Introducing a new series on effective writing and publishing of scientific papers

Abstract

This article introduces a series of writing tips that will appear each month in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (JCE) over the next year. The 12 papers aim to cover the whole process from starting to write the first draft of a paper to responding to reviewer comments (Table 1). The primary target audience are novice academic researchers, although the series may also be useful for senior researchers who supervise less experienced colleagues.Table 1List of subjects in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology series on effective writing and publishing of scientific papers1.How to get started2.Title and abstract3.Introduction4.Methods5.Results6.Discussion7.Tables and figures8.References9.Authorship10.Choice of journal11.Submitting a paper12.Responding to reviewers Open table in a new tab Writing and publishing scientific papers is the core business of every researcher. Original research papers form the culmination of a usually long trajectory, which starts with the development of a research idea and continues with acquiring funding and collecting and analyzing data. Besides original research articles, there are many other types, including systematic reviews, commentaries, and editorials. The scientific output medical researchers generate is not only important for society to improve health through advancement of knowledge but also for the individual researcher's career [[1]Knottnerus J.A. Tugwell P. Communicating research to the peers.J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 645-647Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar]. Effective scientific writing, however, is not easy.Many novice academic researchers, and even senior researchers, may struggle with writing papers. Researchers often learn to write by doing it and receiving feedback on drafts from their supervisors, coauthors, and journals. However, such guidance is not always optimal, and many useful tips and tricks may remain disregarded for too long. We (D.K. and J.W.L.C.) noticed these problems during our own early writing career and also observed the difficulties of other authors when reviewing submitted work in our role as editorial board members of journals. We have therefore developed a training course to help authors address issues relating to successful scientific writing and publishing of articles (www.heuvellandcursus.nl).Various factors impact on successful writing and publishing. Good scientific content of a paper alone does not guarantee its publication in a good journal. Many variables in the writing process determine whether a paper will be accepted for publication, but the good news is that authors can influence most of these [[2]Guyatt G.H. Brian Haynes R. Preparing reports for publication and responding to reviewers' comments.J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 900-906Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar]. Anticipation and modification of such determinants will increase an author's effectiveness, enabling them to get more done in less time; offering editors, reviewers, and readers a clear storyline; increasing enjoyment and reducing frustration; and raising the likelihood of having a paper accepted by a good journal.Is there insufficient literature on writing and publishing in scholarly journals? Well, quite the contrary in fact. There are piles of textbooks and articles dealing with general aspects of scientific writing (e.g., see Ref. [3Fraser J. How to publish in biomedicine. 500 tips for success. Radcliffe Publishing, Oxford/New York2008Google Scholar, 4Sterk P.J. Rabe K.F. The joy of writing a paper.Breathe. 2008; 4: 225-231Google Scholar, 5Davis P.M. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing.FASEB J. 2011; 25: 2129-2134Crossref PubMed Scopus (173) Google Scholar, 6Jacques T.S. Sebire N.J. The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals.JRSM Short Rep. 2010; 1: 2Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 7Chipperfield L. Citrome L. Clark J. David F.S. Enck R. Evangelista M. et al.Authors' submission toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published.Curr Med Res Opin. 2010; 26: 1967-1982Crossref PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar, 8Cals J.W.L. Kotz D. Researcher identification: the right needle in the haystack.Lancet. 2008; 371: 2152-2153Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar]). Furthermore, there is an important general guideline [[9]International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Updated April 2010. Available at http://www.icmje.org., 2010.Google Scholar] and many specific guidelines (e.g., see Ref. [10Schulz K.F. Altman D.G. Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 834-840Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (614) Google Scholar, 11von Elm E. Altman D.G. Egger M. Pocock S.J. Gøtzsche P.C. Vandenbroucke J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 344-349Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5246) Google Scholar]) to help authors improve the clarity, completeness, and transparency of their research reports. An exhaustive list of available guidelines and other resources to facilitate good research reporting is provided by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network (http://www.equator-network.org) [5Davis P.M. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing.FASEB J. 2011; 25: 2129-2134Crossref PubMed Scopus (173) Google Scholar, 6Jacques T.S. Sebire N.J. The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals.JRSM Short Rep. 2010; 1: 2Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. However, it is perhaps not only the abundance of information but also its sometimes nonspecific nature, which prevents young researchers from getting a clear overview of ways to effectively write and publish a biomedical research paper.This new series of monthly writing tips builds on the existing literature about research reporting in JCE [1Knottnerus J.A. Tugwell P. Communicating research to the peers.J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 645-647Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar, 2Guyatt G.H. Brian Haynes R. Preparing reports for publication and responding to reviewers' comments.J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 900-906Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar]. It aims to provide clear and concise key information on all major aspects of the process. Each of the 12 papers of the series is constructed as an easy-to-read one-pager, divided into background information (“What you should know”) and advice (“What you should do”). The advice uses the imperative, which is unusual in JCE. However, it fits the purpose of this series, which is to provide readers with experience-based do's and don’ts of effective writing and publishing. Each paper also contains a checklist providing a brief overview of the main points. The series can be read as a whole but has the advantage you can also only pick a particular item you need while writing. The series will be published as open access on JCE's web site to achieve maximum reach, partly because JCE wants to stimulate and facilitate researchers in low- and middle-income countries (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-clinical-epidemiology).The nature of this series does not allow us to address all possible aspects of writing and publishing. For example, it does not provide specific information for papers reporting on qualitative research. We think, however, that most issues addressed in the series are also useful for qualitative papers. For more information, we refer to the existing reporting guidelines [12Clark J. How to peer review a qualitative manuscript.in: Godlee F. Jefferson T.O. Peer review in health sciences. 2nd ed. BMJ Books, London, UK2003: 219-235Google Scholar, 13Kuper A. Lingard L. Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research.BMJ. 2008; 337: a1035Crossref PubMed Scopus (454) Google Scholar, 14Greenhalgh T. Taylor R. Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research).BMJ. 1997; 315: 740-743Crossref PubMed Scopus (481) Google Scholar, 15Murphy E. Dingwall R. Greatbatch D. Parker S. Watson P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2 (iii-ix, 1–274)Google Scholar]. Furthermore, the series does not address English spelling and grammar. General suggestions about language use have been very well addressed in a previous article published in this journal [[2]Guyatt G.H. Brian Haynes R. Preparing reports for publication and responding to reviewers' comments.J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 900-906Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar]. More specific suggestions, particularly tips for non-native speakers, largely depend on the individual author's background and are beyond the scope of the series.The series was written to offer tips and tricks for clear and concise writing and publishing and to support authors in getting their message across to the scientific community. It is not a specific guide to successful publishing in JCE; its content applies to writing biomedical research papers in general. We hope that you will enjoy reading the series and that it will increase your pleasure in writing and the acceptance rate of your papers. This article introduces a series of writing tips that will appear each month in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (JCE) over the next year. The 12 papers aim to cover the whole process from starting to write the first draft of a paper to responding to reviewer comments (Table 1). The primary target audience are novice academic researchers, although the series may also be useful for senior researchers who supervise less experienced colleagues. Writing and publishing scientific papers is the core business of every researcher. Original research papers form the culmination of a usually long trajectory, which starts with the development of a research idea and continues with acquiring funding and collecting and analyzing data. Besides original research articles, there are many other types, including systematic reviews, commentaries, and editorials. The scientific output medical researchers generate is not only important for society to improve health through advancement of knowledge but also for the individual researcher's career [[1]Knottnerus J.A. Tugwell P. Communicating research to the peers.J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 645-647Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar]. Effective scientific writing, however, is not easy. Many novice academic researchers, and even senior researchers, may struggle with writing papers. Researchers often learn to write by doing it and receiving feedback on drafts from their supervisors, coauthors, and journals. However, such guidance is not always optimal, and many useful tips and tricks may remain disregarded for too long. We (D.K. and J.W.L.C.) noticed these problems during our own early writing career and also observed the difficulties of other authors when reviewing submitted work in our role as editorial board members of journals. We have therefore developed a training course to help authors address issues relating to successful scientific writing and publishing of articles (www.heuvellandcursus.nl). Various factors impact on successful writing and publishing. Good scientific content of a paper alone does not guarantee its publication in a good journal. Many variables in the writing process determine whether a paper will be accepted for publication, but the good news is that authors can influence most of these [[2]Guyatt G.H. Brian Haynes R. Preparing reports for publication and responding to reviewers' comments.J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 900-906Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar]. Anticipation and modification of such determinants will increase an author's effectiveness, enabling them to get more done in less time; offering editors, reviewers, and readers a clear storyline; increasing enjoyment and reducing frustration; and raising the likelihood of having a paper accepted by a good journal. Is there insufficient literature on writing and publishing in scholarly journals? Well, quite the contrary in fact. There are piles of textbooks and articles dealing with general aspects of scientific writing (e.g., see Ref. [3Fraser J. How to publish in biomedicine. 500 tips for success. Radcliffe Publishing, Oxford/New York2008Google Scholar, 4Sterk P.J. Rabe K.F. The joy of writing a paper.Breathe. 2008; 4: 225-231Google Scholar, 5Davis P.M. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing.FASEB J. 2011; 25: 2129-2134Crossref PubMed Scopus (173) Google Scholar, 6Jacques T.S. Sebire N.J. The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals.JRSM Short Rep. 2010; 1: 2Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 7Chipperfield L. Citrome L. Clark J. David F.S. Enck R. Evangelista M. et al.Authors' submission toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published.Curr Med Res Opin. 2010; 26: 1967-1982Crossref PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar, 8Cals J.W.L. Kotz D. Researcher identification: the right needle in the haystack.Lancet. 2008; 371: 2152-2153Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar]). Furthermore, there is an important general guideline [[9]International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Updated April 2010. Available at http://www.icmje.org., 2010.Google Scholar] and many specific guidelines (e.g., see Ref. [10Schulz K.F. Altman D.G. Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 834-840Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (614) Google Scholar, 11von Elm E. Altman D.G. Egger M. Pocock S.J. Gøtzsche P.C. Vandenbroucke J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 344-349Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5246) Google Scholar]) to help authors improve the clarity, completeness, and transparency of their research reports. An exhaustive list of available guidelines and other resources to facilitate good research reporting is provided by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network (http://www.equator-network.org) [5Davis P.M. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing.FASEB J. 2011; 25: 2129-2134Crossref PubMed Scopus (173) Google Scholar, 6Jacques T.S. Sebire N.J. The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals.JRSM Short Rep. 2010; 1: 2Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. However, it is perhaps not only the abundance of information but also its sometimes nonspecific nature, which prevents young researchers from getting a clear overview of ways to effectively write and publish a biomedical research paper. This new series of monthly writing tips builds on the existing literature about research reporting in JCE [1Knottnerus J.A. Tugwell P. Communicating research to the peers.J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 645-647Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar, 2Guyatt G.H. Brian Haynes R. Preparing reports for publication and responding to reviewers' comments.J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 900-906Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar]. It aims to provide clear and concise key information on all major aspects of the process. Each of the 12 papers of the series is constructed as an easy-to-read one-pager, divided into background information (“What you should know”) and advice (“What you should do”). The advice uses the imperative, which is unusual in JCE. However, it fits the purpose of this series, which is to provide readers with experience-based do's and don’ts of effective writing and publishing. Each paper also contains a checklist providing a brief overview of the main points. The series can be read as a whole but has the advantage you can also only pick a particular item you need while writing. The series will be published as open access on JCE's web site to achieve maximum reach, partly because JCE wants to stimulate and facilitate researchers in low- and middle-income countries (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-clinical-epidemiology). The nature of this series does not allow us to address all possible aspects of writing and publishing. For example, it does not provide specific information for papers reporting on qualitative research. We think, however, that most issues addressed in the series are also useful for qualitative papers. For more information, we refer to the existing reporting guidelines [12Clark J. How to peer review a qualitative manuscript.in: Godlee F. Jefferson T.O. Peer review in health sciences. 2nd ed. BMJ Books, London, UK2003: 219-235Google Scholar, 13Kuper A. Lingard L. Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research.BMJ. 2008; 337: a1035Crossref PubMed Scopus (454) Google Scholar, 14Greenhalgh T. Taylor R. Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research).BMJ. 1997; 315: 740-743Crossref PubMed Scopus (481) Google Scholar, 15Murphy E. Dingwall R. Greatbatch D. Parker S. Watson P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2 (iii-ix, 1–274)Google Scholar]. Furthermore, the series does not address English spelling and grammar. General suggestions about language use have been very well addressed in a previous article published in this journal [[2]Guyatt G.H. Brian Haynes R. Preparing reports for publication and responding to reviewers' comments.J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 900-906Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar]. More specific suggestions, particularly tips for non-native speakers, largely depend on the individual author's background and are beyond the scope of the series. The series was written to offer tips and tricks for clear and concise writing and publishing and to support authors in getting their message across to the scientific community. It is not a specific guide to successful publishing in JCE; its content applies to writing biomedical research papers in general. We hope that you will enjoy reading the series and that it will increase your pleasure in writing and the acceptance rate of your papers. The authors would like to thank all the people who helped by facilitating and reviewing the series: the Policy Advisory Board and Editorial Consultants Board of JCE, Elsevier, alumni of the Heuvellandcursus (www.heuvellandcursus.nl), members of the Brisbane Initiative International Primary Care Leadership Network (www.primarycare.ox.ac.uk/postgraduate/bi), and members of the Journal Club Mesch (www.journalclubmesch.nl).