Authors' Submission Toolkit: A practical guide to getting your research published

Chipperfield, Leighton; Citrome, Leslie; Clark, Juli; David, Frank S.; Enck, Robert E.; Evangelista, Michelle; Gonzalez, John; Groves, Trish; Magrann, Jay; Mansi, Bernadette; Miller, Charles L.; Mooney, LaVerne A.; Murphy, A.; Shelton, John S.; Walson, Philip D.; Weigel, Al

doi:10.1185/03007995.2010.499344

Cited by 48 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Often, these can be the aspects that are most elusive to authors as their experience across a broad range of congress and journal requirements may be limited, and they do not have the time or inclination to focus on logistics of publication management. PMWs working with reputable communications agencies will have generally received training in reporting guidelines 20 , publication requirements 21 , GPP 2 and be familiar with researching journal requirements, so have considerable expertise in the mechanics of getting research published 10 . PMWs may also be assisted by experts in publications management to prepare schedules, track reviews, ensure co-author involvement, and editorial experts in grammar, consistency, style and journal requirements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The changing professional environment should be driving a shift in non-industry perceptions of PMWs, not only in terms of their acceptability, but in the value they can add in terms of reporting standards, compliance with GPP, scientific expertise and overall quality of the publication 10 . However, there is still much discussion in the contemporary publication ethics literature of ghost writers 11,12 , ghost authors 13 and guest authors 14 , which is often based on past publication practices and which does not consider the progress that has taken place within the profession since the publication of the original GPP guidelines in 2003 15 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Author attitudes to professional medical writing support

Marchington¹,

Burd²

2014

Current Medical Research and Opinion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To understand academic/clinician authors' perceptions regarding the value of professional medical writers. Research design and methods:An online survey of academic/clinician authors was conducted to understand the value of professional medical writer support in the development of publications (abstracts, posters and manuscripts). Responses were collected anonymously. The survey used a negative-to-positive, 6 point scale to evaluate respondents' opinions and experiences of working with professional medical writers, and multiple choice to indicate in which areas professional medical writers added value. Results:Responses from 76/260 authors were received (Europe, n ¼ 57; 75.0%; North America, n ¼ 16; 21.1%; Asia-Pacific region, n ¼ 3; 3.9%). The majority of respondents were either clinicians (n ¼ 45; 59.2%) or academic researchers (n ¼ 25; 32.9%). A total of 82.9% (63/76) of respondents felt that it was acceptable to receive professional medical writer assistance with their publications, and 84.0% (63/75) valued the assistance provided. The services most valued ( 450 responses) were editing and journal styling, conformity with reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT) and manuscript submissions. Fewer respondents (25-49 responses) valued management of timelines and co-author reviews, scientific/technical writing assistance and expert guidance on authorship requirements/good publication practice. The least valued service was the scientific expertise of the professional medical writer (3 responses). Conclusions:Respondents to this survey were generally accepting of medical writing assistance and valued many aspects of the role, in particular editorial support. The survey was small, however, and potentially biased towards authors with experience of working with medical communication agencies. Although many medical writers come from a scientific background and have relevant expertise, this was not perceived as a value. It would be beneficial to educate authors and journal editors regarding medical writers' scientific expertise and role.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Author attitudes to professional medical writing support

Marchington¹,

Burd²

2014

Current Medical Research and Opinion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Make sure that the journal's readership corresponds to your target audience (Chipperfield et al 2010). Get a copy of the journal's instructions to authors and plan the article to fit the journal's preferred format in terms of overall length, number of figures required/allowed, etc.…”

Section: European Association Of Science Editors (Ease)mentioning

confidence: 99%

EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English

EASEEuropeanAssociationofScienceEditors¹

2014

Acta Inform Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This concise and readable set of editorial guidelines was first published by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) in 2010 and is updated annually. It is freely available in more than 20 languages at http://ease.org.uk/publications/author-guidelines. The document is aimed to help scientists worldwide in successful presentation of their research results and in correct translation of manuscripts into English. Moreover, it draws attention to ethical issues, like authorship criteria, plagiarism, conflict of interests, etc. Eight appendices provide examples or more detailed information on selected topics (Abstracts, Ambiguity, Cohesion, Ethics, Plurals, Simplicity, Spelling, and Text-tables). Widespread use of EASE Guidelines should increase the efficiency of international scientific communication. keywords within the abstract, to facilitate on-line searching for your article by those who may be interested in your results (many databases include only titles and abstracts). In a research report, the abstract should be informative, including actual results. Only in reviews, meta-analyses, and other wide-scope articles, should the abstract be indicative, i.e. listing the major topics discussed but not giving outcomes (CSE 2014). Do not refer in the abstract to tables or figures, as abstracts are also published separately. References to the literature are also not allowed unless they are absolutely necessary (but then you need to provide detailed information in brackets: author, title, year, etc.). Make sure that all the information given in the abstract also appears in the main body of the article.(See Appendix: Abstracts) • List of additional keywords (if required by the editors): include all relevant scientific terms that are absent from the title and abstract. Keep the keywords specific. Add more general terms if your study has interdisciplinary significance (O'Connor 1991). In medical texts, use vocabulary found in the MeSH Browser. • List of abbreviations (if required by the editors):define all abbreviations used in the article, except those obvious to non-specialists.• Introduction: explain why the study was needed and specify your research objectives or the question(s) you aimed to answer. Start from more general issues and gradually focus on your research question(s).• Methods: describe in detail how the study was carried out (e.g. study area, data collection, criteria, origin of analysed material, sample size, number of measurements, age and sex of participants, equipment, data analysis, statistical tests, and software used). All factors that could have affected the results need to be considered. Sources of experimental materials obtained from biobanks should be mentioned with full names and identifiers, if available (Bravo et al. 2013). Ifyou cite a method described in a non-English or inaccessible publication, explain it in detail in your manuscript. Make sure that you comply with the ethical standards (e.g. WMA 2013) in respect of patient rights, animal testing, environmental protection,...

show abstract

“…Authors' Submission Toolkit: A practical guide to getting your research published [123] MRC UK Medical Research Council:…”

Section: Essaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics: A Publisher's Perspective, 2nd Edition

Graf

Deakin

Docking³

et al. 2014

Advanced Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. These new guidelines provide guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is included about whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research, and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights, and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary, and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. These guidelines are also published in: Headache, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Social Science Quarterly, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.

show abstract

Authors' Submission Toolkit: A practical guide to getting your research published

Cited by 48 publications

References 1 publication

Author attitudes to professional medical writing support

Author attitudes to professional medical writing support

EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English

Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics: A Publisher's Perspective, 2nd Edition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About