威廉 布朗 教授

1. Translating your Research into a Quality, Peer-reviewed Publication 威廉布朗 教授 Prof. William Brown was born and raised in the northern Midwest region of the United States at a latitude about the same as that of Harbin. He received his MD from the University of Wisconsin Medical School and later served as head of the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of Colorado. His research field has been immunology of the gastrointestinal tract. Dr. Brown has had a career-long interest in international medicine and research. He is author of about 150 articles in peer-reviewed publications, over one-half of which have been co-authored with non-native English-speaking investigators. Dr. Brown is an executive editor of the Journal of Digestive Diseases, the official journal of the Chinese Society of Gastroenterology. Dr. Brown is dedicated to promoting international cooperation in medical research, and he is especially committed to helping young scientists get their research work published in peer-review medical journals. In the past year he has edited research articles originating from 22 countries in 5 continents.

2. Translating your Research into a Quality, Peer-reviewed Publication William R. Brown, M.D. Professor of Medicine Emeritus, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver CO USA

3. Objectives of this presentation • Understand the importance of quality, meaningful research as the foundation for your research paper. • Appreciate the importance of thorough knowledge of existing work in your area of interest. • Understand the orderly construction and content of a manuscript • Know common axioms of good medical writing • Understand plagiarism and how to avoid it

4. The most important ingredient • Quality research • Clear, concise, worthwhile, and testable hypothesis or aim(s) • Well-thought out research plan or design • Carefully executed experiments or data accession • Rigorous, appropriate statistical analysis of data • Unambiguous results that support or refute the hypothesis or aim

5. Suggestion • Before starting the research project, write a draft of the hypothetical paper, asking questions such as: • Is the project worth doing? Will it yield important new data? • Is human subjects or animal experimentation approval needed? • Have I calculated the number of subjects andcontrols (sample size) needed for statistical validity? • Am I doing the project only because I was told to do it?

6. Suggestion, continued • Do I need help from a statistician, patient advocate, ethicist? • Do I have, or can I get, enough patients to meet the sample-size requirement? • Have I reviewed the relevant existing literature thoroughly?

7. Suggestion, continued • As your project proceeds, look at your draft again and again. • Is your work progressing satisfactorily? • What is the accrual rate? • Do your experimental methods need modification? • Does the project still seem worthwhile? • Are you excited about the work?

8. Recommendation • If your project is proceeding well, the methods are sound, the aim or goals seem worthwhile, and you are excited about the project— • Carry on, full speed ahead. • If not, stop!!! Don’t waste your time!!! Find something else to do!!!

9. Writing your masterpiece • Doing good research is one thing. • Getting your research paper published is another— and, for many researchers, much more difficult. • Let’s see how to make it as painless as possible.

10. Writing your masterpiece • Where to begin? READ!! • Search the literature for articles recently published or in electronic format. Don’t miss the latest work from other authors. Copying others’ work is a waste. • Find the journals where research in your field often is published. • Find the journals with impact factors that seem appropriate for your article. • See how good articles are constructed. • Read and follow carefully the “instructions to authors” of the journal you choose.

11. Starting the writing process. Facing the fear • Write the easiest part first: the results • You know the results, so just put them into words and into tables, graphs or figures. • Evaluate your results objectively. -Are the results valid statistically? -Do you need more experiments or data points? -Do the results support or contradict your hypothesis? -Have you included all results whether or not they support your hypothesis?

12. Continuing the writing process • Write the next easiest part: material and methods, or patients and methods • You know this material well, so just put it into words or tables, graphs and figures. • Give credit to others if you use their methods. • Cite the source of animals, equipment, and supplies. • State the institutional approval for animal or human studies. • List the experiments in the order you conducted them.

13. The introduction • Clearly and concisely state the question to be addressed by your study, and why it is being asked. • Review briefly the existing state of knowledge and cite relevant literature references. • State the method(s) or experimental approach(es) used to answer the question, including whether the study was retrospective or prospective.  • State the novelty or uniqueness of the research.  • End the introduction with a clear statement of what you did, but do not give the result(s).

14. Introduction: An abbreviated example • The cause of colonic cancer is multifactorial. • Dietary factors likely are one of the causal or preventive factors. • Anecdotal reports suggest that cabbage eating prevents colonic neoplasms. • We tested this possibility by reviewing the colonoscopic records of 10,000 persons, 5000 who eat cabbage daily and 5,000 who never eat cabbage.

15. Continuing the writing process: Discussion • DO • begin the discussion with a brief summary of the findings of your study. • “Our major finding was that the incidence of colonic neoplasms in persons who regularly eat cabbage and those who never each cabbage was similar. “ • DO NOT • begin with a vague, general reference to existing knowledge or repetition of the introduction • “Colonic cancer is a serious world wide health problem.”

16. Writing the discussion, continued • DO • Describe your work in relation to published work, but do not bury your results in detail of other studies. • Focus on areas where your work has significantly advanced existing knowledge. • Be objective and non-critical of others’ work. • Keep references to the minimum needed to substantiate cited work. • Comment on limitations of your study (if any). • Mention future research that could evolve from your findings.

17. The conclusion • The conclusion must be concise, succinct, decisive and focused on the results of your study. It is all right to repeat or paraphrase you study’s hypothesis or aims. Example: “In this study we sought to determine if eating cabbage prevents the occurrence of colonic neoplasms. In a retrospective review of colonoscopic findings in 10,000 Chinese patients we found the incidence of colonic neoplasms similar in those who regularly eat cabbage and those who do not. Thus, cabbage does not appear to be protective against colonic neoplasms.”

18. The title • Include key words that make the paper easily retrievable. • Keep it concise, as short as possible. • Respect the journal’s word/character limits. • Avoid nonstandard abbreviations • State country or region of the research

19. The title: Real example • Original • “Clinicopathologicalfeatures, pattern of lymph node metastasis and prognostic factors in patients with EGJ carcinoma after total gastrectomy: a retrospective study on 123 patients in China” • Edited: • “A Retrospective Study of Chinese Patients after Total Gastrectomy for Esophagogastric Junction Cancer”

20. The first shall be last—the abstract • Write the abstract last. • Follow faithfully the journal’s instructions for abstracts. • Do not exceed the word limit. • Use no or few abbreviations • Structured or unstructured format • Structured easier for the reader • Avoid unnecessary experimental detail. • Avoid using abbreviations • Write a concise, crisp conclusion that is consistent with the aims and conclusion of the paper’s discussion.

21. Is this an abstract you’d like to read? • Abstract: In this study, α-spinaterol was synthetized from stigmasterol by a novel method with fivesteps in a moderate yield, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of stigmasterol, spinasterol and ceftiofur against Escherichia Coli, Streptococcuspneumoniae CAU0070, Salmonella Pullorum cvcc533 and Staphylococcus Aureus.were determined by a tube dilution method. Results showed that MIC of α-spinaterol against the four pathogenic microganisms was the same(256ug/ml), a half than that of stigmasterol(512 ug/ml), far outweigh than that of ceftiofur. The combinational usage of α-spinaterol and ceftiofur showed a strong synergetic effects against Escherichia Coli, Streptococcuspneumoniae CAU0070, Salmonella Pullorum cvcc533 and Staphylococcus Aureus, and the fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) were 0.375, 0.375 0.5 and 0.75, respectively. For the concentration above MIC, ceftiofur against the four pathogenic microganisms exhibited only time-dependent, while that of α-spinasterol and it’s combination with ceftiofur showed time-dependent and concentration denpendent.

22. Is this better? • Background/Aim. Combining antibiotics with plant sterols that have antibacterial activity is a method of increasing the effectiveness of the antibiotics. In this study, we synthesized α-spinasterol from commercially available stigmasterol by a novel method in order to increase its yield. • Methods. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of stigmasterol, spinasterol and ceftiofur against Escherichia coli (E. coli), Streptococcus pneumoniae CAU0070 (S. pneumoniae CAU0070), Salmonella pullorum cvcc533 (S. pullorum cvcc533) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) were determined with a tube dilution method. • Results. MICs of α-spinasterol against the four pathogenic microorganisms were the same for all (256 µg/ml), or one-half that of stigmasterol (512 µg/ml), and much greater than the MIC of ceftiofur (0.125 to 4). The combination of α-spinasterol and ceftiofur were strongly synergetic against the four bacterial strains. • Conclusions. Ceftiofur combined with α-spinasterol, synthetized from stigmasterol by our method, is effective against four pathogenic bacterial strains in vitro.

23. Key words • Journals often ask you to list a few words that can be used in searches for your article. • Use specific terms as much as possible. • “Omeprazole” rather than proton-pump inhibitors • Use U.S. National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms as much as possible. • https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/mesh.html

24. References • Avoid excessive numbers of references. • Cite only references that have direct relevance to your research. • An original research paper is not a literature review. • Use the formatting of the journal you will submit to. • Vancouver style is common Patrias K, Wendling D. The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Citing Medicine, 2nd edition. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); 2007-.

25. Figures and Tables • Figures and tables should relate most of your work. • The reader should be able to grasp the main message of your paper by referring to the tables and figures without much reference to the text. • Do not present the same data in tables and in figures.

26. When you think you’ve finished • Set the manuscript aside for a couple weeks and re-read it. You’ll find numerous errors, awkward sentences, and wordiness. • Have someone not familiar with your work read and edit your paper. • If you are not a native-English speaker have the paper edited by a reputable service. • Write a professional, courteous cover letter.

27. Cover letter template • Dear (Name of editor if available): • My co-authors and I wish to ask that the attached  manuscript, entitled “_____________________________________,” be considered for publication in the _____________________________________(Journal title) as an original article. • Our study aimed to compare our prognostic system with existing systems for predicting the outcome of patients undergoing surgery for colorectal perforation. We concluded that, although the existing systems are useful, our system has advantages over the others. • We believe that the findings of this study are relevant to the scope of your journal and will be of interest to its readership. • This manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere in part or in entirety, and is not under consideration by another journal. All study participants provided informed consent, and the study design was approved by the appropriate ethics review boards.  All the authors have approved the manuscript and agree with submission to your esteemed journal. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.  • Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. • Sincerely, 

28. Responding to referees’ comments • If your paper has been approved pending revision be pleased and positive. • Manuscripts are rarely accepted without revision. • Use the comments and criticisms to improve your paper. • Respond promptly. • Address all the issues the reviewers have raised. • Be courteous and respectful but not excessively so. • Get help with the English language if you need it.

29. Axioms of good medical research writing • Research papers are not intended to be great works of literature. • They are to be concise, precise, word-sparse, and clear. • Short, declarative sentences are preferred. • Avoid imprecise expressions: “There were no obvious differences in blood glucose values.” • Refer to, but do not repeat in the text, data that are given in tables, graphs or figures.

30. More axioms of medical research writing • Avoid exaggerated or unsubstantiated statements: “Our treatment is the first to cure insomnia.” • Avoid unnecessary repetition and redundancy. • Readers often read only the abstract and conclusions. • So, the abstract and conclusions must be clear, concise, and focused on the new and important contributions of your work.

31. More axioms of medical research writing • Avoid excessive use of abbreviations. • Unnecessary abbreviations are a distraction and annoyance to the reader. • Wiley Education Services: “Abbreviations should be used sparingly and only when they ease the reader’s task by reducing repetition of long technical terms.”

32. Where to get help: Medical writing resources • ZeigerM. Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 2000..   • Hull M. Medical English Clear & Simple: A Practice-Based Approach to English for ESL Healthcare Professionals. • AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 10th Edition • The Chicago Manual of Style. University of Chicago Press Staff. 6th Edition. • Hilary Glasman-Deal. Science Research Writing for Non-native Speakers of English

33. Where to Get Help—English Grammar Resources • Everyone needs help with standard English grammar, punctuation and spelling. Two very helpful, respected references are: • Strunk W, White EB. The Elements of Style, 4th Edition • The McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar and Usage, 2d Edition

34. Plagiarism • The wrongful presentation of somebody else's work or idea as one's own without adequately attributing it to the source. • A serious problem in medical writing • Can have severepercussions for the author • Strict disciplinary action may taken against the plagiarist.  • Das N,Panjabi M. Plagiarism: Why is it such a big issue for medical writers? PerspectClin Res. 2011 Apr;2(2):67-71. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.80370.

35. Plagiarism • Some ways authors can prevent plagiarism • Always acknowledge the original source of the idea, text, methods, or illustrations. • Enclose within quotation marks all the text that has been copied verbatim from another source. • When paraphrasing, use only the author(s) own words. • Even when explaining somebody else’s ideas in their own words, properly acknowledge the original source. • Many journals employ plagiarism detection systems, and numerous online sources are available for checking your article, e.g., www.grammarly.com/plagiarism_checker

36. The good news • Completing a quality paper, which reports quality research, and is published in a quality journal is highly rewarding. • A sense of satisfaction and pride • A boost to one’s professional career • A contribution to medical knowledge

37. Request a copy of this presentation at:Support @letpub.com We strive to level the playing field for clients across the globe. Main office in Massachusetts Office in Shanghai • Global talents: Most of our editors were educated and have research supervision experience attop universities and research institutions in the U.K. and U.S.A. • Local services: We service clients from Asia and the Pacific through our Shanghai office for easy communication. • Details at: www.letpub.com