1 / 56

Crafting a Message for Publication Graham McMahon MD MMSc Editor for Medical Education, NEJM

Crafting a Message for Publication Graham McMahon MD MMSc Editor for Medical Education, NEJM. Specific Goals. To familiarize you with the “publishing biz” and how it works To help you think about how to convert your scholarship into publishable papers Research Innovative curricula

gage
Télécharger la présentation

Crafting a Message for Publication Graham McMahon MD MMSc Editor for Medical Education, NEJM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Crafting a Message for Publication Graham McMahon MD MMSc Editor for Medical Education, NEJM

  2. Specific Goals To familiarize you with the “publishing biz” and how it works To help you think about how to convert your scholarship into publishable papers Research Innovative curricula New teaching/learning methods Other projects Help you strategize your work with editors

  3. Overall Objective To help you become a Better Smarter More successful writer for publication as an educator

  4. From the Author’s Perspective

  5. Why Experiment? Evidence based education! Rigor in educational approaches Improved quality for learners Personal and professional value Elevate the field 6

  6. Challenges in Educational Research Participants are actively learning over time Interventions must demonstrate additional increments of performance improvement Comparison groups difficult to identify Placebo groups challenging in education Small sample sizes and short studies Open-label Students may be vulnerable to experimental coercion and to change behavior as a result of being in an experiment Contamination between research groups is common Time between learning and behavior can be long Dependence on intermediary endpoints Frequent changes in regulatory expectations Learners increasingly have survey fatigue 7

  7. Challenges for Educational Researchers Conflicting demands Isolation Lack of programmatic support Constrained budget Activities not valued

  8. Why Write? To share your ideas, programs, research To get feedback from others To incrementally advance the knowledge base To get appropriate recognition

  9. Top Issues in MedEd Research Todres M, Rogers R. BMJ. 2007 Aug 18;335(7615):333-5 10

  10. Write about what you believe in Ability to convince others Get it done Withstand the slings and arrows of publishing and its highly variable, unpredictable and intermittent reinforcement

  11. How are papers organized? Logical structure with a basic formula Five sections Abstract: summary Introduction: set the stage, why important, state hypothesis Methods: what you did, IRB Results: data only Discussion: what you found, what it means, what’s next, what you found

  12. Introduction Start building the case why the reader should be interested in your study Describe the area being studied Review the pertinent literature in that area that leads ups to your study Conclude with a description of how your study is the logical next step, fills a gap, or in other ways adds to the existing literature Write hypothesis

  13. Methods Describe what you did, so the reader can understand and someone else potentially could repeat your study Setting Sample Timeframe Outcomes Measures Data analysis plan

  14. Results Describe what you found (not what you believe it means) Present the positive and negative data of your findings in Text – little space, most important findings Tables and figures – present more of the data

  15. Discussion Summarize what you found Describe what you believe the findings displayed in your Results section mean in the context of other research Describe the strengths and limitations of your study and findings, without over-generalizing To conclude, describe where your findings lead and possible logical next steps

  16. Aim High Who is your audience? What do they ready? Review what the Journal is currently publishing Consult with colleagues Time to first decision Review process Duration Look at Journal’s impact factors

  17. Education Papers don’t only get published in education journalsWrite About Education and the Other Things You Do/Study

  18. Mission of a Journal • Find the best work • Report it dispassionately

  19. How does the process work?

  20. Manuscripts Received

  21. Types of Research 2012

  22. Origin of Research US International

  23. Initial Submission Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision

  24. Initial Submission Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision

  25. Initial Submission Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision

  26. Peer Review • Peer review is a mechanism by which the research community asserts quality control. • It has become an essential feature of the decision-making processes used by most funding agencies and all major medical journals. • A feature common to all peer reviews is that they are performed by one or more individuals active in a field of study that is central to the item being reviewed.

  27. Types of Peer Review • Double blind • Article is de-identified, and identity of reviewer remains confidential. • Single blind • Reviewer knows identity of authors. Authors don’t find out identity of reviewers. • Open • Identity of authors, reviewers known to all • Often reviews are published with the article.

  28. Editors use the Reviews • Once reviews are in the editor reads the paper and the reviews • The editor, not the reviewer, makes the decision about the paper • Reviewers’ comments are valuable, but reviewers are only consultants to the thinking process

  29. Reviewers’ Grades of Papers Accepted Rejected

  30. Editors are looking for work that is…. • Important • Informative • Novel • Ethical Important informative novel ethical

  31. What is Important? • Research results that will • change or affect practice, • teach us about biology, or • serve as a launching platform to define new directions in medicine Important informative novel ethical

  32. What is Informative? • Study adds appreciably to available data • Conclusions provide clear direction • Conclusions follow from the data • Free from commercial or intellectual bias Important informative novel ethical

  33. What is Novel ? • A study that • breaks new ground, • defines new treatments or • resolves major controversies Important informative novel ethical

  34. What is Ethical? • Adequate informed consent obtained • Minimum number of subjects put at risk to gain needed information • Honest reporting Important informative novel ethical

  35. Associate Editor makes a decision • Full consideration? • Manuscript is presented to all the editors • Minimal consideration? • Manuscript is on the agenda but discussion is minimal

  36. Initial Submission Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision

  37. The Editors Meet

  38. Initial Submission Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting About 20% of papers fail at this step Statistical Review Initial Decision

  39. Possible Decisions Needs additional Experiments-1% We’re very interested 0.8% We’re interested 3.5% Reject After Peer Review 33.8% Initial Reject 60.5%

  40. Three Major Reasons for Rejection • Quality – the science is flawed • Novelty – the science is good, but has previously been published or does not advance the field • Specialty – it’s good, but not of general interest and belongs in a specialty journal

  41. Reasons for Rejection Bordages G. Acad. Med. 2001;76:889–896.

  42. Initial Submission Revision Submitted Associate Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Final Decision Editor-in-chief Associate/ Deputy Editor Peer Review Editorial Meeting Statistical Review Initial Decision

  43. Expanded Mission of Medical Journals • Find the best work • Solicit submissions • Meet authors needs for expeditious review • Best reviewers • Thoughtful debate • Report it dispassionately • Careful manuscript editing • Content • Language • Remove ‘spin’ • Clear graphics • Supplementary commentary • Disseminate the findings • Attract readers to the site • Email and print • Support teachers • Support the reader • Easy search and retrieval • Portfolio • Provide an educational program • Support the scientific mission • Meet the needs of readers • Enhance the experience

  44. Journal’s Role evaluate work do determine if it is important, informative, novel and ethical ensure the data has been analyzed appropriately and that conclusions follow from the data relationships that could lead to perceptions of bias are disclosed Differing Perspectives • Authors role • Do the right study • Write about it clearly • Report it dispassionately • Submit to the right Journal • Respond clearly

  45. Submissions in 2012 (n=14,441) Perspectives

  46. NEJM.org Audience PCPs = FMs + IMs + GP 46%

  47. Assigning the Manuscripts About 10% of papers are rejected at this stage Assigned manuscripts are sent to the Associate Editors

  48. Local experts in major areas of medicine Being local facilitates in-person meetings 10 AEs: Cardiology, Infectious Disease, Cancer, Endocrinology, Gastroenterology, Associate Editors • Maternal-Fetal • Neurology • Office Practice, • Health Policy & • Vascular Disease

More Related