How to write a scientific paper?

1. How to write a scientific paper? Assoc. Prof. JP van Dijk MD PhD Sociální determinanty zdraví u sociálně a zdravotně znevýhodněných a jiných skupin populace (CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0063)

2. How to write a scientific paper? Assoc. Prof. JP van Dijk MD PhD Department of Social Medicine University Medical Centre Groningen University of Groningen The Netherlands

3. How to write a scientific paper? Assoc. Prof. Jitse P. van Dijk MD PhD Scientific Director Graduate School Kosice Institute for Society and Health Medical Faculty P. J. Šafárik University, Košice www.kish.upjs.sk

4. Outline • * Structure of a scientific paper • * The reviewer’s perspective www.kish.upjs.sk

5. Structure of a paper (Title page) (Abstract) 1 Introduction 2 Methods 3 Results 4 Discussion (References) (Tables, Figures)

6. Title page Title Author + Co-author(s) Affiliation(s) Corresponding author

7. Introduction – 1 • * opening phrase: • should be expressive; reader (= reviewer) should get the idea, • that what is following is important. • * general, broad context of the field • (what is already known, related to the variables you want to use) • * what is not known, or which problems exist • * your choice: • which of the remaining problems you will attack • * research question

8. Introduction – 2 • Keep the attention of the reader • Do not put commonplaces from textbooks here; use your own words • Realise: • Do not try to show by a very long introduction that you read a lot about the subject! • Stick to your variables!! • Make a separation: • what in Introduction / what in Discussion

9. Introduction – 3 • * Research Question • * As precise as possible; • * If possible: • mention variables • the direction between variables should be in the text of RQ; • (a →b; a←b; a↔b or other possibilities) • as short as possible.

10. Introduction – 4 • The RQ defines the Methods section, and also the possible answers in the Results section. • (temperature? • thermometer  degrees Celsius) • (political preference? •  survey  supposed election result)

11. Structure of a paper (Title page) (Abstract) 1 Introduction 2 Methods 3 Results 4 Discussion (References) (Tables, Figures)

12. Methods - 1 Structure: * Sample * Measures * Statistical analyses this whole section needs to be written in sufficient detail to permit replication.

13. Methods – 2 (Sample) Sample: description of study population (including controls!); inclusion and exclusion criteria; (if necessary) planned sample size and power calculations.

14. Methods – 3 (Measures) Measures: description of the variables to be used (well-being, use of alcohol, social support etc) Describing a questionnaire [some characteristic, like HRQoL] was assessed by [measure] [reference]. Give one or two questions as an example. Mention subscales [if the total instrument has] [and if you use them]. Give answering categories. Score is ranging between from x to y; higher scores indicate [worse / better characteristic]. If a scale (questions from a questionnaire belonging together) give reliability in your data (Cronbach’s alpha); if you use subscales, give their reliability.

15. Methods – 4 (Analyses) Statistical analysis: Describe the methods of statistical analysis, preferably in the order of the steps the reader will be confronted with them First, we described the background characteristics of the sample. Next, we performed ... . Then, we ... . Finally, we ... .

16. Methods – 5 • * It is important to specify exactly how the persons / patients were selected. • * The persons / patients should be characterized in detail, so as to avoid confusion about uncontrolled variables. • * Control group(s) should be described as precisely as experimental group(s). • * Describe statistical method when it is an uncommon method (Lisrel, multilevel analysis etc)

17. Structure of a paper (Title page) (Abstract) 1 Introduction 2 Methods 3 Results 4 Discussion (References) (Tables, Figures)

18. Results – 1 1 Describe the respondents * the reader needs to know some basic characteristics * the reviewer wants to know whether there was selection (only the younger, the females, the least diseased etc) 2 Answer(s) to Research Question(s) in the order of the RQ’s * The use of a correlation matrix is not seen as sufficient proof!

19. Results – 2 • sample size achieved / response rate; • (b) how many subjects were excluded or withdrew, and the reasons; (make flowchart) • (c) demographic (and clinical) characteristics of the study population, (including controls)

20. Results – 3 • A) make clear what is the answer; be precise: use p-values, standard errors etc. • the reviewer must have a clear idea that what you wrote down, is true, because you tested the answer from different sides. • Be the devil’s advocate, or ask the supervisor to be that. • B) illustrate with table or figure if necessary but: • the text should be understandable without referring to the respective tables and figures

21. Structure of a paper (Title page) (Abstract) 1 Introduction 2 Methods 3 Results 4 Discussion (References) (Tables, Figures)

22. Discussion – 1 • Structure: • RQ + Condensed findings • Discussion • Strengths & Limitations • Implications (for practice, for research) • [Conclusion]

23. Discussion – 2 Discussion * compare and contrast the findings with previous findings * Show what is new, and how your results fit into the broad field you described at the beginning of the introduction

24. Discussion – 3 Strengths & Limitations: Do not forget strengths! Research not carried out yet is not a limitation! The only relevant question is: were my findings biased? Implications What are practical implications of your own findings? Make cautious speculations and suggest future research

25. Abstract - 1 Most journals: structured abstract; not more than 250 words, sometimes less.

26. Abstract - 2 Aim the purpose of the study. Methods Concisely and systematically list the study subjects, the measures and the analyses. Results basic results without any introduction Conclusion List conclusions in a short, clear and simple manner.

27. The reviewer’s perspective The reviewer will check: 1 Are all elements present? 2 Is there a consistency between the introduction, the research question, the methods section, the results and the discussion? 3 The value of the data: * the design, * inclusion / exclusion * the sample * is there any uncontrolled bias * how are the data collected  how many compromises were made? 4 Is the manuscript readable?

28. Thank you for your attention!

29. Questions Questions???