How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Busse C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8520870 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal.
Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education 20211001 5
Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target jour ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Dissemination of results is a fundamental aspect of the scientific process and requires an avenue for publication that is specifically designed to suit the nature of the research being communicated. Undergraduate research journals provide a unique forum for students to report scientific findings and ideas while learning about the complete scientific process. We have developed a peer-reviewed, open-access, international undergraduate research journal that is linked to a course-based undergraduate research experience. We reflect on lessons learned and recommend effective approaches for the implementation and operation of a successful undergraduate research journal.
| S-EPMC7452719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one's field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0-7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2-3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology. Efforts to improve the quality and "publishability" of doctoral dissertation research could benefit psychological science on multiple fronts.
| S-EPMC5812605 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPreprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.MethodsThe study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article.ResultsThe search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint-article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73-187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71-464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint-article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found.ConclusionsEffect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles.
| S-EPMC10782611 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Selective publication and reporting in individual papers compromise the scientific record, but are meta-analyses as compromised as their constituent studies? We systematically sampled 63 meta-analyses (each comprising at least 40 studies) in PLoS One, top medical journals, top psychology journals, and Metalab, an online, open-data database of developmental psychology meta-analyses. We empirically estimated publication bias in each, including only the peer-reviewed studies. Across all meta-analyses, we estimated that "statistically significant" results in the expected direction were only 1.17 times more likely to be published than "nonsignificant" results or those in the unexpected direction (95% CI: [0.93, 1.47]), with a confidence interval substantially overlapping the null. Comparable estimates were 0.83 for meta-analyses in PLoS One, 1.02 for top medical journals, 1.54 for top psychology journals, and 4.70 for Metalab. The severity of publication bias did differ across individual meta-analyses; in a small minority (10%; 95% CI: [2%, 21%]), publication bias appeared to favor "significant" results in the expected direction by more than threefold. We estimated that for 89% of meta-analyses, the amount of publication bias that would be required to attenuate the point estimate to the null exceeded the amount of publication bias estimated to be actually present in the vast majority of meta-analyses from the relevant scientific discipline (exceeding the 95th percentile of publication bias). Study-level measures ("statistical significance" with a point estimate in the expected direction and point estimate size) did not indicate more publication bias in higher-tier versus lower-tier journals, nor in the earliest studies published on a topic versus later studies. Overall, we conclude that the mere act of performing a meta-analysis with a large number of studies (at least 40) and that includes non-headline results may largely mitigate publication bias in meta-analyses, suggesting optimism about the validity of meta-analytic results.
| S-EPMC7954980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe health of migrants has become an important issue in global health and foreign policy. Assessing the current status of research activity and identifying gaps in global migration health (GMH) is an important step in mapping the evidence-base and on advocating health needs of migrants and mobile populations. The aim of this study was to analyze globally published peer-reviewed literature in GMH.MethodsA bibliometric analysis methodology was used. The Scopus database was used to retrieve documents in peer-reviewed journals in GMH for the study period from 2000 to 2016. A group of experts in GMH developed the needed keywords and validated the final search strategy.ResultsThe number of retrieved documents was 21,457. Approximately one third (6878; 32.1%) of the retrieved documents were published in the last three years of the study period. In total, 5451 (25.4%) documents were about refugees and asylum seekers, while 1328 (6.2%) were about migrant workers, 440 (2.1%) were about international students, 679 (3.2%) were about victims of human trafficking/smuggling, 26 (0.1%) were about patients' mobility across international borders, and the remaining documents were about unspecified categories of migrants. The majority of the retrieved documents (10,086; 47.0%) were in psychosocial and mental health domain, while 2945 (13.7%) documents were in infectious diseases, 6819 (31.8%) documents were in health policy and systems, 2759 (12.8%) documents were in maternal and reproductive health, and 1918 (8.9%) were in non-communicable diseases. The contribution of authors and institutions in Asian countries, Latin America, Africa, Middle East, and Eastern European countries was low. Literature in GMH represents the perspectives of high-income migrant destination countries.ConclusionOur heat map of research output shows that despite the ever-growing prominence of human mobility across the globe, and Sustainable Development Goals of leaving no one behind, research output on migrants' health is not consistent with the global migration pattern. A stronger evidence base is needed to enable authorities to make evidence-informed decisions on migration health policy and practice. Research collaboration and networks should be encouraged to prioritize research in GMH.
| S-EPMC6011263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysician scientists who are also Editorial Board members or Associate Editors may prefer publishing in their own journal and therefore create an environment for conflicts of interest to arise.ObjectivesTo assess the relationship between the number of peer-reviewed publications in surgical journals in which authors serve as Editorial Board Members and Associate Editors and their total number of annual publications.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional study utilizing PubMed was performed regarding the total annual number of peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and the number published in their respective affiliated journals from 2016 to 2019. Significance defined as p < 0.05.Results80 Associate Editors and 721 Editorial Board Members (n = 801 total) were analyzed from 10 surgical journals. The mean number of total annual peer-reviewed publications varied from 5.19 to 17.18. The mean number of annual peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals varied from 0.06 to 2.53. Multiple significant associations were discovered between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications and number of peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals for all authors/surgical journals evaluated, except for the International Journal of Surgery (p > 0.05).ConclusionsWe found significant associations between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and number of annual peer-reviewed publications by their affiliated surgical journals. The implementation and enforcement of a standardized double-blind review process and mandatory reporting of any potential conflicts of interest can reduce possible bias and promote a fair and high-quality peer-review process.
| S-EPMC7595936 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8383345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThere is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but will also help higher education institutions (HEIs) make informed decisions in their administrative and research policies.Design and methodologyTo examine both the questions, we applied the United Kingdom's recently concluded national research assessment exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 as a case study. All the data for this study is sourced from the openly available publications which arose from the digital repositories of REF's results and HEFCE's funding allocations.FindingsA world leading output earns between £7504 and £14,639 per year within the REF cycle, whereas an internationally excellent output earns between £1876 and £3659, varying according to their area of research. Secondly, an investigation into the impact rating of 25315 journal articles submitted in five areas of research by UK HEIs and their awarded funding revealed a linear relationship between the percentage of quartile-one journal publications and percentage of 4* outputs in Clinical Medicine, Physics and Psychology/Psychiatry/Neuroscience UoAs, and no relationship was found in the Classics and Anthropology/Development Studies UoAs, due to the fact that most publications in the latter two disciplines are not journal articles.Practical implicationsThe findings provide an indication of the monetary value of a research output, from the perspectives of government funding for research, and also what makes a good output, i.e. whether a relationship exists between good quality output and the source of its publication. The findings may also influence future REF submission strategies in HEIs and ascertain that the impact rating of the journals is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of research in every discipline, and this may have a significant influence on the future of scholarly communications in general.OriginalityAccording to the author's knowledge, this is the first time an investigation has estimated the monetary value of a good research output.
| S-EPMC5507403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere has been limited research on the impact of research funding for small, institutional grants. The IWK Health Centre, a children and women's hospital in Maritime Canada, provides small amounts (up to $15,000) of research funding for staff and trainees at all levels of experience through its Research Operating Grants. These grants are rigorously peer-reviewed. To evaluate the impact of these grants, an assessment was completed of several different areas of impact.FindingsAn online questionnaire was sent to 64 Principal Investigators and Co-Investigators from Research Operating Grants awarded from 2004 to 2006. The questionnaire was designed to assess five areas of potential impact: (1) research, (2) policy, (3) practice, (4) society and (5) personal. Research impact reported by participants included publications (72%), presentations (82%) and knowledge transfer beyond the traditional formats (51%). Practice impact was reported by 67% of participants, policy impact by 15% and societal impact by 18%. All participants reported personal impact.ConclusionsSmall research grants yield similar impacts to relatively large research grants. Regardless of the total amount of research funds awarded, rigorously peer-reviewed research projects have the potential for significant impact at the level of knowledge transfer and changes in clinical practice and policy. Additional findings in the present research indicate that small awards have the potential to have significant impact on the individual grant holder across a variety of capacity building variables. These personal impacts are particularly noteworthy in the context of developing the research programs of novice researchers.
| S-EPMC2873346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuantitative data are lacking on published malaria research. The purpose of the study is to characterize trends in malaria-related literature from 1990 to 2009 in 11 Asian-Pacific countries that are committed to malaria elimination as a national goal.MethodsA systematic search was conducted for articles published from January 1990 to December 2009 in PubMed/MEDLINE using terms for malaria and 11 target countries (Bhutan, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vanuatu). The references were collated and categorized according to subject, Plasmodium species, and whether they contained original or derivative data.Results2,700 articles published between 1990 and 2009 related to malaria in the target countries. The annual output of malaria-related papers increased linearly whereas the overall biomedical output from these countries grew exponentially. The percentage of malaria-related publications was nearly 3% (111/3741) of all biomedical publications in 1992 and decreased to less than 1% (118/12171; p < 0.001) in 2009. Thailand had the highest absolute output of malaria-related papers (n = 1211), followed by China (n = 609) and Indonesia (n = 346). Solomon Islands and Vanuatu had lower absolute numbers of publications, but both countries had the highest number of publications per capita (1.3 and 2.5 papers/1,000 population). The largest percentage of papers concerned the epidemiology and control of malaria (53%) followed by studies of drugs and drug resistance (47%). There was an increase in the proportion of articles relating to epidemiology, entomology, biology, molecular biology, pathophysiology and diagnostics from the first to the second decade, whereas the percentage of papers on drugs, clinical aspects of malaria, immunology, and social sciences decreased.ConclusionsThe proportion of malaria-related publications out of the overall biomedical output from the 11 target Asian-Pacific countries is decreasing. The discovery and evaluation of new, safe and effective drugs and vaccines is paramount. In addition the elimination of malaria will require operational research to implement and scale up interventions.
| S-EPMC3118956 | biostudies-literature