Contents

1. Introduction

2. How to write a successful article

3. How to write a successful Case Report

4. A short guideline for structured (systematic) Reviews

5. Getting it right the first time
Powerpoint

‘Getting it right first time.’ A guide to successful publishing of a scientific paper in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry

Presentation given at the International Association of Paediatric Dentistry Congress, Hong Kong, June 2007 by Professor Helen Rodd on behalf of the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry

[Each of the below numbered points relates to the same numbered slide in the accompanying powerpoint presentation.]

1. This presentation seeks to outline the principles of writing a really good scientific paper that will have the best possible chance of being published in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry (IJPD).


2. To gain some insight into what constitutes a good paper, we will first look at the main reasons for paper rejection across the wider biomedical literature. I would then like to give some general tips for good writing before focussing on each different component of a scientific report.


3. Having a paper rejected outright is a fairly negative and depressing experience. But what are the main reasons for paper rejection? A number of surveys of medical and dental journal editors and reviewers have found that the most common reason for a paper being rejected is:
• A flawed study design (with deficiencies such as no hypothesis, no control, a biased protocol, sample too small or inappropriate statistical tests).
Other reasons for rejection, in descending order of frequency, are:
• Poorly written discussion;
• Inadequate description of the methods;
• The subject was of little novel or clinical interest or not generally applicable;
• Poor writing style and use of English;
• Poor quality supporting figures;
• The authors did not follow instructions for manuscript preparation as outlined in the journal’s guidelines, or
• The paper was simply inappropriate for the journal’s scope and readership.
Although a fatal flaw in the study design may not be rectifiable, as no amount of re-writing, creative data presentation or statistical manipulation can compensate for this, many of the other reasons for rejection are avoidable as they relate to manuscript preparation and submission.

4. Let’s start with some general principles, which may be obvious, but are still frequently overlooked by submitting authors. The first question you really need to ask, is ‘ which journal is right for my paper?’ And you need to decide this before starting to write, so that the whole focus and style of your paper is suited to the selected journal. With respect to the IJPD, you need to appreciate that the journal is a specialist paediatric dentistry journal, which caters for an international readership with both clinical and academic backgrounds. And you therefore need to be confident that your paper is likely to be of interest, novelty and relevance to this audience. A study, for example, on the prevalence of enamel decalcification with fixed appliance therapy may be more suited to an orthodontic journal, and a study on caries experience in a particular country, may not have sufficient international relevance and would be more appropriate to a journal local to that country. The journal is also keen to publish papers that are likely to have a high scientific impact or clinical relevance, so a properly conducted randomised clinical trial would be well received. Review articles are encouraged but it is best to first consult the Editor-in-Chief to see if the subject is likely to be of interest.


5. You may be aware that the journal’s website produces a list of its 20 most downloaded papers and this can give you an idea of what topics are the most popular. In the current top 10, non less than three relate to primary pulp therapy, which continues to be a controversial area. Two papers are large case series and a further two papers cover restorative materials.


6. I would also urge you to read the guidelines to authors (which are available on the journal’s webpages) to make sure that your paper adheres to these instructions in every way. Attention to this detail is really important, failure to do so, although unlikely to prevent publication, may prolong the refereeing process and will not generate particularly charitable feelings in the editorial office. I would also strongly recommend that you pay meticulous attention to checking your paper to ensure you have not made lots of careless typographical errors. Our reviewers are incredibly busy people who generously give up their valuable time to critically appraise submitted papers. It is therefore entirely understandable that they are going to be irritated by lots of silly mistakes. Also, if a paper is prepared in a sloppy manner, referees may even start to wonder whether the study was also conducted in a careless manner. So make sure your paper does not give this impression. The use of good English also helps to make a favourable initial impression, so if English is not your first language, you may like to ask somebody with really good English to read through your manuscript to check for grammatical errors.


7. But it is a misconception to think that a scientific paper has to have big words and complex sentences. The essence of good writing is simplicity and clarity, and should mirror the style you would adopt to talk to a colleague. Try to write only one thought per sentence and keep the sentences succinct. Use short paragraphs on related themes that will make your paper easy to follow. For more detailed guidance on good writing style you may want to refer to these helpful publications.


8. In addition to seeking papers that are carefully prepared and well written, the IJPD aims to promote the highest ethical standard in biomedical publishing. Increasingly, biomedical journals are faced with a range of ethical issues, which are summarised in this slide. Plagiarism and submission of duplicate publications are problems which we, fortunately, do not encounter very often, but it is very important that you protect your own reputation and that of our journal, by ensuring that you do not inadvertently submit data that have been previously published, in anything other than abstract form.


9. There has also been considerable recent media coverage about scientific fraud which, I think, sadly reflects the enormous pressure academics are under these days to attract large grants and publish.


10. I would now like to take you through the different components of a scientific paper, to highlight good and bad practice. Firstly the title. This is really important and deserves some thought. It must be short, self-explanatory and should immediately capture the reviewers’ and readers’ interest. So how might a title such as ‘ An investigation of advertisements that could be detrimental to dental health shown during children’s television programmes’ be improved? I would suggest that something like ‘Content analysis of children’s advertising in relation to dental health’ is a more concise but still informative alternative.


11. The abstract is structured like a mini-paper and, as such, should briefly describe the background to the study, the aim, methods (or design), results and conclusion, all within a 250 word limit. It is obviously not possible or necessary to include all the data, just select those findings which are the most meaningful or have reached statistical significance. It is always easiest to write your abstract after you have written the full paper. Also be sure to check that the data in the abstract are the same as those in the main body of the paper, as this is a frequent source of error.


12. The introduction is an incredibly important section as it sets the scene for the study and must engage the reviewers’ and readers’ attention right from the first sentence so that they really want to continue reading. In the introduction, you must justify why you undertook the study in the first place, making it sound like a novel and important line of enquiry. To do this you will need to give some background to the area of research, maybe indicating gaps in existing knowledge or unanswered clinical problems. You should briefly appraise any previous related work and cite key supporting references. The final paragraph of the introduction should then clearly outline the overall aim of the study as well as stating any specific objectives. It may be appropriate, in some scientific papers to give a null hypothesis. And it goes without saying, that you should ensure that your subsequent method and results do actually satisfy your initial stated aim and objectives, as a common criticism from reviewers is that ‘the paper did not achieve what it purportedly set out to do!’


13. The method section, in its simplest terms, is a description of ‘what you did, and how you did it’ yet it often receives the most criticism from reviewers because inadequate detail is given about the participants, material or techniques employed. It should be possible for the reader to reproduce the study protocol exactly from the information provided. Specific details should therefore be given, for instance, about suppliers of any materials used or software packages. If the study is a clinical trial, then a specific format has to be followed according to the CONSORT guidelines. As a reviewer, I also look for evidence of rigour in the methods, with inclusion of details such as pilot studies, calibration, controls, power calculations for sample size, randomisation or repeatability where appropriate. The method section is entirely factual and should not include any reflection about the approach or techniques employed, this is reserved for the discussion section.


14. If the study involves children, the method section should also state which governing body gave ethical approval for the research, as well as an explanation of the informed consent and assent procedures. Increasingly, the role of children as active participants in research is being recognised, and, where appropriate, their involvement in the study design should be encouraged and described.


15. Moving onto the results section, this should include a succinct and clear description of what you found in your study. Tables and figures are usually the most effective way of communicating data and the text should simply highlight the most important findings and not repeat every single piece of data. It is also important that you present the actual data not just percentages so that your results are entirely transparent to the reviewer and reader. This also applies to any statistical tests undertaken, levels of significance or confidence intervals should be reported so that the reviewer can be confident that the results are valid.


16. Where you have included tables or figures these should be self-explanatory so that they are entirely understandable to the reader, without having to refer back to the text. This means that all abbreviations are fully explained in an accompanying key or legend. Here we have an example of a table with a number of obvious deficiencies.


17. This revised table shows the improvements (in red). The title is now more informative, the actual data are given not just the percentages, and there is an explanation of the abbreviations used.


18. If you include something like a histological photomicrograph in your paper, then, again, it must be meaningful to the average reader who will not have any specialist expertise in this area. So to submit a figure like this would be pointless.


19. It would be much more meaningful to include a self-explanatory legend with labels and a scale bar as seen on this amended figure.


20. Attention to detail is also important in graphs. This graph is generally very good, it has error bars and a self-explanatory legend, but there is still something missing that would be helpful to the reader.


21. I would like to see ‘N’ values actually on the graph so that I can instantly know the sample size without having to go back through the text to find them.


22. We will now turn to the discussion, which should focus on what you have found in your study. Interestingly, whereas the method section is frequently criticised for being too brief, the discussion section is more likely to be far too long, and rambling. These are the main criticisms that have been raised by journal editors:
    • The discussion contains erroneous or unsupported conclusions;
    • There is a failure to consider alterative explanations for the findings;
    • No acknowledgement is given of any limitations or shortcomings within study design;
    • There is an inadequate link between the findings and clinical practice;
    • And there is a tendency to include irrelevant or redundant material.
    
    
23. So with this in mind, the discussion section should be a concise appraisal of what you have found in your study and a circumspect reflection of the significance of these findings in terms of contributing to new knowledge or the relevance to clinical practice. You certainly want the reader to be given the impression that the study was worthwhile without over-inflating the importance of the work. It is also appropriate to comment on whether your findings support or dispute findings from previous and related studies. It may be helpful to outline how future research may be directed in this field. Any shortcomings in the study should be acknowledged because if you don’t, you can be sure the referees will.


24. Not all published papers have a conclusion, but where appropriate, this can be a brief summary of the key findings and their impact. The IJPD also now requires authors to include a maximum of three3 bullet points under the headings of ‘what this paper adds’ and ‘why this paper is important for paediatric dentists’. Think carefully about these statements, as the busy reader may be enticed to read your full paper on the basis of how interesting it sounds from these short comments.

That really brings us to the end of this brief talk. I would encourage you all to submit papers to the IJPD. I am sure you will find it a very rewarding and positive experience providing you take that extra bit of thought and care in preparing your manuscript.