Transcript TITLE V BLOCK GRANT ELECTRONIC REPORTING …

Scientific Writing for MCH
Epidemiologists
Donna J. Petersen, ScD, MHS
Editor-in-Chief
Maternal and Child Health Journal
• What an editor looks for in a
submission
• Tips on writing a scientific paper
• How to get started
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”
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
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
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
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
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
“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
Tips for Scientific Writing
• Just the Facts
• Follow the formula
• Three qualities of scientific prose (Huth)
 Accuracy
 Clarity
 Brevity
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 vs patient
Data is (just shoot me)
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”)
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!”
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
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
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)
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
Structure of a Scientific “Story”
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
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
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