7 Best evidence based tips | presentation to publication
1. Plan your time for efficiency
Establish the date required for submission and set realistic writing goals for delivering the results.
Stay organised and clean. Disorderly environments make it difficult to achieve goals (Fennis & Wiebenga, 2015).
Copy and paste keywords. Use multiple screens if necessary. Multiple display screens can increase productivity by an estimated average to 42% improvement (Jon Peddie Research, n.d.).
Temperature control effects typing accuracy. Lang (2004), reported an increase in office temperature from (20°C to 25°C) reduced typing errors by (44%) and increasing typing output by (150%).
Offices with windows are shown to affect people by increasing their time on task by (15%) in comparison to others in offices without windows (Lighting Research Center, 2003).
Stand capable desks were shown in a researched study by Garrett et. al., (2014) to increase productivity daily by (45%) in comparison to being seated. In the first month, (23%) and into the next six months (53%).
Chunking work and taking breaks
Experienced dissertation coach Alison Miller PhD advocates taking short breaks to enable redirection of goals. Miller suggests a project management approach with milestone goals planning tasks into small chunking and allocating completion times in two hours or less, Another recommendation is to connect goals to specific days of the week. This technique can help overcome negativity, enable effective collaboration with supportive colleagues, attain goals and achieve success beyond expectations (Miller, 2009).
2. Choose an impacting topic
A study by Goodman, Thacker and Siegel (2001), identified in a study, most titles lacked information about study design, methods, and results. According to C. Paiva, Lima, and B. Paiva, (2012), short-titled articles had more viewing and citation incidents than those with longer titles. Question marks, identification of geographic, use of colon or hyphen had a lower incidence of citations. The use of results-describing titles was more popular than methods-describing titles.
3. Ensure the journal is relevant
Knight and Steinbachfirst (2008), developed a comprehensive model to guide authors to submit their work. Considerations include the likelihood of timely acceptance, potential article impact, and philosophical and ethical considerations.
For the clinical literature, measures of scientific quality and clinical newsworthiness available at the time of publication can predict journal impact factor with 60% accuracy (Lokker et. al, 2012).
Identify journal ranking relevance.
Measure rapport with journal staff.
Determine your interest for supporting the journal.
Format and application requirements.
Ascertain costs of publishing.
Discern rapidity of journal issue publication.
Distinguish aim and the scope of journal (appropriateness to your research).
Review other articles published for related concepts and ensure your work is original.
Venketasubramanian and Hennerici (2012), identify the journal, interest, format, topic area and importance of following correct format when discussing "How to Handle Rejection". For some journals the rejection is high (70-90%).
4. Ensure balance in referencing
Using leading citations from review articles, instead of original research papers, can distract or bias the relationship with scientific evidence. Citation statistics are more available and choosing core journals for referencing is easier by assessing the ranking of journals and the citations in papers to another (Nature Geoscience, 2008).
Self-citations can indicate adequacy or inadequacy of the author's background in the subject presented. However, too much can be seen ignoring other research. Balancing is important.
Ensure complete, accurate and dating relevance of referenced literature. Limitations ensure affordability of production of the journal and limits to the number of journal self-citations. Increase the diversity of authors in-text referencing "cited by" to keep the number of citations-per-author low (Sammarco, 2008).
Pop and SalzbergIt (2015) discuss the goal of the National Information Standards Organization and the National Federation of Advanced Information Services for the The NISO/NFAIS recommendations for online supplemental journal article materials to be implemented and improved ensuring ethical and consistent use of the supplementary material in the scientific field.
5. Improve towards good writing
Ensuring validation of scientific and medical claims requires striving for diligence with; original impacting research, honesty, innovative of study, organised methodology, careful and accurate data reporting, clear language, modest in the strength of the data results, fair-minded, truthful, perseverance, rigorous, and realistic attributes (Steen, 2012).
Clearly define the problem statement.
Create easy flow and readability of text.
Use basic and relevant discussions.
Summarise conclusion by supporting with data.
Provide pertinent information of referencing.
6. Optimise reporting of the results
Informative abstracts, report of bias, control of confounding variables, generalisations and description of study size are required. A study using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology tool measured more than half the articles were missing these attributes (Tacconelli, 2015).
Accurately interpret results and implications (avoid over-interpretation or overstated).
Show evidence of accurately and consistently report of data.
Submit sufficient data.
Ensure tables and figures are non-defective.
Plan and deliver a sufficient study design.
Give details to repeat the results (apparatus used and procedures followed must be clear).
Trial registrations with journals
Registration of clinical trials can reduce publication bias by minimising selective publishing. Researchers are able to submit their study to a database where it can be identified by researchers for related studies. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has made clinical trial registration an official requirement for publication (Abaid, Grimes & Schulz, 2007). Leading medical journals only publish clinical trials that have followed policy with the registration of trials (Wager & Williams, 2013). This enables reduction in the bias of preferential publishing and submission (Abaid, Grimes & Schulz, 2007).
Another improvement from trial registration is clinical trial transparency. Trial information is made available upon request to institutional review board members, editors, granting agencies, researchers, participants and referring clinicians.
In a recent study by Bradley, Rucklidge & Mulder (2017), of registered randomised controlled trials, seven of the 13 trials revealed evidence of selective outcome reporting. A cohort study by Kirkham et al. (2009) showed selective outcome reporting bias can effect the medium outcome of patient treatment by 39%.
Senior editing experts of smaller journals have claimed there is no benefit of adhering to trial registrations since they have a broader acceptance towards articles from developing countries and exploratory research (Wager & Williams, 2013).
7. Approach with adequate methodology
Statistical reporting is more common in the high impact groups. Highest levels of evidence and statistical reporting is required to improve the quality of reports and impact clinical decision making.
A study by Kuroki, Allsworth, Peipert (2009), of obstetrics and gynecology journals identified the proportion of published randomised clinical trials were found three times more among the high impact factor group (35%) than moderate impact group (12%).
To examine the methodology and analytic techniques used in clinical research the articles were classified by level of evidence: number of authors, sample size, powerful calculations, clear hypothesis, statistical measures, and use of regression analysis.
Complete statistical information.
Appropriate and optimal instrumentation.
Good study design.
Sample size NOT too small or biased.
Be prepared ... to accept feedback and respond with perseverance along the path of achieving.
Abaid, L. N., Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2007). Reducing publication bias of prospective clinical trials through trial registration. Contraception, 76(5). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17963856
Ariga, A., & Lleras, A. (2011). Brief and rare mental “breaks” keep you focused: Deactivation and reactivation of task goals preempt vigilance decrements. Science Direct, 118(3), 439-443. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.007
Bradley, H. A., Rucklidge, J. J., & Mulder, R. T. (2017). A systematic review of trial registration and selective outcome reporting in psychotherapy randomized controlled trials. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 135, 65–77. doi:10.1111/acps.12647
Daylight and productivity: Phase II ongoing lab study. (2003). Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
Lighting Research Center, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute Web site: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/newsroom/pdf/2003/Daylighting&productivity.pdf
Fennis, B. M., & Wiebenga, J. H. (2015). Disordered environments prompt mere goal pursuit. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 226-237. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.07.005
Garrett, G., Benden, M., Mehta, R., Pickens, A., Peres S. C., & Zhao, H. (2016). Call center productivity over 6 months following a standing desk Intervention. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 4(2), 188-195. doi:10.1080/21577323.2016.1183534
Goodman, R. A., Thacker, S. B., & Siegel, P. Z. (2001). What’s in a title? A descriptive study of article titles in peer-reviewed medical Journals. Science Editor, 24(3). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/378b/8c150b246149bbe42909e0398156515f0fc4.pdf
Jon Peddie Research. (n.d.). Jon Peddie special report. California: Jon Peddie Research.
Kirkham, J. J., Dwan, K. M., Altman, D. G., Gamble, C., Dodd, S., Smyth, R., & Williamson. P. R. (2009). The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 340. doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c365
Knight, L. V., & DePaul, T. A., (2008). Selecting an appropriate publication outlet: A comprehensive model of journal selection criteria for researchers in a broad range of academic disciplines. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 3. Retrieved from https://www.humfak.umu.se/digitalAssets/148/148368_fadcubkursht14.pdf
Kuroki, L. M., Allsworth, J. E., & Peipert, J. F. (2009). Methodology and analytic techniques used in clinical research: Associations with journal Impact Factor. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 114(4), 877–884. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b5c9e8
Lang, S. S. (2004). Study links warm offices to fewer typing errors and higher productivity. Retrieved from http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2004/10/warm-offices-linked-fewer-typing-errors-higher-productivity
Lokker, C., Haynes, R. B., Chu, R., McKibbon, K. A., Wilczynski, N. L., & Walter, S. D. (2012). How well are journal and clinical article characteristics associated with the journal impact factor? A retrospective cohort study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100(1), 28–33. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.100.1.006
Miller, A. B. (2009). Finish your dissertation once and for all!: How to overcome psychological barriers, get results, and move on with your life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
National Informations Standards Organizations. (2013, January). Recommended practices for online supplemental journal article materials. Retrieved from http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/10055/RP-15-2013_Supplemental_Materials.pdf
Nature Geoscience (2008). The importance of being cited. Nature Geoscience, 1(563). doi:10.1038/ngeo305
Paiva, C. E., Lima, J. P. S., & Paiva, B. S. R. (2012). Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often. Clinics, 67(5), 509–513. doi:10.6061/clinics/2012(05)17
Pop, M., & Salzberg, S. L. (2015). Use and mis-use of supplementary material in science publications.
BioMed Central Bioinformatics, 16, 237. doi:10.1186/s12859-015-0668-z
Sammarco, P. W. (2008). Journal visibility, self-citation, and reference limits: Influences on Impact Factor and author performance review. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics Journal, 8, 121–125. doi: 10.3354/esep00095
Tacconelli, E., Cataldo, M., Paul, M., Leibovici, L., Kluytmans, J., Schröder, W., Foschi, F., Angelis, G. D., Waure, C. D., Cadeddu, C., Mutters, N. T., Gastmeier, P., & Cookson, B. (2016). STROBE-AMS: Recommendations to optimise reporting of epidemiological studies on antimicrobial resistance and informing improvement in antimicrobial stewardship. British Medical Journal Open, 6(2). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010134
Venketasubramanian, N., & Hennerici, M. G. (2012, May). How to handle a rejection. Teaching course presentation at the 21st European Stroke Conference, Lisboa. Cerebrovascular Diseases Journal, 35, 209-212. doi:10.1159/000347106
Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2013). “Hardly worth the effort”? Medical journals’ policies and their editors’ and publishers’ views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study. British Medical Journal. 347. doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5248