Slides from the Getting your Rural Clinical, Education and Research Article Published Workshop, Rural WONCA, Cairns, May 2017

1. Getting your rural clinical,
education and research work
published – lessons learned from
Rural and Remote Health
Ian Couper, Amanda Barnard, Christos Lionis, Leonardo Vieira Targa,
Masatoshi Matsumoto, Paul Worley
Editors: Rural and Remote Health journal
www.rrh.org.au

2. Outline
• Introduction
• An overview of writing for publication – Ian Couper
• Current statistics from RRH – Paul Worley
• Tips from RRH regional editors:
• Masatoshi Matsumoto
• Leonardo Targa
• Amanda Barnard
• Christos Lionis

3. Writing an article for publication
in a scientific journal
Ian Couper
RRH Regional Editor: Africa

4. Reasons to publish
Advance science/ improve health outcomes
Disseminate results of your (hard) work
Enhance your status/track record/reputation
Improve chances for promotion/research grants
Promote your hospital/service/project
Unethical not to publish research?

5. Structure - IMRD
Introduction –
provide context and
tell readers why your
study is important
Methods – describe
what you did, so that
others may be able to
reproduce your work
Results – present
them to be easily
understood. Balance
of tables/fig & text
Discussion – the
implications of your
work, conclusions and
recommendations.

6. Manuscript must be “readable”
Structure
IMRD
Flow of the
(scientific)
story
Minimise
repetition
(space)
Balance
information
vs brevity
Good
English!

7. Choose your journal carefully
Focus & Scope of journal
Status of journal: Impact factor (ISI/Scopus)
Funding/subsidy credits
Indexing (Medline, EMBASE etc)
Availability on internet
Open Access vs. Toll Access
Cost – author side publication fees

8. Use the author guidelines
Uniform requirements (ICMJE) – www.icmje.org
Correct submission (paper, online)
Style and system of referencing
Length, word count, tables, figures
Formatting
Metadata (author, info, abstract)

9. Mention ethical issues
Measures taken to obtain
consent, protect
confidentiality
Ethical approval obtained
Possible conflicts of interest:
e.g. funding or other sources
of support

10. Get language assistance
• Spelling, grammar, syntax and clarity
– Co-authors
– Other colleagues
– English teachers, lecturers
– Language experts

11. Respond appropriately to the peer review report
• Response time (3-6 m)
• Be polite and appreciative
• Respond to each suggestion in a table attached to
your new draft
• Say what you changed and what not and give
reasons
• Make all changes in tracking or different text colour

12. • Learn by reviewing
– Good reviewers needed! (Learning process)
• Partner with experienced authors
• Make sure you meet authorship ICMJE rules:
– Substantial contribution to conception and design, OR analysis of data;
and to
– Drafting the article OR revising it critically for important intellectual
content,
– Final approval for version to be published
Note

13. Don’ts
Send your research report as is for publication – wrong
format!
Send your small survey to the N Engl J Med. (Be humble
and realistic)
Send your article to more than one journal at the same time
and withdraw suddenly when one accepts

14. Don’ts
Wait 5 years to publish, and not update your references
Attack the peer-reviewers in your response, be obstructive,
protective
Give up if at first rejected: try another journal

15. Editors need authors more than authors need
editors
Richard Smith
Editor, BMJ
Remember ...
With acknowledgments to
Prof Pierre de Villiers
Former Editor: SA Family Practice Journal

21. Reasons for rejection
1. Not rural
2. Not written well, including language fluency
3. Not novel
4. Method flaws
5. Not meeting editorial guidelines
6. Too local
7. Conclusions wider than data

22. Reasons for rejection (cont.)
8. Purpose not clear
9. Better for discipline journal
10. Not important
11. Refused shorter article
12. No local authors
13. Couldn’t get reviewers

23. Point of rejection
• Vast majority of manuscripts rejected without review beyond the
editor
• Usually within a month of submission
• Some take a lot longer
• Main cause of longer time appears to be either methodological flaws or
difficulty finding reviewers

25. Checklist for getting published
Introduction
Is the research purpose clear and directly related to rural and remote health?
Is the research hypothesis relevant to rural and remote health?
Are the purpose and hypothesis based on past literature in rural health?
Is the main topic recognized as important in the rural and remote health discourse?
Methods
Is the rural definition explained and appropriate?
Is the study appropriate in numbers and sampling?
Does the study have an appropriate control (often urban individuals or areas)?
Is statistical analysis appropriate?
Are rural and remote community ethical considerations addressed?
Results
Is the relationship between results and rurality clearly shown?
Discussion
Is the discussion specific to rural health?
Is there policy relevancy to rural and remote communities?
Does the interpretation of results address the local context?
Do the results hold global implications?
Are the limitations, especially contextual limitations, of the study discussed?
Matsumoto, et al. A guide to reporting a research paper in rural and remote health.
Rural Remote Health 12: 2312, 2012

26. The ‘so what’ factor
Your research or project is important to you and your
community – show us why!
Relevance IMPACT
Impact – outcomes, evaluations,
- discussion
- clearly in the literature

27. What next? Is this the most appropriate format?
•Editorial: less than 2000 words
•Commentary: less than 2000 words
•Original research: less than 5000 words
•Review article: less than 5000 words Clinical case report: less than 3000
words
•Clinical review: less than 3000 words
•Short communication: less than 1500 words
•Policy report: less than 2500 words
•Project report: less than 2500 words
•Conference report: less than 2500 words
•Personal view: less than 3000 words
•Rural health history: less than 2000 words
•Biography, Tribute or Obituary: less than 1500 words
•Book review: less than 500 words
•Letter (research letter, standard letter to the editor or a post via the online
forum): less than 500 words

28. Now you want it to be read
Ensure the title accurately reflects the paper
Abstract – many readers stop here. So this has to engage
them NOW
Clear aims
Concise results/outcomes
Conclusion – impact
Clear and succinct writing, avoid jargon

29. Get your research published: Consider prior
submission :
Prior starting writing the article think if:
(1) a written clinical protocol exists
(2) a bio-ethical approval has been received
(3) a permission from the developers for implementing of any
questionnaire or tool has been given
(4) the community or population is aware about the study aim and
objectives, and
Start the discussion about:
(5) a suitable journal
(6) its publication policy
Citation: Lionis C (2013) Common Pitfalls When Reporting General Practice/ Family Medicine Research: Simple
Recommendations to Prevent Them. J Gen Pract 1:117. doi: 10.4172/2329-9126.1000117

30. 1a. Look at the Journal’s Editorial Policy
1. Overview the RRH policy
2. Check the authorship (review the ICMJE guidelines)
3. Visit the rules for Ethics (Committee for Publication
Ethics/COPE)
4. Check your study registration either trial (for example WHO
International Clinical Trials registry Platform) or systematic review
5. Check to what extent the standards of reporting have
been followed (visit the EQUATOR network website)
Get your research published:
writing a good manuscript-I

31. 1.A polite cover letter to the Editor
2.A good “story” in order to convince and attract the Editor
3.A clear definition of the study setting and some well-argued
statements
4. Presenting the validation of tools
5.Documentation of normality data check, linear association of
variables and their function as a response to the research
question
General recommendations for a successful
publication
C. Lionis, Puls Uczelni 2015

32. 6. Avoid comments in the results sections
7. Seek the advice of a mentor and other experienced author
either in research and clinical practice prior to comment in
the discussion section
8. Take into consideration the possible non correspondence of
the results to the truth and examine whether the literature
agrees with the findings.
9. Be modest in the strength and limitations Section and
check all potential discrepancies’ impact on the results
10.Seriously check the results provided to assure confidence
in the conclusion section.
Recommendations for a successful
publication (Cont.)
C. Lionis, Puls Uczelni 2015

33. Getting your rural clinical, education and
research work published – lessons learned
from Rural and Remote Health
Ian Couper, Amanda Barnard, Christos Lionis, Leonardo Vieira
Targa, Masatoshi Matsumoto, Paul Worley
Editors: Rural and Remote Health journal
www.rrh.org.au