SECTION 9

PRESENTATION AND PUBLICATION

[Presentation] [Publication] [Manuscript preparation] [Style of writing]

9.1 Presentation

Communication of research findings at medical conferences usually takes the form of an oral or poster presentation.

• Oral presentation
  At an oral presentation, the speaker is given a fixed period of time (usually 10 to 30 minutes) to describe the research project. The presentation should cover the entire study, including background information, methodology, findings, and implications, using slides or overhead transparencies as visual aids. It is important not to overload slides or transparencies with data. For text, use large type in an outline form. Figures should be large and easy to understand. Text slides can summarize subject selection, research design, definition of variables, and data collection. Figures and tables are frequently used for illustrating major findings from the study. It is customary to allow sufficient time at the end of the presentation for questions. Preparation is paramount for a good oral presentation. The speaker is encouraged to rehearse with an audience of faculty and experienced researchers who can offer suggestions.

  Slide artwork can be created by OU-COM graphics (593-2296), and the slides produced by OU-COM photography (593-2311). Allow at least two weeks notice to each unit for the preparation of the artwork and slides.

• Poster presentation
  A poster presentation should include background information, methodology, findings, and implications. The display should stimulate interest rather than present complete details. A logical sequence is introduction, purpose and method, graphs or tables illustrating the results, and conclusions. Visual appearance is important. Type must large and bold for easy legibility. The conference organizers will provide details concerning the exact size and format of the poster. The OU-COM graphics unit (593-2296) can assist with design, layout and production of a poster display. Usually there is a designated time when the poster authors are available to answer questions. Handouts or preprints of the study may be provided for those interested.

9.2 Publication

Identifying the intended target audience will help in the selection of a journal to which a manuscript will be submitted. General science and medical journals, including Nature or Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, enjoy excellent reputations, but their acceptance rates are only 10 to 15%. These weekly journals not only publish original research directly related to clinical practice, but also news, letters, editorials, correspondence, book reviews, essays, and reports on conferences as well.

The specialty medical journals cover major specialties and subspecialties. These include Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, American Journal of Public Health, Family Medicine, American Family Physicians, and Family Practice Research Journal . These journals are less prestigious than those mentioned above, but their acceptance rate is about 40 to 60%.

The major journal published by the American Osteopathic Association is the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association (JAOA). This is the only journal of osteopathic medicine indexed by MEDLINE. Another osteopathic journal published by the AOA is the D.O.

The Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine, in conjunction with the Ohio Osteopathic Association, publishes a yearly journal called Ohio Research and Clinical Review. It covers broad areas of clinical and basic science research, as well as medical education research directly relevant to the osteopathic community. Co-editors are Jack Brose, D.O., and John Howell, Ph.D. Carl Denbow, Ph.D., is managing editor. The submission deadline is July 31.

• How to submit a paper
  Each journal includes Instructions to Authors that provide detailed guidelines on submitting a paper for publication in that journal. Follow the instructions explicitly, paying special attention to the required format. The cover letter submitted with the manuscript should include the authors’ names, titles, address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that each co-author has reviewed the manuscript before submission.
• Ethical considerations
  For ethical reasons, the same data may not be published in more than one journal. This includes writing two different versions of an article (e.g., one for a general audience and one for a specialty audience) for submission to two different journals at the same time. It is acceptable for most journals to consider a manuscript for publication that has been previously presented at a conference or meeting. However, authors should always inform the editor of any previous or pending public presentation of the research.
• Acceptance
  Papers can be accepted for publication either with or without revision. Upon receiving the editor’s acceptance notice, the authors should read each comment, criticism, or suggestion and address them point by point in a letter to the editor, whether or not they are incorporated into the revised text, along with the reasoning behind their decisions. All co-authors should participate in the revision process. The revised manuscript should be returned promptly. A prolonged delay may result in the rejection of the manuscript, or require a completely new review process.

  Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, it will undergo an editing process that could be very minor or fairly extensive. The journal’s editorial staff may contact the corresponding author with various questions, such as missing references or unclear descriptions of figures or tables. Again, response to those queries should be made as soon as possible. Once the editing is completed, the author is sent a galley proof to review prior to publication. The authors must carefully check for typographical errors in spelling, data, references, figures, and tables, and answer any questions marked on the proof by the editors.

  Following publication, authors may receive responses from readers regarding the article. Be prepared to address readers’ questions that might be included in a letter to the editor. Often the journal will forward letters from readers that will be published. In this case, the editors may request a response to be published simultaneously. Authors may order reprints of their article. Some journals offer reprints as a courtesy at no charge. The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs will provide up to $250 for the purchase of reprints of any articles published in conjunction with research done at Ohio University.

• Rejection
  Be aware that only a fraction of submitted papers are accepted for publication. Reasons for rejection include lack of originality, lack of logical reasoning, improper statistical analysis, inappropriate length, poor writing, or unsuitability of the topic for the particular journal.

  If a manuscript is rejected, the editor’s letter and reviewers’ criticisms should be distributed to the co-authors. If the reviewers’ criticisms are invalid or points are misunderstood, it may be appropriate to write a letter to the editor addressing these issues, along with a request to reconsider the paper. Alternatively, a revised version of the manuscript may be submitted to another journal for publication. If a manuscript was judged to be too long, it might be submitted as a short paper or communication instead of a full-length research paper.

  The important principle here is "don't give up!" Many important papers received several rejections prior to publication. Often, the review and revision process leads to considerable improvement in the paper that is finally published.

9.3 Manuscript preparation

A good clinical research paper should pose a significant scientific question, propose a methodology for answering the question, describe the results of the study, and explain any conclusions inferred from the findings. The standard format for a scientific manuscript is described below.

• Title
  The title should describe the work accurately and completely, without being too wordy. Sometimes it is useful to emphasize the findings in the title.
• Abstract
  The abstract should be concise, clear, and straightforward, and should be able to stand alone. It should convey a complete picture of the study to the reader. Usually the abstract is ~100-250 words in length, but this can vary widely from journal to journal.
• Introduction
  The introduction should be used to review the background of the problem, citing up-to-date references. It should also include a clear definition of the questions that will be studied and why they are important.
• Methods
  The methods section should include a complete description of how the study was performed, including data collection and statistical analysis. It is permissible to avoid prolonged descriptions of methodology if they can be referenced in other publications.
• Results
  The results section should summarize the data, its statistical treatment, and the outcomes in terms of statistical significance. The data should be reported objectively without speculation or detailed interpretation of the findings. Data are usually presented best in tables or figures to illustrate the differences between study groups, subjects, or changes over time. This can greatly reduce the amount of verbiage necessary to describe the results. Each table and figure should be self-explanatory, accompanied by notes and a legend. Sample sizes (N’s) should be included. The title of a figure or table should define the relationship among the variables.
• Discussion
  The discussion is usually the most critical part of the paper. It is the only section where opinions about the study’s findings can be voiced. While the results must be reported objectively, the discussion section provides a platform for the authors to interpret the data and speculate on its significance. The discussion section translates results into explanations and possible applications. The limitations of the study, including possible extraneous variables that could have affected the outcomes, should be identified and explained to clarify the results. The authors should note important findings, including unexpected or surprising results, interpret these findings, discuss the limitations, and indicate possible directions for future study.

  In the case where a significant result is detected, the authors should use caution in its interpretation. A significance level (P value) of .05 indicates a 5% possibility that the effect does not exist. Using such terms as “it would appear that ...” or “it seems...” when discussing the results does not equate to the authors’ lack of confidence in the findings, but indicates appropriate caution in the interpretation. It is much easier to be convincing when interpretations are strongly supported by the findings. Clear reasoning and logical arguments lead to a good discussion.

• Conclusion
  The conclusion should contain a concise summary of the significance of the principle findings. The conclusion is sometimes included as a short paragraph at the end of the discussion section.
• References
  This section contains a list of all references cited in the body of the text. It is unethical to include material from another published source without a reference. Including appropriate references demonstrates good knowledge of the literature and can help to build convincing arguments to support the interpretation of the data. It is essential to follow the reference format specified in the instructions provided by the journal. Personal communications or unauthorized documents should be avoided in both the text and reference list.

9.4 Style of writing

The style of writing varies with the subject matter, the occasion, and the personality of the author. However, there are some generally accepted principles in scientific writing:

• Use active sentences rather than passive sentences where possible. An active sentence makes the text more powerful and concise.
• Use a simple rather than complex language. The following are but a few examples:
  • Replace in light of the fact that with because.
    
  • Replace with the exception of with except.
    
  • Replace in spite of the fact with although.

  Editorial help is available from Mike Weiser (593-2380), OU-COM health policy writer, in preparing, submitting & revising a manuscript.

References

Return to Section 8

Return to Table of Contents