Scientific Writing for MCH Epidemiologists

1. Scientific Writing for MCH Epidemiologists Donna J. Petersen, ScD, MHS Editor-in-Chief Maternal and Child Health Journal

2. What an editor looks for in a submission • Tips on writing a scientific paper • How to get started

3. What does an editor look for in a paper? Content • Content relevant to our readership • Addresses a novel question • Enhances understanding of an important issue • Answers a controversial question • Supports the advancement of our field • Advances our knowledge • If confirmatory, should move us to the next phase • Policy and program recommendations • Not enough to say “more research is needed”

4. What does an editor look for in a paper? Study design • Design fits the hypothesis • Strongest design possible • Data source provides information on confounding variables • Adequate sample size • Sufficient power • Generalizable or clear about what population results apply to

5. What does an editor look for in a paper? Presentation • Indicates what is known and not known about topic and how this study fills gap • Clearly analyzes and presents data • Interprets data appropriately • Well written • Thoroughly edited • Concise – says something ONCE

6. Fatal Flaws • Usually related to study design • Not appropriate/sufficient to answer the question • Lack of detail in the methods • Survey with inadequate response rate • Qualitative study with insufficient subjects • Rapidly aging data • Simply not appropriate for the journal

7. One strike you may be out • Topic of article doesn’t suit journal • Case report, animal study, too local, just wrong • Failure to provide enough information on methods to judge validity • Failure to address sources of bias and study limitations • Conflicts of interest • Failure to follow journal format, instructions • Too poorly written to be evaluated, sloppy • Stingy – giving us scraps

8. What an Editor Wants in a Paper • Interesting study on a topic of interest or importance to our field • Rigorously performed and analyzed • Objectively interpreted • Well organized and well written

9. “Influential factors” • Clarity • Originality of thought • Novelty of findings • Organization • Completeness • Good writing • The most elegant research is usually simple and direct • The Scientist 15(7):30, Apr 2, 2001

10. Tips for Scientific Writing • Just the Facts • Follow the formula • Three qualities of scientific prose (Huth) • Accuracy • Clarity • Brevity

11. Accuracy • Spelling errors • Defective choice of verb tense • Past tense in describing your results; present tense describing literature • Commonly misused words • Incidence vs prevalence • That vs which • Effect vs affect • Case vspatient • Data is (just shoot me)

12. Clarity • Over/misuse of acronyms • If the paper is all about previous preterm delivery say that, don’t call it PPD (especially as PPD typically means something completely different) • Don’t call it DV when everyone else calls it IPV • Modifiers (“Hospital nurse physician staff interaction”)

13. Brevity • “After careful consideration of all the foregoing lines of evidence, it is apparent to us that among all the antibiotics discussed penicillin is the one that should be chosen for the treatment of infections caused by the streptococcus.” • “We conclude that penicillin is the best antibiotic for treatment of streptococcal infections.” • “Streptococcal infections? Penicillin!”

14. Empty Words and Phrases • A majority of (Use “Most”) • Accounted for by the fact that (Use “Because”) • Despite the fact that (Use “Despite”) • Fewer in number (Use “Fewer”) • In order to (Use “To”) • It is often the case that (Use “Often”) • Very, Extremely (Delete) • No need to hyperbolize

15. Abbreviations • Well known—LBW, BMI, SGA • Made up—VM (vitamin and mineral) • Unnecessary—“mnth” for “month” (can I buy a vowel?) • Confusing—PA (pulmonary artery? physician’s assistant? physical activity?) • Provided once and never used again

16. Grace Dehumanizing words • A diabetic vs a woman with diabetes • “Blacks” • Pomposity • “It is an inescapable conclusion that utilization of this method in order to make the diagnosis . . .” • Try “We conclude that use of this method . . .” • Slang, jargon, cliche • Writing focus group results in vernacular (just say no)

17. Other Prose Features • Vary Sentence Structure and Length • “It is easy to craft a story about the FDA based on just a couple of actions, out of hundreds taken each year. So competing narratives abound. Some claim the FDA is captive to manufacturers and too quick to approve new therapies; others assert the agency is safety obsessed and too slow to make treatments available.” –Joshua Sharfstein • Logical flow of paragraphs • Avoid passive voice (active verbs instead of forms of “to be”) • Use key terms consistently • Do NOT abbreviate when you don’t have to – we aren’t that starved for space

18. Structure of a Scientific “Story” • Introduction • Methods • Results • Discussion

19. How do you start? • Pick the section that seems easiest • Okay to write from the inside out • Schedule times to write • Find your most creative time • Eliminate distractions • Find your most productive environment

20. How do you continue? • Outline or phrases • Write anything, develop a rough draft • Rewrite—again and again • “there is no good writing, only good rewriting” - - Peter Ginter, PhD, MBA • Cut excess • “I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short.” --Pascal • Get colleague input