Writing Publishing Papers ACOG

8/8/2019 Writing Publishing Papers ACOG

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/writing-publishing-papers-acog 1/36

Publication SuccessPublication Success

Why Publish?Why Publish? Fellows who do not publish during fellowship will oftenFellows who do not publish during fellowship will often

never take and pass their Boardsnever take and pass their Boards Individuals do the vast majority of completing researchIndividuals do the vast majority of completing research

and writing papers in the first seven years out of and writing papers in the first seven years out of

training.training. Publication success is the single biggest indicator of Publication success is the single biggest indicator of

academic successacademic success PromotionsPromotions

Promotions and Tenure committes place little emphasis on teachingPromotions and Tenure committes place little emphasis on teachingand patient careand patient care

Division Directors and Department ChairsDivision Directors and Department Chairs Invitations to participate in committees and boards of nationalInvitations to participate in committees and boards of national

societiessocieties Invitations to speak at national and international meetingsInvitations to speak at national and international meetings

Publishing often keeps those writing on the cutting edgePublishing often keeps those writing on the cutting edge



The number of unpublished studiesThe number of unpublished studies

is astounding.is astounding. Barriers to publicationBarriers to publication

Lack of mentorshipLack of mentorship

Writers inertia/blockWriters inertia/block ProcrastinationProcrastination

Competing prioritiesCompeting priorities

PersonalPersonal

ProfessionalProfessional

Rejection of first submissionRejection of first submission



SolutionsSolutions

Barriers to publicationBarriers to publication Lack of mentorshipLack of mentorship

Choose your mentors wiselyChoose your mentors wisely Experience, priority, nurturing, pushyExperience, priority, nurturing, pushy

Writers inertia/blockWriters inertia/block Learn good methods for writing papersLearn good methods for writing papers

ProcrastinationProcrastination Write your paper before you present it Write your paper before you present it Make it a team project Make it a team project

Competing prioritiesCompeting priorities Schedule specific times on your calendar to writeSchedule specific times on your calendar to write

Rejection of first submissionRejection of first submission Grow upGrow up rejection is part of liferejection is part of life Move onMove on get advice on the best place for the next submissionget advice on the best place for the next submission ListenListen take the advice of the reviewers before resubmissiontake the advice of the reviewers before resubmission



IRB/Guidelines for ConsentingIRB/Guidelines for Consenting

Subjects for R

esearchSubjects for R

esearch A uthors must follow the ethical standards for human A uthors must follow the ethical standards for human

experimentation established in the Declaration of experimentation established in the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical A ssociation Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical A ssociation Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding physicians inHelsinki: recommendations guiding physicians in

biomedical research involving human subjects. J A M A biomedical research involving human subjects. J A M A 1997;277:9251997;277:925--6).6).

A ll journals now require that you affirm IRB approval in A ll journals now require that you affirm IRB approval inyour paper and in your cover letteryour paper and in your cover letter Will often require the IRB case numberWill often require the IRB case number

Includes retrospective, chart review and data base studiesIncludes retrospective, chart review and data base studies

Most now also require patient consent for case reports.Most now also require patient consent for case reports.



Case ReportsCase Reports

Dont waste your time!Dont waste your time! VERY low acceptance rates VERY low acceptance rates

If you do, they must beIf you do, they must be Highly unique, ANDHighly unique, AND Have implications forHave implications for

Patient management and/orPatient management and/or

Important future researchImportant future research ExampleExample

Irwin Merkatz, low A FP in Down syndromeIrwin Merkatz, low A FP in Down syndrome

A lternatively consider using the case for retrospective A lternatively consider using the case for retrospectivereviews or seeds for future studies.reviews or seeds for future studies.



Clinicaltrials.govClinicaltrials.gov

ClinicalTrials.gov is a registry of federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in the United States andClinicalTrials.gov is a registry of federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in the United States and

around the world. ClinicalTrials.gov gives you information about a trial's purpose, who may participate, locations,around the world. ClinicalTrials.gov gives you information about a trial's purpose, who may participate, locations,

and phone numbers for more details. This information should be used in conjunction with advice from health careand phone numbers for more details. This information should be used in conjunction with advice from health care

professionals.professionals.

Find trials for a specific medical condition or other criteria in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. ClinicalTrials.govFind trials for a specific medical condition or other criteria in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. ClinicalTrials.gov

currently has 79,903 trials with locations in 170 countries.currently has 79,903 trials with locations in 170 countries. Get instructions for clinical trialGet instructions for clinical trial

investigators/sponsors about how to register trials in ClinicalTrials.gov. Learn about mandatory registration andinvestigators/sponsors about how to register trials in ClinicalTrials.gov. Learn about mandatory registration and

results reporting requirements and US Public Law 110results reporting requirements and US Public Law 110--85 (FD AAA ).85 (FD AAA ). Learn about clinical trials and how to useLearn about clinical trials and how to use

ClinicalTrials.gov, or access other consumer health information from the US National Institutes of Health.ClinicalTrials.gov, or access other consumer health information from the US National Institutes of Health.

Resources:Resources:

Understanding Clinical TrialsUnderstanding Clinical Trials

What's NewWhat's New

GlossaryGlossary

Study Topics:Study Topics:

List studies by ConditionList studies by Condition

List studies by Drug InterventionList studies by Drug Intervention

List studies by SponsorList studies by Sponsor

List studies by LocationList studies by Location



Rules for AuthorshipRules for Authorship

Each author must qualify by having participated actively andEach author must qualify by having participated actively andsufficiently in the study reported. The inclusion of each author in thesufficiently in the study reported. The inclusion of each author in theauthorship list of a report must be based only on 1)authorship list of a report must be based only on 1) substantialsubstantialcontributionscontributions to (a) the concept and design, or analysis andto (a) the concept and design, or analysis and

interpretation of data and (b) the author's having drafted theinterpretation of data and (b) the author's having drafted themanuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content;manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content;and 2) final approval by each author of the version of theand 2) final approval by each author of the version of themanuscript being submitted. A ll conditions (1a, 1b, and 2) must bemanuscript being submitted. A ll conditions (1a, 1b, and 2) must bemet. Others contributing to the work, including participants inmet. Others contributing to the work, including participants incollaborative trials, should be recognized separately in thecollaborative trials, should be recognized separately in the A cknowledgment(s) section. In the cover letter that accompanies A cknowledgment(s) section. In the cover letter that accompanies

the submitted manuscript, it must be confirmed that all bylinedthe submitted manuscript, it must be confirmed that all bylinedauthors fulfill all conditions. A ccordingly, authors are encouraged toauthors fulfill all conditions. A ccordingly, authors are encouraged tolimit the number of authors listed.limit the number of authors listed.



Order of authorsOrder of authors

Principle InvestigatorPrinciple Investigator

Idea personIdea person

Last is senior authorLast is senior author

If idea person is senior author ask him/her which is preferredIf idea person is senior author ask him/her which is preferred

Dont include research nurses, statisticians, ghost writers unless they fulfilled allDont include research nurses, statisticians, ghost writers unless they fulfilled all

criteria for authorship, include them as acknowledgementscriteria for authorship, include them as acknowledgements

Authorship Authorship

Each author must qualify by having participated actively and sufficiently in the studyEach author must qualify by having participated actively and sufficiently in the study

reported. The inclusion of each author in the authorship list of a report must be based onlyreported. The inclusion of each author in the authorship list of a report must be based only

on 1) substantial contributions to (a) the concept and design, or analysis and interpretationon 1) substantial contributions to (a) the concept and design, or analysis and interpretationof data and (b) the author's having drafted the manuscript or revised it critically forof data and (b) the author's having drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for

important intellectual content; and 2) final approval by each author of the version of theimportant intellectual content; and 2) final approval by each author of the version of the

manuscript being submitted. A ll conditions (1a, 1b, and 2) must be met. Others contributingmanuscript being submitted. A ll conditions (1a, 1b, and 2) must be met. Others contributing

to the work, including participants in collaborative trials, should be recognized separately into the work, including participants in collaborative trials, should be recognized separately in

the A cknowledgment(s) section. In the cover letter that accompanies the submittedthe A cknowledgment(s) section. In the cover letter that accompanies the submitted

manuscript, it must be confirmed that all bylined authors fulfill all conditions.manuscript, it must be confirmed that all bylined authors fulfill all conditions.



Abstract Submission Abstract Submission

Why:Why:

Get significant input into strengths, flaws and issueGet significant input into strengths, flaws and issuebefore submitting the paperbefore submitting the paper

ExposureExposure Often more people know about your study than from theOften more people know about your study than from the

publicationpublication

A lways for junior authors, more people know who the author A lways for junior authors, more people know who the authorwas than with the publicationwas than with the publication

FunFun

You get priority in going to the meeting You get priority in going to the meeting

You learn a lot more presenting than publishing You learn a lot more presenting than publishing



Writing an abstractWriting an abstract

Sell the study in the introductionSell the study in the introduction Unlike papers, dont assume the reviewer is an expert inUnlike papers, dont assume the reviewer is an expert in

the fieldthe field explain the problem clearlyexplain the problem clearly why is the studywhy is the studyso important so important

Dont include name of the institution in the abstract Dont include name of the institution in the abstract A dhere to the word limit and font size A dhere to the word limit and font size State your primary hypothesis clearlyState your primary hypothesis clearly Dont tell them the end points you chose in yourDont tell them the end points you chose in your

methods section, your results will tell themmethods section, your results will tell them Dont tell them what statistical methods you used.Dont tell them what statistical methods you used. Give them actual dataGive them actual data Overstate your conclusions a little more than you wouldOverstate your conclusions a little more than you would

in a paper.in a paper.



Impact of a rescue course of antenatal corticosteroids ( ACS): A multi-center,randomized, controlled trial.

Objective:Previous studies using scheduled repetitive courses of A CS have demonstrated limited benefit andconcern over potential risk. We present the first study evaluating the impact of a single rescue courseof A CS on neonatal outcome

Materials and methods: A multi-center, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial was performed. Eligible singletons ortwins were < 33 weeks (wks), had completed a single course of betamethasone before 30 wks and at least 14 days prior, and were judged to have a recurring threat of preterm delivery in the comingweek. Patients were randomized to receive a single rescue course of A CS or placebo. Exclusion

criteria included: PROM, advanced dilation (> 5 cm), chorioamnionitis, and other steroid use. Theprimary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity at < 34 wks.

Results:437 patients were randomized (223 study group, 214 placebo). 55% of patients in each groupdelivered at < 34 wks. The groups were similar in gestational age (G A ) at randomization (29.4 wks)and at delivery (33.0 wks), delivery route, delivery indications, A PG A R scores, cord pH, and proportionof twins. There was a significant reduction in composite neonatal morbidity < 34 wks in the rescuesteroid group vs. placebo (42.5% vs. 63.3%, (RR 0.67, 0.54.-0.83, p=0.0002) as well as significantly

decreased RDS, ventilator support, and surfactant use. Perinatal mortality and other morbidities weresimilar in each group. Including all neonates (regardless of G A at delivery) in the analysis stilldemonstrated a significant reduction in composite morbidity in the rescue course group (30.3 vs.41.7 (RR 0.73, 0.58-0.91, P=.0055) and improvement in other respiratory morbidities, but no otherdifferences in outcome including head size and birth weight.

Conclusions: A dministration of a single rescue course of A CS before 33 wks improves neonataloutcome without apparent increased risk.



Writing your paper Writing your paper

Write the abstract for presentation first Write the abstract for presentation first The original protocol should essentially write your Materials and MethodsThe original protocol should essentially write your Materials and Methods

Dont overstate what you are going to analyze in the paperDont overstate what you are going to analyze in the paper your results will define thisyour results will define this Be sure to state the hypothesis(ses) here.Be sure to state the hypothesis(ses) here.

Do the tables and figures next.Do the tables and figures next. You can then decide what to keep in tabular/figure form and what to put in the wording or You can then decide what to keep in tabular/figure form and what to put in the wording or

the results sectionthe results section Demographics first Demographics first

Location of study in the M and M sectionLocation of study in the M and M section

Number of patients and duration of study are in the results sectionNumber of patients and duration of study are in the results section

Primary hypothesis data/results next Primary hypothesis data/results next Next can be secondary or in temporal orderNext can be secondary or in temporal order

Write the introduction next Write the introduction next keep it brief keep it brief State what the issue isState what the issue is What is knownWhat is known

Why you decided to do the studyWhy you decided to do the study What you studiedWhat you studied

DiscussionDiscussion See instructions for structured discussionsSee instructions for structured discussions

A bstract last A bstract last



IntroductionIntroduction

Basic knowledge of subject Basic knowledge of subject Induction of labor is an increasingly common practice in the U.S.Induction of labor is an increasingly common practice in the U.S.

Remaining questionRemaining question One question in performing induction is the best method of determining who will succeedOne question in performing induction is the best method of determining who will succeed

Why is it a questionWhy is it a question Failure of induction among certain patients leads to higher cFailure of induction among certain patients leads to higher c--section ratessection rates

What is currently knownWhat is currently known Currently the best way of determining success is the Bishop scoreCurrently the best way of determining success is the Bishop score

What alternative existsWhat alternative exists Recently some data suggest that Ffn be an indicator of the readiness of the uterus for theRecently some data suggest that Ffn be an indicator of the readiness of the uterus for the

onset of labor and as such may be a possible indicator of who will have a successfulonset of labor and as such may be a possible indicator of who will have a successfulinduction of laborinduction of labor

Why should this be studied/Who says this should be studiedWhy should this be studied/Who says this should be studied A COG in its practice bulletin has noted that better markers of successful induction are A COG in its practice bulletin has noted that better markers of successful induction are

neededneeded Or, since this is so commone and the Bishop score only imprecisely measures success of Or, since this is so commone and the Bishop score only imprecisely measures success of

better markers are neededbetter markers are needed

What you decided to doWhat you decided to do



Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods

Your protocol should basically write this section Your protocol should basically write this section General outlineGeneral outline

Type of studyType of study we performed a RCT of chicken soup vs. penicillin for thewe performed a RCT of chicken soup vs. penicillin for thecommon coldcommon cold

Primary hypothesisPrimary hypothesis chicken soup is at least as good as penicillinchicken soup is at least as good as penicillin IRB approvalIRB approval was obtained from WIRB for all siteswas obtained from WIRB for all sites Eligible subjectsEligible subjects ExclusionsExclusions RandomizationRandomization End pointsEnd points Data safety monitoring committeeData safety monitoring committee

A dverse events A dverse events Interim analysesInterim analyses

StatisticsStatistics Sample sizeSample size

Based on what premisesBased on what premises

Type of statisticsType of statistics Dont say what you studied unless it is not included in the results section or unless youDont say what you studied unless it is not included in the results section or unless you

need to define the end pointsneed to define the end points e.g. composite morbidity.e.g. composite morbidity. Software used for statisticsSoftware used for statistics



ResultsResults

Duration, datesDuration, dates

Location(s)Location(s)

Describe populationDescribe population high risk for ?, private practice,high risk for ?, private practice,middle west, etcmiddle west, etc

How many studied, whyHow many studied, why Flow sheet if RCTFlow sheet if RCT

How many in each groupHow many in each group

DemographicsDemographics

Primary end point outcomePrimary end point outcome Secondary end point(s) outcomeSecondary end point(s) outcome

Temporal orderTemporal order



Guidelines for Specific Types of ReportsGuidelines for Specific Types of Reports

Trial and research guidelinesTrial and research guidelinesThe following guidelines must be adhered to when formulating the study. Upon submitting the manuscript,The following guidelines must be adhered to when formulating the study. Upon submitting the manuscript,authors are to indicate on the Submission Checklist the type of trial/research used.authors are to indicate on the Submission Checklist the type of trial/research used.

Randomized controlled trial.Randomized controlled trial. A uthors are to consult the revised A uthors are to consult the revised CONSORT statement CONSORT statement (Moher D, Schulz KF,(Moher D, Schulz KF, A ltman D, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality A ltman D, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the qualityof reports of parallelof reports of parallel--group randomized trials. J A M A 2001;285:1987group randomized trials. J A M A 2001;285:1987--91). A flowchart as a figure must be91). A flowchart as a figure must be

submitted in the manuscript.submitted in the manuscript.

MetaMeta--analysis or systematic review of randomized controlled trials.analysis or systematic review of randomized controlled trials. A uthors are to consult the A uthors are to consult theQUOROM statement QUOROM statement (Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, for the QUOROM Group.(Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, for the QUOROM Group.Improving the quality of reports of metaImproving the quality of reports of meta--analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement.analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement.Quality of Reporting of MetaQuality of Reporting of Meta--analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896--1900).1900).

MetaMeta--analysis or systematic review of observational studies.analysis or systematic review of observational studies. A uthors are to consult the A uthors are to consult the MOOSEMOOSEguidelinesguidelines (Stroup DF, Berlin J A , Morton SC, et al, for the Meta(Stroup DF, Berlin J A , Morton SC, et al, for the Meta--analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiologyanalysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology[MOOSE] group. Meta[MOOSE] group. Meta--analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. J A M A analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. J A M A 2000;283:20082000;283:2008--12).12).

Diagnostic tests.Diagnostic tests. A uthors are to consult the A uthors are to consult the ST A RD InitiativeST A RD Initiative (Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al., for(Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al., forthe ST A RD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the ST A RDthe ST A RD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the ST A RD

Health economics.Health economics. In addition to the general instructions for authors and other guidelines applicable to theirIn addition to the general instructions for authors and other guidelines applicable to theirstudy (eg, CONSORT guidelines for a randomized, controlled trial), authors of health economics manuscriptsstudy (eg, CONSORT guidelines for a randomized, controlled trial), authors of health economics manuscriptsshould consider the following issues specific to such studies and address them in the manuscript and/orshould consider the following issues specific to such studies and address them in the manuscript and/orsubmission letter. A submission letter. A health economics checklist health economics checklist is to be included with the general manuscript checklist at the timeis to be included with the general manuscript checklist at the time

of submission.of submission.



Flow SheetsFlow Sheets

In preparing a study, dont forget to keep trackIn preparing a study, dont forget to keep trackof all patients approached and eligibleof all patients approached and eligible

EligibleEligible

A pproached A pproached

DeclinedDeclined

ConsentedConsented

WithdrawnWithdrawn reasonsreasons

Lost to follow upLost to follow up reasonsreasons IncludedIncluded

A nalyzed A nalyzed

Not analyzed.Not analyzed.



Excluded:

- Incomplete Data (3)

- Withdrawn (5)

- Did not meet criteria (3)

yMaternal age < 18 yr

(1)yDiabetic (1)

yPreeclamptic (1)

289 Subjects

Analyzed

Normal Saline

n = 97

300 Subjects

Randomized

5% Dextrose in

Normal Salinen = 94

10% Dextrose in

Normal Salinen = 98

Neonatal Data

n = 85

Neonatal Data

n = 82

Neonatal Data

n = 81

RCT of Dextrose and its effect on labor RCT of Dextrose and its effect on labor

Shrivistava et alShrivistava et al





Structured DiscussionStructured Discussion

Statement of principal findings

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other

studies, discussing particularly any differences in

results

Meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and

implications for clinicians or policymakers

Unanswered questions and future research



Frequent FlawsFrequent Flaws

Inappropriate conclusionsInappropriate conclusions

Lack of power analysis or sufficient sample sizeLack of power analysis or sufficient sample size

Discontinued early without appropriate reasonsDiscontinued early without appropriate reasons

Improper use of statisticsImproper use of statistics Overstating the conclusions from secondaryOverstating the conclusions from secondary

analysesanalyses

Retrospective manipulation of hypothesis toRetrospective manipulation of hypothesis tomatch study resultsmatch study results

Poor English in papers from nonPoor English in papers from non--EnglishEnglishspeaking authorsspeaking authors



Choosing a JournalChoosing a Journal

A udience A udience

Subspecialty, generalSubspecialty, general

PrestigePrestige Studys Impact Studys Impact

Likelihood of acceptanceLikelihood of acceptance

Connections??Connections?? Impact Factor, Citation IndexImpact Factor, Citation Index



Suggested ReviewersSuggested Reviewers

Upon submitting a manuscript, authors are required to provide the name,Upon submitting a manuscript, authors are required to provide the name,address, and eaddress, and e--mail address of at least 3 potential reviewers for editorialmail address of at least 3 potential reviewers for editorialconsideration. Suggested reviewers may include anyone knowledgeable inconsideration. Suggested reviewers may include anyone knowledgeable inthe area of study presented. A uthors should not knowingly recommend as athe area of study presented. A uthors should not knowingly recommend as apotential reviewer a person with a potential conflict of interest, eitherpotential reviewer a person with a potential conflict of interest, eitherfinancial or personal (positive or negative bias), such as a mentor or closefinancial or personal (positive or negative bias), such as a mentor or close

associate. A

dditionally, the authors should not recommend any individualsassociate. A

dditionally, the authors should not recommend any individualslocated at the same institution as any of the authors.located at the same institution as any of the authors.

Other factsOther facts

Editors variably use suggested reviewersEditors variably use suggested reviewers

A uthors may ask certain reviewer(s) not be used A uthors may ask certain reviewer(s) not be used

A

verage acceptance of a reviewer invitation is about 60% A

verage acceptance of a reviewer invitation is about 60% Junior reviewers provide better reviews than senior reviewersJunior reviewers provide better reviews than senior reviewers

Quality of the review is taken into account in editors decisionQuality of the review is taken into account in editors decision

A sk advice from an expert in the particular area and an expert in journal editing A sk advice from an expert in the particular area and an expert in journal editing



HOW ARE PAPERS JUDGED?HOW ARE PAPERS JUDGED?

SCIENTIFIC MERIT: Quality of the science, adequacy of the sample size, hypothesis adequatelySCIENTIFIC MERIT: Quality of the science, adequacy of the sample size, hypothesis adequatelystated and tested, and interpretation of the resultsstated and tested, and interpretation of the results

ORIGINA LITY: Is the paper addressing a question not studied, or inadequately studied in the past?ORIGINA LITY: Is the paper addressing a question not studied, or inadequately studied in the past?

IMPORT ANCE: Do the findings of the paper have significance in answering an important clinicalIMPORT ANCE: Do the findings of the paper have significance in answering an important clinicalquestion; either with immediate applicability, or in directing future research which will do so?question; either with immediate applicability, or in directing future research which will do so?

RE A DERSHIP INTEREST: Will this article be of interest to a majority of A JOG readers?RE A DERSHIP INTEREST: Will this article be of interest to a majority of A JOG readers?

QU A LITY OF THE M ANUSCRIPT: Is the A bstract sound & precise; Introduction brief & suitable;QU A LITY OF THE M ANUSCRIPT: Is the A bstract sound & precise; Introduction brief & suitable;Results clearly presented with appropriate tables/figures; Discussion through & sound, StatisticsResults clearly presented with appropriate tables/figures; Discussion through & sound, Statistics

& References appropriate, and is the overall paper well& References appropriate, and is the overall paper well--written & understandable?written & understandable?



Authors Should Also Authors Should Also

Be ReviewersBe Reviewers



Ethical Imperative to be a Reviewer Ethical Imperative to be a Reviewer

If you want your papers reviewed, then youIf you want your papers reviewed, then youshould be willing to return the favorshould be willing to return the favor

If you want fair, constructive, authoritativeIf you want fair, constructive, authoritative

reviews you should provide this kind of reviewreviews you should provide this kind of review ExposureExposure

You learn how to write a paper by doing reviews You learn how to write a paper by doing reviewsand seeing what others do right and wrongand seeing what others do right and wrong

You share the knowledge you have acquired You share the knowledge you have acquiredwith others writing paperswith others writing papers

Ultimately patient outcome is improved.Ultimately patient outcome is improved.



PearlsPearls Oversell your abstract, undersell your paperOversell your abstract, undersell your paper

Get advice from someone who has had abstracts and papers written and acceptedGet advice from someone who has had abstracts and papers written and accepted

Establish authorship when you design your studyEstablish authorship when you design your study both who and order of authorshipboth who and order of authorship

Have someone outside the group of authors read your abstract/paper before submissionHave someone outside the group of authors read your abstract/paper before submission

Dont forget to involve people in the department (early in the study) who are experts in the areaDont forget to involve people in the department (early in the study) who are experts in the area

Dont oversell results of secondary analysesDont oversell results of secondary analyses

Dont succumb to pressures real or perceived to include authors not really eligibleDont succumb to pressures real or perceived to include authors not really eligible

Write you abstract first, then the paper, then do the presentationWrite you abstract first, then the paper, then do the presentation

Read the Information for A uthors thoroughlyRead the Information for A uthors thoroughly

Do your literature search first when designing the study, intermittently during the study andDo your literature search first when designing the study, intermittently during the study and

again when writing the abstract/paperagain when writing the abstract/paper dont forget clinicaltrials.govdont forget clinicaltrials.gov

A lways have all authors read and approve abstract/paper before submitting and all revisions as A lways have all authors read and approve abstract/paper before submitting and all revisions as

wellwell

Brevity reigns!Brevity reigns!

Dont hesitate to call Journal staff or write editors with questionsDont hesitate to call Journal staff or write editors with questions

Prepublication consults are good things!Prepublication consults are good things!



Inappropriate ActsInappropriate Acts

FabricationFabrication

FalsificationFalsification

PlagiarismPlagiarism

Repetitive publicationRepetitive publication Violation of government rules of research Violation of government rules of research

Failure to retain original dataFailure to retain original data

Gift or honorary authorshipGift or honorary authorship Conflict of interest Conflict of interest

Order of authorshipOrder of authorship



Publishing Statistics





Manuscripts processed in 2007Manuscripts processed in 2007

Original Research ManuscriptsOriginal Research Manuscripts

Received in 2007 = 997Received in 2007 = 997

Decisions made in 2007Decisions made in 2007

A ccepted = 287 (29%) A ccepted = 287 (29%)

Declined = 718 (71%)Declined = 718 (71%)



Acceptance Rates Regular Acceptance Rates Regular

NonNon--Society ArticlesSociety Articles

43

37

32

29 29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007



A ssign Reviewers/Reject without Review A ssign Reviewers/Reject without Review (5(5

days)days)

Reviews Completed to Editors DecisionReviews Completed to Editors Decision (37(37

days)days)

Revisions by A uthorsRevisions by A uthors (44 days)(44 days)

Decision on RevisionsDecision on Revisions (5 days)(5 days)

Total days from submission to INITI A L A cceptance = (92.6 days)Total days from submission to INITI A L A cceptance = (92.6 days)

Editorial Review TimeEditorial Review Time



Current Status (cont.)Current Status (cont.)

Publication ProcessPublication Process Summary Production (26 days)Summary Production (26 days)

Summary approval by author (18 days)Summary approval by author (18 days)

Summary approval by editor (5 days)Summary approval by editor (5 days)

Final A cceptance (released to production) toFinal A cceptance (released to production) toPublication (148 days / 4.9 months)Publication (148 days / 4.9 months)

Total days from submission to publicationTotal days from submission to publication

(316 days / 10 months)(316 days / 10 months)



Reviewers Time AllotedReviewers Time Alloted

Invitation to ReviewInvitation to Review

Time allowed to respondTime allowed to respond 7 days7 days

ReminderReminder 5 days5 days UninviteUninvite past 7 dayspast 7 days

Perform the reviewPerform the review

Time allowedTime allowed 14 days14 days

ReminderReminder 99--10 days10 days

Past duePast due at 14 daysat 14 days



Documents

Writing Publishing Papers ACOG