Writing for Publication DR JULIE NIGHTINGALE EDITORINCHIEF RADIOGRAPHY

Writing for Publication DR JULIE NIGHTINGALE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF RADIOGRAPHY

Introduction �Publication options �Constructing an article �The publishing process �Why publish in Radiography?

Radiography �An international, English language, peer-reviewed journal of radiographic imaging and radiation therapy. �Promotes excellence in the profession of radiography by its commitment to the publication of original research, encouragement and dissemination of best clinical, scientific and educational practice �The official professional journal of the Society and College of Radiographers and is published quarterly by Elsevier Ltd.

Radiography: Background Information � Published four times a year � Regular special issues – e. g. paediatric imaging / dose optimisation and image quality � 23, 000 hard copies plus on-line access � 73 countries In 2013: Approx 130 articles submitted Approx 475 reviewers invited to review More than 170, 000 downloads More than ¼ articles published are non-UK

Why Publish? �Add to an evidence base to improve and expand knowledge �Promotes deep understanding and learning �Develops confidence to challenge traditional practice �Employer or funding body may require publication �Publication profile for CPD and CV

Key Questions �What steps do I need to take before I write my paper? �How can I ensure I am using proper manuscript language? �How do I build up my article properly?

Determine if you are ready to publish Do you have information that advances understanding in a specific research field? This could be in the form of: � Presenting new, original results or methods � Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results � Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field Successful publication is a lot more difficult if: • Your report has no scientific interest • The work is out of date • You would be duplication previously published work • Your conclusions are incorrect / not acceptable

Ready to publish? If you are ready to publish, a strong manuscript is what is needed next

Publishing process �Find a suitable journal (aims and scope) �Prepare your manuscript following author guidelines �Submission �Peer Review �Publication

Find a journal - Search through Elsevier or other publishers’ journals - Check the aims and scope of the journal to see if your article is a good fit - Check if the journal is invitation only - Submit to only one journal at a time - Check the Guide for Authors: the type of articles accepted / article length editorial team contacts graphics specification

Prepare your paper - types of article 1. Original full length research papers (2500 words / 4000 words qualitative ) 2. Review Article (3000 words) 3. Guest Editorials (1000 words) 4. Technical notes (1000 words) 5. Case reports (800 words) 6. Book Reviews (300 words) 7. Letters to the Editor (500 words)

Full Length Research Articles �Clear but catchy title �Abstract not to exceed 250 words �Article approximately 2, 500 words �Typically comprise empirical research following the standard scientific article format

Scientific article format �Abstract �Introduction �Methods �Results �Discussion �Conclusions / Recommendations �Literature cited N. B. Differences for some qualitative articles and literature review articles

What is a strong manuscript? �Has a clear, useful, and exciting message �Presented and constructed in a logical manner �Reviewers and editors can grasp the significance easily Editors and reviewers are all busy people – make things easy to save their time

Manuscript Language – Overview Write with clarity, objectivity, accuracy, and brevity Key to successful manuscript writing is to be alert to common errors: Sentence and paragraph construction Incorrect tenses Inaccurate grammar and punctuation Inconsistent use of English Check the Guide for Authors of the target journal for any language specifications

Practical tips � Avoid abbreviations by writing out in full but can use acronyms for a term that is repeated often � Avoid jargon and slang � Do not capitalise common nouns; e. g. radiologists, radiographers, ultrasound, radiography. � Do not start a sentence with a number e. g. 12 images … would be: Twelve images…. etc � Do not shorten e. g. didn’t for did not � Note that ‘data’ is plural � Proof read and spell check � Use past tense when describing methods and results � Distinguish between ‘practice’ as a noun and ‘to practise’ as a verb

Abstract Title and abstract - must make an impact! ‘Shortened’ version of the article – written last �what the objectives of the study were; �how the study was done; �what results were obtained; �the significance of the results.

Introduction � Why is this study of interest and what is your objective? � Discusses the results and conclusions of previously published studies. � Explains why the current study is of scientific interest. � Organized to move from general information to specific information. � The last sentences of the introduction should be a statement of objectives and a statement of hypotheses.

Method � Provides all the methodological details necessary for another researcher to duplicate your work. � It should be a narrative of the steps you took in your experiment or study, not a list of instructions � Provide a description of statistical tests you used (statistics are methods!) � Confirmation that research complies with ethical policies.

Ethics Committee approval �Experiments on humans or animals must follow applicable ethics standards • e. g. most recent version of the Helsinki Declaration and/or relevant (local, national, international) animal experimentation guidelines �Approval of the research ethics committee, university ethics committee and/or R+D department is required, and should be specified in the manuscript January 2012

Results �This section presents the results of the experiment. �Do not attempt to interpret their meaning. �Know what information to include or exclude. �No need to present the raw data �Summarize the data with text, tables and/or figures. �Do not include the same data in both a table and a figure

Discussion �Do not simply re-state the objectives. �Do not introduce new material or facts. �Make statements that synthesize all the evidence (including previous work and the current work). �Do not make statements that are too broad �If necessary, note problems with the methods and explain anomalies in the data

Conclusions/Recommendations �Draw out conclusions �Suggest future directions for research

Accurate citations Check the journal referencing style, and follow closely Medical journals follow the Vancouver style: Example: "The author has discussed the implications of these proposals on the National Health Service in another paper. 1 Other writers have commented on related issues, notably Lane 2, 3 and Annas 4. ” Annas GJ. New drugs for acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337: 435 -9

Common pitfalls �Badly written abstract �Inadequate or absent introduction �Raising questions which are then not addressed �Poor sentence structure �Inaccurate content �Missing or inaccurate references �Jumping from idea to idea �Making assumptions not based on the data �Inadequate or absent conclusion �Waffle!

Ethical publishing � Accurate account of work performed / objective discussion of significance � Sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. � The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. � Avoid multiple, redundant or concurrent publication (duplicates) � Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given � Authorship limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. � All co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. � Disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript � Obtain permission sought for copyrighted material (? Images)

Manuscript ready? � Submission – via EES system Designated corresponding author Submission letter – first submission or revision / statements Title page (with author details) Abstract saved separately Select key words Manuscript (without author details) Figures and Tables saved separately � Approval – author approved PDF / journal checks � Peer review (double blind) � Decision (Minor / major corrections / accept / reject) � Copy editing / proof copies � Publication online then in print – N. B. Copyright

http: //ees. elsevier. com/radiography/default. asp http: //www. elsevier. com/wps/find/authorshome. authors

One last word. . . copyright Once your article is accepted, the publisher will hold copyright: You can: � share your article PDF internally in your organisation � use your article in your work (eg. to support a lecture) � paste a link to your article from your own website � You can publish the final accepted manuscript (before any copy-editing and type-setting performed) You cannot: � post the full copy-edited PDF version on a public website or social media – eg. university repository or Researchgate � make profit from the article (eg. sell it)

Author submits article via the web http: //ees. elsevier. com/radiography/ Process Analysis Elsevier staff check ·article is complete ·create pdf documents ·email Editor in Chief ·Scan-reads the work ·Invites reviewers, or ·Passes it to an Associate Editor, who ·Invites reviewers Reviewer says “Yes” Article is reviewed and comments given back to Review Editor / Editor in chief This continues until enough reviewers accept to review Reviewer(s) says “no”, cannot review Reviewer meets unexpected time management problem and cannot do it

Editor in chief / Associate Editor ·Reads reviewer comments ·Makes decision (accept/revise/reject) ·Informs author of decision and reviewer comments Revise - author will ·Address reviewer comments Reject - author could ·rework article complete, or ·submit to another journal Resubmitted Review editor / Editor in Chief Reads work against reviewer comments Article requires further revision ·Editor may ask for work to be revised again, or ·Editor may ask same reviewer(s) to review the work, if this then… ·Reviewer provides comments ·Author informed if further work is required on their article Process Analysis Accept ·Article is accepted in current form Steps to publication ·type-set ·proof read by author ·published online immediately ·published hardcopy when space permits

Useful information sources Manning, D. Hogg, P. (2006) Writing for publication. Radiography 12, 77 -78 A Guide to Writing in the Biological Sciences http: //classweb. gmu. edu/biologyresources/writingguide/S cientific. Paper. htm Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication http: //www. icmje. org Instructions for authors - any journal