reviews. Either reject or accept (subject to modification) The Editor(s) assess the reviewers' comments and recommendations and make a decision – Yes or No

17. Dealing with reviewers’ feedback • If it’s not rejected, revise and resubmit ASAP. • If it is rejected, revise, target another journal and submit ASAP. • Expect positives and negatives in reviews. • Analyse: what do they want you to do? • Ignore emotive, ‘overheated’ language. • List your revision actions: e.g. cut, add, reduce, expand, make more explicit.

18. Editing Do not underestimate the contribution that editing can make to your writing. It can turn bloated and uncoherent ideas into sharp and focused ones. Editors and reviewers are very busy – if you edit well, you are doing an important job on their behalf and increase your chances of publication.

19. Making the first cut [Mayer et al (2018)]A study of the reasons articles are not sent out for peer reivew Theme 1: Ineffective study question and/or design Study design and/or question fail to move the literature forward Underdeveloped, poorly designed study Problem statement/question poorly defined Insufficiently described methods Theme 2: Suboptimal data collection process Sample size too small Inappropriate or unclear sampling method Inappropriate, insufficiently described instrument Theme 3:Weak discussion and/or conclusions Over-interpretation of the results Clinically, not particularly applicable Under-interpretation of results; ignoring results Limited generalizability

20. Making the first cut Theme 4: Unimportant or irrelevant topic to the journal’s mission Unimportant or irrelevant topic to the journal’s mission Falls outside the scope of the journal Theme 5: Weak data analysis and/or presentation of results Insufficient data presented Issues with data collection and reporting (e.g., unclear psychometrics, issues with reliability and validity) Potential confounding variables not addressed Inaccurate or inconsistent data reported Weak effect size and/or insufficient power

21. Making the first cut Theme 6: Text difficult to follow, to understand Text difficult to follow, to understand English as a second language Text lacks clarity and organization Wandering, unclear conclusion Theme 7: Inadequate or incomplete introduction Introduction is not logical, constructs not well defined Lacks conceptual framework.

22. Your next steps? • Define specific writing goal? Date? • Define sub-goals for achieving that. Dates? • Set date to review these goals. • Form/join a writer’s group or writer’s retreat? • Analyse articles in your target journal? • Find peer reviewers? • Identify series of writing tasks? • Submission date?

23. Finding time to write? • How might you find time to write? • What actions could you take away from today’s introductory session?

24. References and other reading Alspach, J. G. (2017) Writing for publication 101: why the abstract is so important. Critical Care Nurse. Vol 37 (4) pp12-15. Ballenger, B. (2009) The Curious Researcher: A Guide to Writing Research Papers, 6th edition. New York: Pearson Longman. Gilbert, N. (Ed.) (2006) From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills. London: Sage. See Chapter 9: ‘Writing articles, books and presentations’. Greenhalgh, T. (2014) How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence Based Medicine, 5th edition. London: BMJ. Wiley/Blackwell. Murray, R (2009) Writing for Academic Journals, 2nd edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press-McGraw-Hill. Murray, R & Moore, S (2006) The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press-McGraw-Hill. Murray, R & Newton, M (2009) Writing retreat as structured intervention: margin or mainstream?, Higher Education Research and Development, 28(5): 527-539.

25. References and other reading • Murray, R, Thow, M, Moore, S & Murphy, M (2008) The writing consultation: Developing academic writing practices, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(2): 119-128. • Meyer, H. S., Durning, S.J., Sklar, D.P. and Maggio, L.A. (2018) Making the First Cut: An Analysis of Academic Medicine Editors’ Reasons for Not Sending Manuscripts Out for External Peer Review. Academic Medicine, Vol. 93, No. 3 / March 2018 pp464-470

26. Further resources Lots of reading and resources that you can access: Boyer, E. (1996) The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach. Vol 1 pp11-20 Goodson, P., (2016) Becoming an academic writer: 50 exercises for paced, productive and powerful writing. London, Sage. Murray, R., (2017) How to write a thesis. Buckingham, Open University Press. Sword, H., (2017) Air and Light and Time and Space, Harvard, Harvard University Press. Sword, H., (2012) Stylish Academic Writing, Harvard, Harvard University Press. Sword, H., (2016) The Writer’s Diet, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Osmond, A. (2013) Academic writing and grammar for students, London, Sage. Wallace, M. and Wray, A. (2016) Critical Reading and Writing for Postgrads, (3rd edition). London, Sage. Websites: http://helensword.com/websites.html http://www.anchorage-education.co.uk/

27. Thank you for listening and taking part! Any questions?

28. Introduction to the writing exercises. • We will ask you to find a quite place to work on each element of the exercise on your own. • During the exercise the team members will be available to help and answer any questions you have. • We will also encourage you to share with your colleagues.

29. Writing exercises • Exercise 1: - Journal identification – where might you seek to publish your work?. What is their house style? Use this information to (re)structure any pre-training written work you have completed. Time allocated: 45 minutes • Exercise 2: Work on your introduction to your written work. Does it meet all the requirements set out in the slides. Find missing data if this is required and refashion your work. Time allocated: 1 hour • Exercise 3: What is the contribution you are making to the literature? Have you clearly identified this. Use the time to identify and communicate in writing this new perspective. Time allocated: 1 hour. • Exercise 4: Editing your work to make it sharper. Revisit each paragraph. It is focused, critical and analytical. Does each sentence clearly identify your points. Could it be even more focused. Use this time to edit your work. Time allocated: 1 hour