Workshop 4: Managing Writing Projects – NNPHI Writing Toolkit Staging Site

Hey

Kotz, D., & Cals, J. W. L. (2014, January 9). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part XII: Responding to reviewers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435613004307

Graham, D., Graham, J., & Lussos, R. (2020). The Writing System. Preview Press.

GreenRiters. (2020, September 26). Peer-Review process: 4 major steps. GreenRiters. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://greenriters.com/peer-review-process-in-scholarly-journals/

Guyatt, G. H., & Haynes, R. B. (2006, August 5). Preparing reports for publication and responding to reviewers’ comments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S089543560600206X?via%3Dihub

Stran. (2021, February 17). Understanding the publishing process. PLOS. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://plos.org/resource/understanding-the-publishing-process/

Accept: The editors have concluded that your written product contains a publishable contribution and will do so in its original form.

Accept with Minor Revision(s): The editors have concluded that your written product contains a publishable contribution upon execution of small list of specified revisions.

Accept with Major Revision(s): Editors have concluded that a written product needs to be substantially improved before it can be accepted for publication. Additionally, authors make changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors.

Revise and Resubmit: Editors are willing to reconsider the written product in another round of decision-making after the author(s) make major changes. When this occurs, the revised product is likely to be sent for a second round of peer review.

Reject: The editors have concluded that your written product is not suitable for publication. This can be due to a variety of reasons including not being a fit for the journal’s subject matter.

Different Types of Peer Review

There are several types of peer review to include:

Single Blind: reviewer’s identity hidden from author; reviewer knows identity of authors
Double Blind: Both reviewer and author remain anonymous to each other
Open: Reviewer and author are known to each other

Browner, W.S. (1999). Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Graham, D., Graham, J., & Lussos, R. (2020). The Writing System: A step by step guide for business and professional writers. 3rd edition.

Huth, E. J. (1990). How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences, 2nd edition. Williams & Wilkins.

Sharma, M., Sarin, A., Gupta, P., Sachdeva, S., & Desai, A. V. (2014). Journal Impact Factor: Its Use, Significance and Limitations. World Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 13(2), 146. https://doi.org/10.4103/1450-1147.139151

Standard and original research articles are the most common type of journal articles. They are detailed studies reporting new work and are classified as primary literature.

Brief reports are often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations that can be described in a short report with a few illustrations (figures/tables), or even a single figure.

Commentaries are short, narrowly focused articles that are usually commissioned by the journal and by invitation only. These articles are generally not peer-reviewed. Commentaries can be editorial in nature and cover aspects of an issue relevant to the scope of the journal.

Review articles provide critical and constructive analysis of existing published literature in a field. They’re usually structured to provide a summary of existing literature, analysis, and comparison. Often, they identify specific gaps or problems and provide recommendations for future research.

Prestige: What is the journal’s impact factor? An impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. What is the journal’s reputation in your field?

Ease of access: Does the journal require paid subscription to access articles and if so, will the cost be prohibitive to your target audience? Is the journal’s website easy to navigate? Does the journal mail print copies to subscribers?

Cost: Does the journal charge authors for publication? Does it charge for printing images?

Timing: How often does the journal publish? Historically, does it follow its stated schedule or fall behind? Does the journal have a backlog of articles waiting to be published? Make sure that the timeline for review, decision notification, and internal clearance processes are feasible for your writing product.

Who needs to read about your work? Consider if your product is for colleagues in your field of work, the general public, or both.

Who can implement your recommendations? You must know your target audience before you know your target journal.

Should you consider writing multiple manuscripts? If you have multiple target audiences, you may want to consider writing a manuscript for each identified audience.

Does your audience read this journal? Note how the journal describes its mission and goals on its website. Skim three to five of the journal’s published articles and note how they describe their target audience. If an article does not specify its audience, look to how it describes its implications: who can use that information or implement those recommendations?

What kinds of articles does this journal’s readership prefer? Take note of the topics, methods, implications, level of detail, and length of the journal’s published articles. Will your manuscript have similar features?

For more information, consider contacting colleagues who have published with the target journal. Do they recommend that you plan your manuscript for submission to that journal? Do they have any tips for making your manuscript look like a good fit? How was their experience working with the journal’s editor, reviewers, and proofreaders?

You may also email the journal editor with questions. Be sure to keep your email brief—under 100 words, with yes-or-no questions—and professional. In some instances, it may be beneficial to prepare a cover letter addressed to the editor that provides justification about why you think the journal is an appropriate fit and includes a synopsis of your major findings.

M&E Studies. (n.d.). Writing evaluation report of a project. How to Write a Program Evaluation Report (Guide) – Report Format/Template | Monitoring and Evaluation Studies. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from http://www.mnestudies.com/evaluation/writing-evaluation-report-project

Paulus. (2022, April 29). How to write a case study analysis. How To Write A Case Study Analysis – PapersOwl.com. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://papersowl.com/blog/how-to-write-a-case-study-analysis

Determining Authorship and Contributor Order:

Lapidow, A., & Scudder, P. (2019). Shared First Authorship. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 107(4), 618–620. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.700

Liboiron, M., Ammendolia, J., Winsor, K., Zahara, A., Bradshaw, H., Melvin, J., .Liboiron, G. (2017). Equity in Author Order: A Feminist Laboratory’s Approach. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 3(2),1-17. https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v3i2.28850

Recommendations – Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors | International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Guidance on Authorship in Scholarly or Scientific Publications | Office of the Provost – Yale University

Avula, J., & Avula, H. (2015). Authors, Authorship Order, the Moving Finger Writes. J Indian Soc Periodontol., 19(3): 258-262. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.145782

The Ethics of Manuscript Authorship: Best Practices for Attribution | American Journal Experts

Shared co-first authorship is defined as two or more authors who have worked together on a publication and contributed equally. The equal contribution is often indicated in the fine print of a published paper and should be noted on the title page during submission. The lead or co-first author(s) are responsible for several primary tasks which include:

- Obtaining the journal guidelines and ensuring the requirements are met
- Coordinate writing of the first draft of the manuscript
- Coordinating the feedback from co-authors
- Ensuring all authors agree before the final version is submitted
- Coordinating the signing of the copyright agreement
- Acting as the corresponding author (the designated contact person who corresponds with the journal’s editor(s))
- Responding to reviewer comments (if invited)
- Reviewing the proofs before final publication

References

Fair Use of this Guide – How to Prepare an Annotated Bibliography – LibGuides at Cornell University

Annotated Bibliographies – Purdue OWL® – Purdue University

Prepare an Annotated Bibliography – Citing Sources – Library at Edgewood College

Citation. The citation should be at the beginning of each individual entry. The citation should be consistent for each source and use the preferred format (e.g.., APA, MLA, AMA, etc.) of your publication outlet.

Annotation. The annotation is a paragraph of approximately 100-250 words in length that highlights the purpose of the work, summary of material presented, research methodology, relevance and special contribution to the topic, information about the author, intended audience, and strengths and weakness of the material.

Descriptive/Informative Bibliography. This type of annotated bibliography summarizes the material and describes why the source is relevant for a specific topic. Descriptive and informative bibliographies highlight the author’s main arguments and conclusions without further critical analysis or evaluation.

Analytical/Critical Bibliography. This type of annotated bibliography goes beyond summarizing the content of a source and examines the strengths and weaknesses of the information presented. Analytical and critical bibliographies often make an evaluation of the author’s conclusions.

Graham, D., Graham, J., & Lussos, R. (2020). The Writing System: A step by step guide for business and professional writers. 3rd edition

Does the audience believe you or need proof?

Is your audience going to read your document and immediately question “But how do you know? And how do I know that you know?” If your audience needs proof, add supporting details, such as in-text citations, an annotated bibliography, and a thorough reference list to prove your expertise and authority, and plan for your document to be two to three times longer. Depending on the document type and dissemination outlet, you may also provide a brief biography that highlights your education and expertise on the topic. If your audience believes you, do not add this information (TWS pages 22-23).

Does the audience have a high or low level of knowledge about the topic?

In other words, does your audience need to be educated on the topic before they can use the information? If you answer “low,” you must educate your audience by providing definitions, examples, and visualizations. Your document will be two to four times longer. If you answer “high,”you do not provide this extra information, and your document will be shorter (TWS pages 20-21).

What does the audience need to know?

Your answer to this question gives you your topic(s) for the document. Your audience does not need to know everything you know about the topic. Limit your topic to what the audience needs to know to do what they need to do. For a peer-reviewed article, your audience needs to know the overarching research question(s) being proposed and the methodological approach to generate findings. Additionally, if your audience is reading a progress report to decide whether to recommend changes to your approach, the audience needs to know what your current approach is, including any ways you changed your approach in response to your progress (TWS pages 18-19).

How does your audience use your document?

Your answer to this question is your audience’s purpose for reading. This is your most important piece of your scoping analysis. For a progress report, your audience might be reading to decide whether to approve or recommend changes to your approach. For a peer-reviewed article, your audience might be reading to master the subject matter or decide whether to implement your recommendations (TWS pages 14-17).

Who is your audience?

Your audience is the person or group of people who use your document. Note that not everyone who reads your document is your audience. If you have more than one person or group who uses your document for different purposes, answer each of the following questions separately for each (TWS pages 9, 12-13), and review the 3 options on the step.

What result do you want from your document?

Your answer is your purpose for writing. For a progress report, you might want feedback on your progress or approval to continue. For a peer-reviewed article, you might want to contribute to knowledge in your field or share your evidence-based recommendations to inform policy or health care practice (The Writing System (TWS), pages 7-11).

Answer: All of the above should be included in a purpose statement.

Answer: All of the above are questions that will keep you focused on content, rather than writing.

Answer: The product’s information is limited to what the reader needs to know—in order to do what they need to do.

Answer: Bars, columns, or dot plots

Benchmarks show goals, scatterplots show relationships, and line graphs show trends.

Answer: Any of the above

Other outcomes include: better meeting the needs of all and reducing health and racial inequities and improving population-level health outcomes.

Answer: All of the above

Sometimes conference submission guidelines call these areas different things. For example, “public health impact” may speak to Significance or to implications in your Conclusion.

Answer: Both A and B

Collaborative writing suffers when each team member works with an implicit, and likely different, understanding of the project’s premise and tasks. To work together in support of a shared vision, your team needs a shared process, which makes the project’s premise and tasks explicit.

Answer: Proofreading

Proofreading comes after (1) revising for content and organization; editing for (2) coherence, (3) clarity, (4) conciseness, (5) readability, and (6) correctness. This ensures that you are only tasked proofreading and not also having to edit for content.

Answer: All of the above are parts of the purpose statement.

In your purpose statement, you should name the document type, set expectations and tone, tell the audience what they need to know, identify the audience, and define the audience’s purpose for reading the document.

Answer: Low level of knowledge, needs proof

Categorize your audience as experts who need to master/validate subject matter and then advise, managers who need to make a decision/plan, operators who need to perform a function, or laypeople who are satisfying their curiosity.

If you need additional guidance, please contact NNPHI at writingsupport@nnphi.org.

This project is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award (NOFO OT18-1802, titled Strengthening Public Health Systems and Services through National Partnerships to Improve and Protect the Nation’s Health) totaling $310,000 with 100 percent funded by CDC/HHS. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by CDC/HHS, or the U.S. Government.