2/16 YES!: Yale Medical Educator Series: Just do it! Writing, Submitting, Revising, and Yes: Getting Published

February 16, 2024

ID11320

To CiteDCA Citation Guide

00:00Today I'm Dana Dunn.
00:01I Co direct the series with
00:03Doctor Andreas Martin,
00:05who we're going to hear from today.
00:07He's a professor in the Department
00:09of Child Psychiatry and an associate
00:12in the Teaching and Learning Center.
00:14He's been running a series on teaching
00:17in the classroom setting as well
00:20as these last three sessions aimed
00:23on scholarly work for everyone.
00:27And he's uniquely not uniquely,
00:30but certainly well suited to deliver
00:33this content as he was Editor in
00:36Chief for the Journal of Child and
00:39Adolescent Psychiatry for almost 10 years.
00:42And is really.
00:43It's not just his kind of one off
00:45opinion on abstract writing and poster
00:48preparation and manuscript writing,
00:50but he's really done the work
00:53and reviewed and and seen what
00:55works and what doesn't work and
00:56what editors are looking for.
00:58So we're really excited to have
01:00him today and we'll I'll monitor
01:03the chat for questions.
01:04But also if you want to ask something just
01:07like raise your hand or interrupt if I don't,
01:10if I don't see you.
01:11Andrea,
01:12is there anything else you want
01:13to add in a introductory way
01:15before we get started?
01:17Just to say that although all
01:19my computer controls look good,
01:20I don't have the video,
01:21so I can't see you.
01:23So any one of you, which I'd
01:25love to see you but I can't.
01:26They all look really good.
01:28Everybody, I don't know,
01:28I saw them briefly.
01:30So the point is that, Dana,
01:31you will be my eyes as to
01:33students and at any point.
01:35But my hope is that we'll have some
01:38time at the end for discussion.
01:43OK, good. Good to go. Good to go. OK.
01:48Hello everyone and thank you for for joining.
01:51This is a topic that I'm very
01:53passionate about, having struggled
01:54with many rejections and lots of
01:56heartache in publishing and eventually
01:59seeing the great joy of publishing,
02:01so hopefully I can share some
02:04of it that can help you. And
02:10no disclosures.
02:11I'm not paid by any entity,
02:14publishing or otherwise.
02:16And if you text that number,
02:18you can get your CME.
02:19I think that Linda's also
02:21gonna post it to the chat.
02:26So let's start with our learning objectives.
02:28What's the the hope that we like
02:31what we'll accomplish today?
02:33First, I wanna give you a
02:35sense of how editors think.
02:36What works and what doesn't work in
02:39a scholarly submission such that you
02:42can apply that knowledge in your own
02:44and be more likely to be successful.
02:48Second, embracing a growth mindset,
02:51which is what brings us
02:52all into this Yes series.
02:53Anyway, to appreciate the
02:57importance of rejection.
02:59Rejection is painful,
03:00but it is unnecessary step in the
03:03publication world and in life.
03:06So I we think that publication
03:09is a microcosm of life in that
03:11in that way you will experience
03:13rejection no matter what.
03:16I'm gonna illustrate key points in organizing
03:19and writing a paper for submission.
03:21And finally I'm gonna give you
03:23some familiarity with a couple,
03:26four or five useful software
03:28applications that are quite handy,
03:31if not life saving when
03:33writing a scholarly paper.
03:35So those are the learning objectives.
03:37My outline is pretty straightforward.
03:39We're going to start with writing.
03:41So preparing A manuscript,
03:45second, submitting your work,
03:48dear editor, and finally the Charles
03:51and tribulations of a paper.
03:52What happens in the process of revision,
03:56rejection and beyond,
03:57and seeing this as just part of
04:00the life cycle of a publication.
04:05So that's a menu.
04:06So let's get started one writing a
04:09manuscript, preparing it for submission.
04:12And what I'll do here is talk about
04:15the mechanics, but also something that
04:17probably we don't talk enough about,
04:18which is the mentalnix.
04:20I invented that word and I'm a psychiatrist.
04:22I'd like to think about these things.
04:24Forgive me of getting started,
04:26but I actually think that the mental
04:29element of writing is critical in ways
04:32that it's critical for elite athletes.
04:35If your brain is not in the game,
04:37it doesn't matter how good your technique is.
04:40So what do I mean by these mental mix?
04:43So this is the photograph
04:44that we took of you. Yes, you.
04:46And we caught you the other day.
04:48And this is what you look like when your
04:51chair or your boss or someone said, you know,
04:54you'd better start writing and you were like,
04:56what the hell? Me publish.
04:57Impossible. No, I can't do it.
04:59I'm so scared. It's terrible.
05:01It's terrible.
05:01It's terrible.
05:02But then when we took a panoramic view,
05:05this is what we saw.
05:06And you can see yourself in there,
05:09that you're not alone.
05:11Anyone can identify where
05:13that photograph was taken.
05:17Hold on, it's moving.
05:21Anyone going once, Going twice.
05:25OK, now you need to work up the crowd.
05:27Remember, I can't see them.
05:28I know. Well, I think that they're trying to.
05:31It's like kind of the worldal where
05:33you see a a screen view and then
05:35you have to guess a country and
05:37then you see how far away you are.
05:40There's a big hint and a flag.
05:42Is this in Mexico City? Yes.
05:43And the winner is Chelsea. Chelsea.
05:47Yeah, that's Mexico City. El.
05:50So, Carlo, the flag of Mexico,
05:51And why did I put in Mexico City?
05:54Because that's where I come from.
05:55That's my native city.
05:56So my me and my 25,000,000 best
05:59friends welcome you there.
06:00Anytime voted best travel
06:02destination of the world,
06:04actually by the New York Times.
06:05It's wonderful.
06:06Anyway, you see,
06:08all of those people are afraid of publishing
06:10and they're having a support group
06:13because everybody is afraid to publish.
06:15So we could spend the whole
06:16time talking about this.
06:17I won't do that,
06:19but I will share something that,
06:20to me was a little bit of an epiphany.
06:24And that is it.
06:25In this day and age,
06:26all of us are spending lots of time on
06:29the computer keyboard on the right.
06:33And for some,
06:35especially those who were born
06:37before whatever year it was,
06:40those who are computer natives.
06:43Computer natives tend to think
06:45really well on a keyboard,
06:47and that's why you see young people
06:49taking notes all over the place.
06:51And some of you may not be quite so
06:52young and you do it, and God bless.
06:54But what I found is that for
06:57some of us of a certain age,
06:59I was born in 1966.
07:02I didn't see a computer till my 20s,
07:05and I learned all my thinking skills
07:08on the left with coffee and a pad of paper.
07:13And that's how I think,
07:14and it took me a long time,
07:16well into my time here at Yale,
07:19to realize that some of the
07:22writer's block or the difficulty
07:25with writing simply had to do
07:27with the instrument that I used.
07:28Once I moved to writing back again
07:31with pen on paper and then translating
07:34that into computer text by dictating
07:37it into some software that transcribe,
07:40my productivity just went sky high.
07:42And now I do everything that way
07:45because I found that not only
07:47hadn't I not learned the skills,
07:49but I wonder whether I have some
07:51kind of disability in I definitely
07:52have a disability in typing,
07:54for example, and I could never have
07:56my ideas go fast enough.
07:58My point here is not to
08:01priscillatize paper and pen,
08:05but rather for you to make a self
08:08inventory of how are you most
08:11comfortable writing in what place,
08:13in what space, in what instrument,
08:15Because you want to be able to
08:17produce in a unencumbered, fluid way.
08:20And it makes a huge difference.
08:22To me, this was absolutely transformative.
08:26OK, moving from the mental part,
08:28let's get to the mechanics.
08:31So
08:34you know when you're writing you
08:35need to have a good story to tell.
08:38You know there's no substitute for
08:41a good story or for good science.
08:44I put story here and I put it in
08:48the locations because your science
08:52will be the more readable, legible,
08:57sellable, engageable if it is
09:00told in a story like pattern.
09:03Obviously you don't need
09:05to create characters,
09:06but you need to tell a story.
09:07And we're going to go into some of the
09:10points that are helpful to tell a story,
09:13to tell a scientific story and
09:16that we editors look for because
09:19we know that we readers for them.
09:24So what are some of the
09:25things that we look for?
09:27So is this something new?
09:29Is this science new?
09:30And not everything needs to be super new.
09:32Replication is a basis of science.
09:34So is this a timely application?
09:35That's great.
09:38Is this true?
09:41Is it true?
09:42And once again, Dana,
09:45are you getting
09:49it's good, it's good, OK?
09:52Is it true? Is it internally valid?
09:55And note that I put true also in quotations,
09:58because we no matter how
10:00fancy scientists we are,
10:02we don't really own truth.
10:03We try to approximate truth,
10:06and one of the approximations is by
10:09paying attention to internal validity,
10:13to the things that make the
10:16machine of science the the the the
10:19machine of the paper do its job.
10:22We also looked at a different type
10:24of validity, external validity.
10:27Is it generalizable?
10:29Can this story be relevant
10:31to other than this very small
10:34group or sample or individuals?
10:37And finally, we looked at the ethics.
10:41In fact,
10:41the ethics are so important that I'm
10:44going to go into it in some detail later on.
10:47Bear in mind that editor only looks
10:50at your title and your abstract.
10:53They don't get into reading your
10:55whole article until much later,
10:56So early on in editors looking
10:58like a hawk of these issues.
11:01Novelty, internal and external validity,
11:05and the ethics.
11:06And if one of those doesn't pass muster,
11:09then the paper you know dies a quick death.
11:16So some of the elements of
11:18telling a story, well well,
11:21start with whetting the appetite of the
11:24reader with an engaging introduction.
11:27And here there actually are some
11:30very specific steps as to what makes
11:34an introduction work or not work.
11:37The 1st is that you start with
11:39stating a problem.
11:40This is what we know in this area of science,
11:44and this is as far as the sign has taken us.
11:48This is the background.
11:52But then you need to tell what is the gap,
11:55What is missing in that science.
11:58Often you will see introductions
12:00that go on and on and on and
12:02on and on about the problem,
12:03because they become mini literature
12:05reviews and you've already put your writer,
12:08your reader, to sleep.
12:10The problem should be one paragraph two.
12:13Maybe the gap should be one
12:15paragraph two maybe. So,
12:17in light of what we know in the literature.
12:21There is this particular hole,
12:23this gap, this is what's missing,
12:26and the hook is how you and your work in
12:29this paper are going to fill this gap.
12:32So this problem gap hook heuristic
12:36problem gap gap hook is incredibly
12:40valuable for the early parts of a paper,
12:43and I always follow them.
12:45And when you read your next paper,
12:47pay attention and see if the
12:50authors are doing that.
12:51But it already,
12:52as you can see,
12:53starts putting this story into play.
12:59You may have heard of the M
13:01rat format, We all know it,
13:02even if we don't know it's called that.
13:03But that's a introduction, methods,
13:07results and discussion format.
13:08M RAT and that's how all
13:11abstracts are written.
13:15This is just a reminder because
13:17one of our previous sessions was
13:19all about writing an abstract.
13:20So this is just a couple of highlights.
13:23But the methods now on a paper need
13:25to be touching on these same elements.
13:28Who were the folks, the individuals,
13:31the patients on involved in the experiment?
13:35What was done with them?
13:37To them? How was it done?
13:41Where was it done?
13:42When was it done?
13:43So the the basic W questions go
13:46into the methods and the IRB
13:49information back to the ethics
13:51also goes in the methods.
13:55Papers quickly sunk if there
13:57are questions on the IRB.
13:59If there's no IRB,
14:01there's no paper unless it
14:02doesn't involve human subject.
14:07The next part that are the results also
14:10have their dance steps if you will
14:13that are replicated from the abstract
14:16which is the pico mnemonic and you
14:19might remember this from epidemiology.
14:22So population exposure, comparison and or
14:29control outcome and time. So you know,
14:38just making it up here we had a group of
14:4620 adolescents with bipolar one disorder.
14:51Half of them were girls.
14:53We exposed half of them to a
14:56psychosocial intervention and the
14:59others to a weightless control.
15:01Our outcome was the measure of depression,
15:05XY and Z and our control group,
15:10the comparison group was just in the
15:12wait list but they didn't get the
15:15intervention the outcome the the result
15:20was X plus minus standard deviation
15:23compared to Y plus standard deviation and
15:26we did this study over X amount of time.
15:29So these are very basic elements,
15:32but in following them that this
15:34will start providing A rubric to
15:37writing a traditional database paper.
15:39And there should always be an echo
15:42between this in the results of
15:44your paper and in the abstract,
15:47and an echo of all of this
15:50the methods in the abstract.
15:52I If some of you attended,
15:54I'd like to to say and to think that a paper,
15:58an article is an extended abstract,
16:02an expanded abstract.
16:03So I highly recommend
16:05starting with your abstract,
16:07starting to put these high high
16:10value pieces on the puzzle,
16:12and once you have them you can start
16:15putting words and making it bigger.
16:17It'll be scientifically more
16:19sound that if you do the reverse.
16:22If you start with a writing the
16:24whole paper and then try to squeeze
16:26out an abstract out of it.
16:29Think of the abstract as a of the bones,
16:31as a skeleton of your paper.
16:33Much better,
16:33start with the bones and
16:35then start adding the flash.
16:39Another way of summarizing the
16:42M rat format is that we start
16:46with the title and the abstract.
16:48Again, this is important enough that we
16:50spend a whole session talking about this,
16:53the introduction which is the why of the
16:56paper and which goes with this problem gap,
16:59Huck method approach, the methods,
17:02how it was done with all those W questions,
17:05the results we just went over that
17:08in a pico format. What was found
17:10in the discussion is the So what?
17:13You know, you found that, so now what?
17:16The discussion is a little
17:18bit more freestyle.
17:19There isn't a nifty little
17:21acronym that I can give you,
17:24but you should strive to not be redundant.
17:27To summarize, to provide the gestalt,
17:29not to go to micro,
17:31Definitely not put any numbers here.
17:33All the numbers belong in the results
17:36only you want to provide a view
17:38of the forest and not the trees.
17:40And you also want to be not so neutral and
17:43so scientific that you don't take a stand.
17:45You did the hard work, so take a stand.
17:48You know this intervention is better
17:50than this intervention was not better
17:52than Just don't be mealy mouthed here.
17:54Go for it.
17:56Include the limitations so that
17:58others don't point them to you.
18:00First you If you point out
18:02our sample size was low,
18:04then the reviewer is going to have a harder
18:06time saying their sample size was low.
18:09When you already incorporated
18:10that and addressed it.
18:12What are your next steps?
18:14And try to end on a strong note.
18:16On a positive note,
18:18you know these findings tell us that Boom,
18:22you know,
18:22go for it.
18:23Be bold.
18:26As unrigid as the discussion format is,
18:31the references are the epitome.
18:36They epitomize rigidity.
18:37There's nothing as rigid
18:40as a reference list of A
18:44scholarly article,
18:46and for many of you I'm sure this
18:49is going to be redundant knowledge.
18:50For some of you it may be new,
18:53but in any event,
18:54you don't want to write a paper
18:56without the help of your computer,
18:59without the help of software
19:01to organize your references.
19:03There are three major products,
19:06Mendeley, Endnote, and Zotero,
19:08that I don't have here.
19:11They're all very similar.
19:14They're all available through the
19:17software library or even online for free.
19:20There's fancy versions that you pay for,
19:22but you don't really need that.
19:25And this is a snapshot from
19:27my Mendeley library in which I
19:29put all my different papers.
19:31And one of the beautiful things
19:33that you see is how if you
19:36know when you download APDF,
19:39it is the the the file is named
19:42something horrible like 13X2C3PO.
19:44Something makes no sense.
19:46And one of the things that these
19:48programs do is that they name your file
19:50exactly like they're named and they
19:52put all the data in the right files.
19:54And it makes your life much easier.
19:56If you haven't started a library,
19:58start it.
19:59You will never go back and you
20:01just accrue it over the years.
20:04It's simple enough to export
20:06references from your library to
20:08someone else's references to download
20:10them into different formats.
20:12It's very flexible and it's
20:15really a lifesaver.
20:17This is just to give you an idea.
20:18This is a paper.
20:19Don't worry about writing the paper,
20:20that's not the point.
20:21But you see here that the references
20:26383934, they are organized in
20:30numerical orderly fashion.
20:31And this is the John the
20:34JAMA citation format.
20:35And you see that it puts
20:37it as a nice superscript.
20:39So let's say that you
20:40sent this paper and alas,
20:41it was not accepted with great hosannas.
20:45So you revise and you send it somewhere else.
20:49And maybe that same paper goes
20:50to a journal that now asked for
20:53a different citation style,
20:54let's say the American
20:56Psychological Association format.
20:57That is a name, year style.
21:00And to go from this style to this
21:04style takes all of one second.
21:06You just press a button and
21:08it changes the formatting.
21:09Imagine doing that by hand.
21:11Or better yet,
21:12don't imagine it was very painful.
21:13So. So there you go.
21:17So you've prepared now your manuscript.
21:20It's ready.
21:21It's telling a story, it's organized,
21:23it's orderly.
21:24You're very proud, and you should be.
21:26You worked very hard to this moment.
21:28And now, dear editor,
21:31so think like an editor.
21:34I already mentioned that most early
21:36rejections are based on the abstract
21:38and the method section alone,
21:40the vast majority with the volume
21:44of submissions that editors get.
21:46We cannot possibly read the whole thing,
21:49so we look at the abstract,
21:50the methods, the title,
21:53but especially the abstract.
21:56Maybe we get to the methods and
21:58very quickly make an assessment.
22:00The abstract can tell me,
22:01is this well written or not?
22:02What is it's about?
22:03Maybe I need to go to the methods
22:05to learn a little bit more about
22:08how it was done and the title.
22:10Is this something interesting?
22:11Am I engaged?
22:12You know, the story factor,
22:15your introduction and your
22:17conclusions will really very
22:18rarely be read in depth early on,
22:21which goes to the earlier point I made.
22:24Start with your abstract,
22:25but don't leave it as an afterthought.
22:28Continue polishing it as you
22:30go because your whole paper
22:35destiny rides on the abstract.
22:37I cannot emphasize enough.
22:40Now we all think that publishing
22:42looks something like this, right?
22:44That these nasty editors are out to
22:46get you and sword you down and cut your
22:49head off and doing all sorts of things.
22:52And you know, sometimes it can feel like
22:53that and sometimes it can be like that,
22:55but more times I can.
22:58I see it as a growth process where the
23:02peer review can really enhance your
23:05article and you shouldn't make use of it.
23:08So present your way in an engaging way.
23:12That's something that,
23:13again, will help
23:17not only in the article itself,
23:19but even in the cover letter.
23:21Cover letters are often underappreciated,
23:24and we think that they're just something
23:26we need to do and write in a very boring,
23:28legalistic language.
23:29I encourage you to again
23:32take a stand and make a case.
23:35Dear Editor, I really hope that you
23:38will look favorably on this submission,
23:40because I have seen how much of this
23:43era is of interest in your journal and
23:46it's becoming a nascent era of science.
23:49Whatever you, you create a small,
23:52engaging Love my paper.
23:56Dear Editor, It's not unusual at all,
24:00and in fact it's something to be encouraged,
24:02within reason,
24:04to consider the editor an e-mail,
24:07you know, to your editor.
24:09I'm considering sending this.
24:11This is what it's like, you know,
24:14whatever, you know how to write an e-mail.
24:16What I would not do is attach your
24:18whole paper, your CV, your abstract,
24:21your childhood photographs.
24:22And no, it's just a simple e-mail
24:24and if the editor is interested,
24:27she will respond saying, yeah,
24:29please send me the abstract,
24:31please send me the draft or
24:34uploaded into the website.
24:37But they might tell you,
24:38well, thank you,
24:39but it's not for us.
24:40So I really,
24:42really encourage you to to think
24:44about approaching the editor in time.
24:51Don't irritate the editor.
24:52It's never a good idea.
24:53So, you know, don't dismiss obvious stuff.
24:56So pay attention to the
24:57instructions for authors you know.
24:58Format accordingly,
25:00do the right sections.
25:02All of that and I just mentioned.
25:04Avoid others pointing your limitations.
25:08Beat them to it by noting it in your
25:12discussion under a limitation section.
25:18If there is a
25:21message to this chat is be bold,
25:25be bold, don't hold back.
25:27This is your opportunity
25:29to get this paper in.
25:31So be bold from the moment
25:32that you approach the editor.
25:34Be bold in a title you know.
25:37Don't make it so soporific.
25:39Be bold in taking a stand.
25:42Don't be mealy mouthed.
25:43I think that we as scientists can
25:46get to be like well, on the one hand,
25:48on the other hand on the one.
25:49No take a stand.
25:51So be bold, darn it.
25:54Part of being bold is also submitting to
25:56places where you think you could never live.
25:59We're going to get to that in a second.
26:00So be bold.
26:01You know the the golden rule of
26:03thumb is that if you and your
26:05heart of heart thinks that your
26:07journal belongs at this level,
26:09submitted at this level,
26:11submitted up one,
26:13and if it gets rejected,
26:14maybe you win where you initially thought,
26:18don't pitch it down.
26:20That's doing yourself a disservice.
26:26Some of you may not be native
26:28Spanish speakers. I am not.
26:30Spanish is my native language, CI Signor.
26:34And it's really important to know that now
26:38that English is the lingua franca of science,
26:42that you don't have to be
26:44a a native English speaker.
26:46You know, born and bred in London and
26:48going to Eton College in order to write.
26:50We can all do it. So, couple of pointers.
26:53Can someone outside of your field
26:55understand what you're trying to convey?
26:57That's a very good idea.
26:59The the, the grandma approach.
27:00You know, can your grandma understand
27:02the basics of what you're saying?
27:04Or your roommate, or your friend,
27:06or someone outside of your lab?
27:08That is good.
27:09That won't tell you
27:09anything about the science,
27:10but it's going to tell you about
27:13the legibility of the paper.
27:15If English is not your native language,
27:18is there someone in your team who
27:20you can approach and hear?
27:21You know, it's easy.
27:23There's lots of English speakers.
27:25There's some consideration to
27:27professional polishing services.
27:28You you could submit the article somewhere
27:30and they can Polish it and make it pretty.
27:32In my experience they're the the
27:36juice is not worth the squeeze.
27:38They're probably more expensive
27:39than what they get,
27:40but they are out there and when
27:43we get to one of the software's
27:45I'll give you some ideas.
27:48This also makes me think as we
27:51talk about international science
27:53that there are ways of getting
27:57science or in publishing science,
27:59even if you have limited resources.
28:02So let me start with the good news.
28:05This is a map from a consortium
28:07called Henari.
28:08I can't remember what the acronym stands for,
28:11but these are low income
28:13countries around the world.
28:15And from all of those countries,
28:18through this Henari supported by WHO you
28:22can get access to every single journal,
28:24you essentially get like the Yale Library
28:27at your fingertips, but through WHO.
28:30So that's very good.
28:32That is as a user you can get the science.
28:35It's still being worked out,
28:36but some of there's some overlap
28:39between these countries if you want
28:42to submit and publish and a lot of
28:45publishing these days is Open Access
28:47as we'll talk about that there can be
28:50reduced or no fees for submitting.
28:52So it's a good resource to know about.
28:55As I say,
28:56particularly for those of you who have
28:59collaborations outside of the US and
29:02particularly in low income countries,
29:10we're still thinking, we're still in
29:12the part of submitting the paper and
29:14what do you need to think about South?
29:18Very importantly, we need to
29:20adhere to ethical principles.
29:21And this may sound, well, I'm very
29:25ethical and I know you're very ethical.
29:27But ethicality raises all sorts of issues.
29:31So conflict of interest, of course,
29:34has gotten a lot of attention.
29:36Financial conflict of interest in particular,
29:40redundant publication.
29:42So salami slicing, you know,
29:44you have a big study and you could
29:45have told the story in two papers,
29:47but you did 100 papers.
29:49Anyone know what LPU is?
29:52If not, Doctor Dunn will tell us.
29:54But anyone again, I can't see you,
30:00Dana LPUI don't know if I know
30:02what that is.
30:04Well, see, This is why you come to
30:06yes exclamation learn stuff, right?
30:07So now you learned that LPU
30:10is least publishable unit.
30:12So that's the tendency to try to squeeze
30:15out many unnecessary small little
30:18papers just to get a publication,
30:21which doesn't help the science and
30:24ultimately doesn't help your CV.
30:25So it it it's important to know that many,
30:29many, many studies yield more than one paper,
30:33but you need to be mindful of
30:35how many is many,
30:36and there's such a thing as too many.
30:40Use sensitive use of language is a
30:43big bugaboo for me. In particular,
30:44I'm a child psychiatrist and I'm very
30:48irritated when I read words like the
30:52schizophrenic mother or the, I don't know,
30:57the cirrhotic or alcoholic person
31:00because they then become secondary
31:03characters to their disease, right?
31:06So if you're going to talk about
31:09those individuals, I encourage you
31:11to always use person first language.
31:13The man with schizophrenia,
31:15not the schizophrenic man,
31:17the man with cirrhosis or alcoholism,
31:20not the alcoholic or cirrhotic man,
31:22et cetera. And fraudulent research,
31:26you know, just making it up is something
31:29that hopefully none of us will will see.
31:31But to be aware of
31:35something quite regularly
31:37seen as authorship issues,
31:40authorship, vagaries.
31:40Am I the first author?
31:42Are you the second author?
31:43Are you the third author?
31:44And I mean, the key thing to know
31:47here is really address it openly
31:50in words coming out of your mouth
31:53and your colleagues not don't
31:55make any assumptions and try to
31:58put it into paper and say this
32:01is your there's an understanding.
32:03Now if along the way it turns out that
32:06Dana ended up doing most of the work,
32:08it would be very appropriate to say,
32:10OK, Dana, you know, you're right,
32:12you did most of the work.
32:12So now you become the first author
32:14and I become the second author.
32:16So in in other words,
32:16it it's a fluid, iterative thing.
32:19It's not sealed in stone.
32:22The other thing that's very helpful to
32:24know here is our friend the asterisk.
32:27Our friend the asterisk has
32:29solved many of you know problems.
32:32So anyone what is an asterisk
32:35in in an authorship order?
32:42Go first, go last. I'm sorry,
32:46like Co first author or Cole asterisk?
32:49Exactly. Yes. Yep.
32:50So shared authorship,
32:51shared authorship and shared
32:52authorship is really, really important.
32:55Basic scientists are much more
32:58familiar with it and often will use it.
33:01But we should really be aware of it
33:04that even though it was Dunn and Martin,
33:08they were if there's an asterisk,
33:10equal credit or the other way around,
33:13that's very, very important.
33:15It's usually used for first authors,
33:17but it can also be done for Co last authors.
33:20And it can be helpful in
33:23in dissipating tension,
33:24because if you don't dissipate the tension,
33:28this is such a common problem that
33:30you end up first going to your boss.
33:32You know, while Dana doesn't want to
33:35show doesn't want it, let's just do it.
33:36You know, Dana really didn't want
33:38to be my didn't want to share.
33:40I thought I was first.
33:41She thought she was first.
33:42She didn't want to do the
33:44asterisk thing because you know,
33:45she's Dana and you know her.
33:46So then I say Dana, you know what?
33:48You and I cannot solve this.
33:50So we're going to go to our boss,
33:51we're going to go to Janet Hafler,
33:54and we're going to talk to Janet.
33:55And even after we went,
33:57we couldn't solve it.
33:58So then Janet said it's it's beyond me,
34:01guys, I can't solve it.
34:02You guys couldn't solve it.
34:04I think that you need to go to to
34:07the Dean's office and the Dean.
34:09Dean Brown wouldn't be the person
34:12dealing with this directly.
34:14But Dean Brown has an an
34:18associate Dean.
34:19I I I forget the exact title of it.
34:22My my, my chair. Actually Linda Mays
34:24holds this position where you would
34:27go in and you would say you know,
34:29she said, he said what do you think?
34:32And it's resolved.
34:33Obviously you never want to
34:35end up in that office, right?
34:37You want to solve it yourself,
34:39which is why I'm saying we solved it early.
34:42A very similar thing might happen if,
34:45for example, we submitted a paper and
34:49it was Dana Dunn and Andres Martin,
34:54and Andres Martin saw this and said,
34:55you know that Dana Dunn,
34:56she didn't give me credit.
34:58I'm so upset.
34:59So I write to my boss,
35:02I write to the Dean, I write to whatever.
35:04And then it becomes a big issue because
35:06there is an investigation to find out
35:09what happened here and to make it right.
35:11What I'm showing you here, Dana.
35:13We're friends, You know?
35:14I love you. I appreciate you.
35:15But you're my, you know,
35:17foil today.
35:17So,
35:20Dana, did she run away?
35:22No. I'm fine with your being your foil.
35:24OK, good. Thank you.
35:26So this this screenshot is from COPE,
35:29the Committee on Publication Ethics.
35:32It's another very helpful
35:34website to know about.
35:36It is put together by editors of all
35:37the top journals around the world.
35:39It's based in London,
35:41but it's all online.
35:42And the idea is that if you are not sure,
35:46you say, you know,
35:47I didn't like how this was handled.
35:50You can go here and find all these
35:53flow charts and there are flow charts
35:55about problems in order of authorship,
35:58plagiarism, self plagiarism,
36:03unnecessary publications.
36:04There's a whole world out there.
36:07So it it's something helpful to know about.
36:10And just for you to know that
36:11there is this special advice.
36:13Special Advisor to the Dean is
36:14the name of the title someone who
36:16deals with all of these issues.
36:22What about plagiarism and self plagiarism?
36:24Well, I have to say that the world has
36:27changed and I think in general for the
36:30better, but it's a little bit scary.
36:33And that is that when you submit
36:37a manuscript to 99% of journals,
36:40the very first thing the journal will do
36:43is put it through a plagiarism detector,
36:45software that will identify issues
36:49and it will identify plagiarism,
36:51but it will also identify self plagiarism
36:54and it will give you a report.
36:57There are several on the user side.
36:59On the author side,
37:00there's several things that you can consider.
37:03And I'm showing you here Grammarly,
37:04which is a particularly useful 1.
37:08The Grammarly that you can get for
37:10free can help you with language use,
37:13with sentence, with grammar.
37:15That's great,
37:16but the Grammarly that you pay for,
37:17and it's not super expensive,
37:19it's maybe $100 a year gives you,
37:22you know, it identifies the writing
37:24issues like the other ones,
37:25but as you can see,
37:26it identifies plagiarism.
37:27So this particular manuscript had a 16%,
37:30which sounds scary, but in fact it isn't.
37:35The usual number that we worry about
37:38is above 25%, because that 16%
37:41includes things like references,
37:44references like titles, etcetera.
37:45This is the kind of things that
37:48it does with your language,
37:49clarity, you know, passive voice,
37:51misuse of very, very common,
37:53wordy sentences,
37:55etcetera.
37:56This is an example from a paper of
37:58mine in which this sentence was
38:01picked up as potentially plagiarized,
38:03picked up from this article.
38:05And in fact the article is about an
38:08instrument about climate change,
38:10and we use language verbatim.
38:12But it was good to know.
38:13And what we did is that we added quotations,
38:15what's We added quotations on both
38:17sides and that solved the problem.
38:20I'm sorry, my slides are jumping around.
38:21Hold on
38:24similarly about the other one.
38:26And note the number here, 3:44 and 3:45.
38:29This means that Grammarly identified 345 and
38:32counting issues on a paper that I thought
38:35that I thought was completely ready to go.
38:37So you can learn a lot as you can see for
38:40both the grammar but also being mindful of
38:43when you may be self plagiarizing yourself.
38:46And it's very scary.
38:47That's happened to me now twice that
38:50a journal comes back to me and says,
38:52you know, we're concerned
38:53because the score was whatever.
38:55And I went back and I saw
38:57that it was mostly references,
38:58mostly methods,
38:59and I was able to to change it.
39:02Methods can really count
39:04towards the plagiarism.
39:09OK, last part, the trials and tribulations
39:13of a paper that has been submitted.
39:17So let's learn from rejections.
39:20Rejections come in two main flavors.
39:21There's a quick one which
39:23generally has to do with the fit,
39:26the fit of your paper. In this germ,
39:29you usually don't get feedback.
39:31It's called a desk rejection sometimes,
39:34and you know you don't make a big
39:35deal out of it other than, well,
39:36maybe I didn't pick the right turn.
39:40The other rejection is a slow rejection,
39:42the one that takes several
39:43weeks to a couple of months.
39:45And those rejections usually
39:46have to do more with the content,
39:48with the science, with the writing.
39:51And even though it's rejected,
39:54they come with feedback.
39:55And they come with a lot of feedback
39:57that you should really take into account.
39:59Doesn't mean that you need to
40:01slavishly adhere to everything
40:02that the feedback does.
40:04Not every feedback is good,
40:06but there's a lot to be learned.
40:08So before you send it to the next journal,
40:11see what from this rejection can
40:13you address That will improve
40:15your paper and that's what will
40:18strengthen the paper throughout the
40:20process of submission and rejection.
40:24The great writer by the name
40:26of Snoopy knows a lot about
40:29about this and he wrote this.
40:35So dear contributor,
40:36the letter comes to Snoopy.
40:39Thank you so much for submitting
40:41your story to our magazine.
40:45To save time, we are
40:48enclosing 2 rejection slips,
40:501 for this story and one for
40:52the next story you send us.
40:54And that's what it can feel like.
40:56That no matter what you do,
40:58you're being rejected and rejected.
41:00But rejection really strengthens you.
41:04So what now? What now?
41:07If you've been invited to
41:10revise and resubmit,
41:11that is fantastic.
41:17You know
41:20respond to reviewers comments
41:24in a way that makes sense.
41:27Writing a review letter or a revision
41:29letter is one of the intellectually
41:32most challenging parts of writing,
41:34because you really need to be
41:36all in and engaged and remember,
41:38you don't want to blow it.
41:39You're halfway there.
41:40They're inviting you to revise,
41:42You're showing interest.
41:43Most revise and resubmit
41:44letters end up being published.
41:47So don't screw it up
41:51what I do. So, you know,
41:52never take decision letters personally.
41:54Be civil and proactive
41:55and stick to the facts.
41:57And what I always do is that I start
42:01with language that's something like this.
42:04I really thank them,
42:05thank them, thank them.
42:07I tell them that I pasted their letter.
42:13We we include our responses
42:15interspersed with your decision letter.
42:16So the entire letter that
42:18they send out is there,
42:20but it's very clear in blue letters.
42:21What are the changes that you're making?
42:24In the revised manuscript itself,
42:26you also indicated, and you know,
42:28I use that yellow highlight.
42:30So however you do it,
42:31make it easy on the editor to see
42:35the changes and let them know
42:36that you are in agreement that
42:39that you are being responsive.
42:40So the words are not important here,
42:42but my point is that the black letters
42:45are from the decision letter and the
42:47blue letters are from my response letter.
42:49So my response letters are really
42:51long and have a lot of blue ink.
42:54Now, you don't have to agree with everything.
42:57If you don't agree and they
42:58didn't get something you say,
43:00well, you know,
43:01we respectfully disagree because XY and Z,
43:04you just stick to the facts.
43:07All right, So that was a what to next?
43:10What about the where to next?
43:13You know, balance your ambition.
43:15New England Journal of Medicine with realism.
43:17You know, whatever it might be,
43:19prioritize how visible,
43:21timely your science is.
43:25Think globally, but act locally.
43:26Not everything needs to go to global
43:29publications and regional publications
43:31can be very very important in smaller and
43:34sub sub speciality journals are right.
43:36Don't just think about the impact factor,
43:39think of who this will reach and how it will
43:44reach and how long can your findings wait.
43:47I mean, maybe you're set
43:48on publishing in Science,
43:49but that might take a couple of years.
43:52Maybe you can think of something else
43:54and get something on your CV early on,
43:56especially if you need it as an
43:58assistant professor early on.
43:59For example,
44:04Open Access journals I mentioned are
44:07good and they're increasingly available,
44:09and I wouldn't be surprised if some
44:10years from now they were the majority
44:12of journals and Open Access journal.
44:14Just as a reminder, you, the author,
44:17need to pay for the publication
44:20once the paper is accepted.
44:23The fees vary, but are usually around $2000.
44:29But there's also for every
44:30good Open Access journal.
44:31There are now many predatory publications.
44:34Just today I've received,
44:36I kid you not 6 invitations to
44:39send to some obscure journal
44:40I've never heard about.
44:42So you need to be mindful,
44:43especially around Open Access,
44:47that they're legit and not
44:49predatory publications.
44:52Preprint servers I'll give you.
44:54I'll show you an example,
44:55but in many journals,
44:57both traditional and Open Access,
44:59as soon as you upload your paper and
45:02you send it to a review process,
45:04that will take several months,
45:06At the same time,
45:08it can be submitted to a preprint server.
45:11Always take that option when you want.
45:13You can also just upload
45:14to a preprint server.
45:16A preprint server makes your PDF
45:19available and findable and it gives it
45:22a DOI right away so that you don't need
45:25to wait time for the science to show.
45:28How do you find a publication then you other
45:31than the five or ten journals you know.
45:33These are two websites
45:35that I highly recommend.
45:37This one is through the library,
45:41you can find it.
45:42MJL is medical journal list and you
45:48tap in here, you know your topic,
45:52your abstract and it'll give
45:53you matches for journals.
45:55Another very widely available
45:57one is called Jane,
45:58which is journal author name.
46:01What is it in count estimator
46:04and it's quite remarkable.
46:05What I did here is put the title You can
46:09see part of the title Embracing Languages,
46:11Patient Simulation.
46:12You can't see the whole title,
46:14but it includes the words qualitative,
46:16psychiatry,
46:17those kind of keywords and in two seconds.
46:20This is a list of journals that I have
46:23that go from really great ideas like BMJ,
46:27Medical Education that probably I
46:28wouldn't have thought about to one
46:30that is not a good match for me,
46:32like the Pan African Medical Journal.
46:34Probably not good.
46:35So there's a range,
46:37but then you can evaluate which
46:39ones are available,
46:40which ones are Open Access,
46:42etcetera,
46:43etcetera.
46:43So very helpful tool.
46:48To give you an idea, this is a paper
46:53we submitted close to two years ago.
46:57And you see research Square
46:59is a preprint server.
47:00So the the journal immediately
47:02send it to this preprint server,
47:04it's not typeset, it's APDF and you see
47:10that it says it is not peer reviewed
47:12to take with a grain of salt, etcetera.
47:15But in this preprint server we submitted
47:19in July of 2022 and you see that
47:21on that very day when we submitted,
47:23we already have something that's findable,
47:25ADOI and sorry, sorry.
47:31And then after review,
47:33it was the next version which was you know,
47:37six months later and eventually
47:39when it was published in April.
47:41So it's almost a year ahead
47:44of when it was published.
47:47So preprint servers are very,
47:48very helpful.
47:50My last point is that there are
47:53other doors in two journals.
47:55It's not all scientific articles,
47:58so you know you want to try to keep on
48:01writing because writing begets writing.
48:03Volunteers, A reviewer or don't turn
48:05down offers when they come your way.
48:08They will help you be a better writer,
48:10a better critic of your own work.
48:13Letters to the editor and miscellaneous
48:15pieces will teach you something.
48:17I am a huge, huge fan of book reviews.
48:20I wrote many book reviews that then led to
48:24my being a book review editor of a journal.
48:26Then that led me to being the journal,
48:28the editor in chief of that journal.
48:31So book reviews are a way
48:32of engaging with the topic,
48:34of getting a feel for what publishing is,
48:36picking up a topic that's of your interest.
48:38So I could go on and on.
48:42And not all stories have the
48:44traditional format that I've mentioned.
48:46For example, qualitative science,
48:48which is my main interest,
48:50doesn't quite fit everything that we said.
48:53But the point is that there
48:54are many ways of writing,
48:58so finally, just do it.
49:00Life is filled with reasons to procrastinate,
49:03look to be polished, but not perfect.
49:04The perfect is the enemy of the good.
49:06And going back to the prophet Snoopy,
49:08he he knew what I've told you,
49:10you know, good writing is hard work.
49:13It's hard work, but it's really,
49:15really worthwhile.
49:16In this last slide,
49:19if you're interested to use AQR code,
49:21it will take you to these two
49:23very short articles, very,
49:24very short articles that I did
49:26in a small publication.
49:291 is what we talked about,
49:30pointers to get your work published in the
49:33academic literature and the other revisits
49:35what we talked about some weeks ago,
49:37which is tips to help you
49:40write an effective abstract.
49:42And I think that with that,
49:43what I'm going to do is
49:47point this and maybe Linda,
49:49if you don't mind putting this in the
49:51chat because I want to stop the share
49:53so that I can see if there's any faces.
49:55I I I'm going on faith that there are.
49:57So we really appreciate
49:58and there's also some questions in
50:00the chat that we'll ask and good,
50:01good, I'm going to stop the chat.
50:02Let's give people a minute to do
50:05that survey. So I don't want to
50:11distract people from doing the survey,
50:13but there's a few questions.
50:21And if the timer's gone, the timer's,
50:26I feel like 45 seconds has passed. Are
50:31you still seeing, are you still
50:33seeing my slides? No. All
50:38right. The evaluation is in the
50:39the chat for people who didn't
50:41catch the catch it before is,
50:47is Deb Levy still on?
50:48She had a really good question about
50:50the tension between potentially
50:53plagiarisms and research methods.
50:58I am still here. I can come on camera too.
51:01I'm in my informal writing mode,
51:03so responding to her an article review.
51:09So I was asking to speak to the the
51:11methods I'm more involved in some work
51:14that like I'm finding that there's so
51:16much terminology that comes you know,
51:18like we're doing a scoping review
51:20and you talk about like there's
51:21two sentences just to say prisma,
51:23scoping review, whatever.
51:24You know, I'm, I'm expanding a little,
51:27but how do you balance the need to
51:30be standardized and show your rigor
51:33and your methodology and cite all of
51:36these sources and the articles with
51:38the risk that if you hit a certain
51:41number of words and sentences,
51:42you might be triggered on a
51:44plagiarism kind of thing,
51:46even if it's
51:46cited, of course. Yeah. Thanks, Deb.
51:48I think that Grammarly is fantastic because
51:51let's say that you put the sentence,
51:54you know, we use Scopus for
51:56it and it would flag it as.
51:59Now the beautiful thing is that
52:02if you put we use Scopus for X,
52:05if you just change the order or
52:07the small wording and keep Scopus,
52:09the plagiarism goes away and it will
52:13show you you can rerun it and it'll
52:14you know you see it going down.
52:16So a lot of these plagiarism and
52:18self plagiarism issues are are
52:19kind of innocent things that you
52:21wouldn't think about.
52:22So that's good, very helpful Grammarly.
52:28Thanks Sans.
52:31There was a the number of questions
52:32in the chat that had to do with
52:34getting some of the resources.
52:35But I think people now have links to Jane.
52:37They have links to they could have
52:38a couple of ideas of where they can
52:41go and put their names in or there
52:44are articles and get H factors.
52:47Anybody else have a question
52:48that I might not be seeing,
52:49please feel free to. I did
52:52not talk by the way about H
52:55factors or impact factors.
52:57I kind of Pooh poohed them
52:58a little bit and I and I do.
52:59But if you're really interested
53:01to know which are the ranked
53:02journals for your specialty,
53:04that's something that again in
53:07the website through it'll come
53:09to me exactly what it's called.
53:13But there's a place where you can put
53:15tell me the top ranked in psychiatry
53:17and child psychiatry, etcetera.
53:18And since I'm forgetting right now,
53:20clearly this is a good time to
53:21put a plug for our incredible,
53:23incredible librarians.
53:24If you ask a librarian by an e-mail,
53:29you'll have the answer in five seconds.
53:30I mean, they are just incredible.
53:33And they'll remember exactly
53:34what's a website if you then
53:36want to go and look at it.
53:38And they've been very
53:39helpful in the chat too.
53:40I really appreciate it.
53:41There's a question also about
53:42how to choose the final author
53:44if there's any principles. Yep.
53:48Yeah, so. So the general rule of thumb
53:50is that the first author is a person
53:53who does the bulk of the writing and
53:57takes the ownership of the writing.
54:00And the general rule of thumb is
54:03that the senior author is the person
54:06who supported it, that supported it.
54:08Not just by paying and being invisible,
54:12but by really being engaged and
54:14putting their hands in the dirt.
54:16You know, you, the 1st and the last
54:18author need to have their hands in
54:20the dirt of the paper and and at some
54:24point in professional development,
54:25for those of you who are early
54:27in your career,
54:28early on you want to be a first author.
54:29It's like the greatest thing in the world.
54:32At some point,
54:33the last thing in the world you want to be,
54:35you want to be the last author because
54:37you want to see those young people shine
54:39as they do and you want to be supportive.
54:41But it's one of those ethical things
54:43that if someone says, oh, you know,
54:44since I paid for it and I'm the chairman,
54:47I'm going to be no.
54:49And that's when it, you know, gets tricky.
54:51That person might be the 5th
54:53sandwich whatever author.
54:54But
54:56there's a question about what makes a
54:59journal predatory and how to identify.
55:01Like are there lists of.
55:03Yeah, yeah. No it's it's very,
55:06so you got to be careful.
55:07I I think that you want to go
55:09and look very carefully at the
55:11journal to see that it's legit
55:13that it has a couple of volumes.
55:15If it's volume one, number one,
55:18probably don't submit there.
55:21If it is associated with a
55:24reputable publishing house,
55:25Springer or whatever,
55:26you know you're feeling good and
55:30you can just Google and say you
55:33know is JAMA a reputable journal
55:35is whatever a reputable journal,
55:37and it'll it'll tell you
55:41what's your experience been with
55:44various AI editing services.
55:45I've seen a new one from
55:47Springer Nature with Curie.
55:50I played around with it with a
55:52manuscript the other day and it
55:53seemed to give some helpful advice,
55:55but I'm just wondering if things like that
55:57and tools like that have been helpful,
55:59especially for those who maybe don't
56:00speak English as the first language.
56:03Yeah. Now that's a great question
56:05and I I suspect a question that
56:07will be changing by the day by the
56:10day because it's getting so good.
56:14I but I haven't used that software.
56:18I don't I don't know but I suspect
56:20that it could be helpful especially
56:22to a non you know someone who's
56:25not very comfortable with with
56:27English but I I just don't know.
56:29I also this is not to answer your
56:31question but just to introduce
56:33another of the complications here
56:34in my work in qualitative methods.
56:37I think it's just a matter of time between.
56:40AI does our data analysis in just as
56:46good or even a more sophisticated way,
56:49especially if you're looking at,
56:50you know, tons of transcripts.
56:53So you know
56:59and thanks for somebody, Diane.
57:01Put a list of where you can look up
57:15predatoryjournalsbealslist.netpredator.org
57:15itsays.net.
57:18Yeah. Or were you talking
57:20about another site, Andreas?
57:22No, no, that was a joke. Oh,
57:26OK okpredator.net I I I was waiting
57:28to see when the dying would drop.
57:34We have fun together.
57:36Any other questions? Any questions?
57:41Dana and Andreas Fortunae asked
57:43the question about whether
57:45librarians are HIPAA certified to
57:47help with patient data emerging.
57:49Need a librarians want to answer that?
57:55Hi, this is Janine.
57:56We'd like to reach out to Doctor
57:58Diada and do some more questions.
58:01Ask him a little bit more about
58:03what he's after and whether
58:04that's something that Service
58:06Librarian can provide or if we can
58:10suggest someone who might be
58:11able to might be able to help.
58:13So if that's OK. Doctor Diaz.
58:15Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.
58:17That sounds great. Thank you.
58:20Yeah. And big shout out to
58:21our friends of the librarians.
58:22You guys are great. So helpful
58:26he. And thanks for helping in the
58:29chat with so many resources to
58:32everybody and thank you Andreas.
58:35We appreciate everybody's feedback.
58:36And I'll see you in a couple of weeks for
58:39one of the clinical teaching sessions.
58:41I don't know if that that was on
58:42the last slide probably maybe the,
58:46Oh yeah, I didn't hold on. I have it
58:48remind people that I think it is
58:52teaching when time is limited.
58:54My bad, is that right?
58:57Master Adaptive.
58:59Oh, the Master Adaptive Learner
59:01is the Med End Discussion Group
59:02on Thursday, February 22nd.
59:06Anyway, we'll send emails around and
59:09hope to see you at the next one.
59:13Leave it up there. There we go.
59:16Teaching in the ambulatory setting.
59:18Otherwise also known as
59:19teaching kind of on the fly.
59:21So it's a it's a good one for for many of us.
59:30Thanks again, everyone. Thank you everyone.
59:36Thank you.