Manuscript Writing William F. Stenson M.D. Professor of Medicine Division of Gastroenterology Washington University Scho

1. Manuscript WritingWilliam F. Stenson M.D.Professor of MedicineDivision of GastroenterologyWashington University School of Medicine

2. How do you write a scientific paper?

3. Hey, Old Guy, how can I be published and funded while coming in late, leaving early and spending the interim drinking coffee?

4. Importance of Scientific Writing • Writing is generally undervalued • Writing is not given sufficient priority either in time or effort • Effective writing has more to do with logical thinking than with “style”

5. Before You Write

6. The time to think about writing is when you design the study • When you design the study you should have some idea of how it would appear in print, in particular how the figures would appear • A paper with good data almost writes itself

7. Study Design • The study should be designed to answer a specific and easily articulated question • Each experiment should be easily related to the question addressed by the study

8. Think about each experiment in terms of how it would fit in a paper • After the experiment make a figure such as would appear in a paper • Think about which figure would appear next in a paper

9. Constant Reassessment If you constantly review where you are and think “What more do I need to make a paper” you will avoid three big problems: *Not knowing when to stop *Doing studies that are not going to fit into any paper *Ending up with portions of three papers but not all of any one paper

10. Decisions • Analyze your study to determine what decisions you made (what model to use, what methods to use, time points, concentrations) • It is better to do this analysis when you are designing the study • Identify those decisions that may need to be explained/justified • Use sentences that begin “We chose to do ________ because_______”

11. Old Technology, New Technology There is a temptation to use the technology you are familiar with rather than the technology that is appropriate to answer the question at hand.

12. How Much is Enough? • You can always do more, you can always do less • Look at other papers in the journal of interest to see the scope of the studies • Try to define the scope of the study before you start

13. Writing

14. Starting to write • Start by developing the figures • Then do the figure legends

15. Title • Does your title summarize the main point of your paper?

16. The importance of the abstract, figures and figure legends • The editor/reviewer should be able to evaluate the paper based on the abstract, the figures and the figure legends alone

17. Abstract • Does the abstract have a single sentence that clearly defines the fundamental question being addressed in the study? • Is all the information in the abstract consistent with the information in the rest of the paper? • Have you stated your main conclusion? • Does the conclusion relate to the fundamental question?

18. Introduction • Have you reviewed the relevant literature in your introduction? • Is the significance of your study clear from the introduction? • Have you stated the specific purpose of your paper at the end of your introduction?

19. Materials and Methods • Have you described all selection criteria in your methods? • Have you described all the methods you used?

20. Results • Is the result section logically organized? • Do you use transition sentences? • Do you explain your decisions? • Have you presented your findings in one place only? • Have you omitted all interpretation of the data?

21. Transition sentences • “Having demonstrated ______ , we next sought to determine __________ using the ______ method. This experiment demonstrated ____________ . These studies indicate ________________ .”

22. Decisions • Analyze your study to determine what decisions you made (what model to use, what methods to use, time points, concentrations) • It is better to do this analysis when you are designing the study • Identify those decisions that may need to be explained/justified • Use sentences that begin “We chose to do ________ because_______”

23. Discussion • Is the answer to the study question presented at the beginning of the Discussion? • Have you explained the meaning and significance of your results rather than merely repeating them?

24. The Review Process

25. How one reviewer reviews • Reads abstract • Examines figures and figure legends • Reads the rest of the manuscript to answer questions created by the review of the abstract, figures and figure legends

26. Questions Reviewers Ask • Who cares? Is there an important question addressed? • How does this fit in with previous work? • Does the experimental design fit the question? • Does the data mean what the investigator says it means? • If I were doing this study would I have done it differently? • Are there other experiments I would have done? Did the investigator do them and not tell us?

27. The review, potential responses • Accept • Happy Reject • Willing Reject • Priority Reject

28. Reasons for Rejection • The research does not address an important question • The results do not make a “discernible point” • The results are not novel • Problems with experimental design • Problems with the quality of the data

29. Replying to Reviewers • Remember your goal is to be published not to demonstrate that you are smarter than the reviewers • The editor’s letter should spell out the minimum that you need to do in terms of additional studies • You should respond to every comment even if you don’t do everything requested

30. How do you get published and funded? • Learn to focus • Learn to finish • Attempt to keep up technologically • Learn the system • Learn to write