Reviewers & Editors Share the Secret Sauce

Book Reviews / Writing & Publishing

Publishing Your Medical Research, 2nd Edition reveals the secret sauce for maximizing the palatability of your manuscript submissions.

Edge reviews have featured exceptional books about the mechanics, inspiration, process, and editing of writing. What differentiates this offering by Daniel Byrne, MS, is data from two rounds of surveys of reviewers and editors identifying the most common flaws of submitted manuscripts that lead to revisions and rejections. Complete with figures that analyze top concerns. This data from inside the peer review machine is the key ingredient well-paired with practical guidance about how to avoid mistakes at each step from the initial design and implementation of research through reply to reviewers.

Byrne is a biostatistician and has more than two decades’ experience teaching and consulting in a Master’s of Science in Clinical Investigation program in which all students – most of whom are physician-scientists – develop, conduct, and publish research projects. Virtually all seek him out for stats consultation and pragmatic guidance. As a result, the core recipes in his book provide sufficient detail that a new cook can garner everything they need to craft a solid paper themselves.

We particularly like these tables and figures (from among more than 50):

  • Self-Education Reading List for Medical Researchers, a solid starting inventory for what should be on the bookshelves of academic investigators and teachers
  • Reviewers’ most common criticisms of manuscripts
  • Editors’ most common criticisms of manuscripts
  • How to avoid annoying a reviewer/an editor
  • Elements of a good title
  • Sentence beginnings to avoid/use sparingly
  • Suggestions for resubmitting
  • How a paper fills a niche in the literature
  • Manuscript section that is most often responsible for rejection
  • Frequency of presentation problems
  • Internal peer review form

And dozens of additional pointers.

If you are refining your writing or research, or teaching others to do so, you won’t go wrong to have a copy of this book to supplement conventional academic writing guides. Don’t be surprised if it becomes the most referenced one on the shelf.

Conflict of interest: Dr. Byrne is faculty at Vanderbilt, the operational home of Edge for Scholars. So far he doesn’t give us any of the royalties. We can always hope – the Keurig needs supplies.

Published by: 0

One-Minute Writing Tuneup: Don’t Dangle Your Modifiers Off a Cliff

Writing & Publishing

Modifiers add description, context, and pizzaz to nouns, verbs, and other parts of a sentence. As well as the adjectives and adverbs you’re probably familiar with, verbal phrases function as modifiers too. Verbal phrases take a verb and make it function as a noun, adjective, or adverb.

Examples of verbal phrases used as modifiers:

Using survey data, we measured the effects of the intervention. (How did we measure the effects? We used survey data.)

After preparing the gel, the postdoc denatured the proteins. (When did the postdoc denature the proteins? After preparing the gel.)

We hired a biostatistician to analyze the data. (Why did we hire a biostatistician? To analyze the data.)

Not a modifier’s happy place.

But all modifiers are afraid of heights, and don’t like to be dangled off cliffs. A “dangling modifier” is a modifier that has nothing in the sentence to modify, or appears to modify something the author doesn’t intend it to.

Examples of dangling modifiers:

Incorrect: After reading the article cited, the hypothesis remains unconvincing.
Wait, who finds it unconvincing? Is the hypothesis having an existential crisis?
Correct: After reading the article cited, I still find the hypothesis unconvincing.

Incorrect: Not having used the correct medium, the experiment failed.
Wow, experiments can pick their own growth medium?
Correct: The student didn’t use the correct medium, so the experiment failed.

Incorrect: To investigate the phenomenon, a study was designed.
Yes, but who is actually doing the study?
Correct: To investigate the phenomenon, we designed a study.

As you can see from the last example, passive voice can easily lead to dangling modifiers. (More on that next time.)

To avoid dangling modifiers, make sure every verbal phrase in a sentence connects to the person or thing doing the action. Keep special vigilance at the beginnings of sentences. Avoid passive voice where you can.

Related Resources:

Practical Writing Advice from a Writing Teacher

Making Writing More Memorable and Persuasive 

An Entertaining & Robust Writing Roundup

Read More

Biomedical Editor: Grammar Tip: Dangling Modifiers

Duke Graduate School Scientific Writing Resource: Dangling Modifiers in Scientific Editing

Purdue Online Writing Lab: Dangling Modifiers and How to Correct Them

 

Published by: 0

You MUST Read Dreyer’s English

Writing & Publishing

If Strunk and White is a subtle and respectable Merlot, Dreyer’s English is a Cosmopolitan: light, witty, and slightly pink. Reading this style guide is like going to party with your snarky friend to critique everyone from the bar. Dreyer makes you feel like part of the in-crowd, while schooling you on proper writing style. Instead of the mentoring tone of previous style guides, this one provides a series of fabulous and clear suggestions with a running erudite comedy in the footnotes.

You may think saying a style guide is comedic is going too far, but while I was reading it, my kids came in to ask why I was laughing so hard. I picked it up after I had submitted my R01 for mentor feedback, and it was a delight to be reminded others also struggle with corralling difficult phrases into concise sentences. With my next set of R01 revisions, I was refreshed and able to excise extraneous words with new fervor.

I bought the book in hardback; honestly, it was worth it.  If you haven’t already started a collection of books on writing, you may want to borrow it from the library. It’s a delightful read. The book size and paper thickness of the first edition made me feel scholarly with each flip. I moved through his examples while eagerly awaiting his next famous-writer name drop.  His racy examples make the rules stick in your memory. After a few chapters you will never again use the word ‘really’ in text. Grab a cup of tea, or your favorite mixed drink, find a spot where your laughing won’t disturb others, and enjoy.

Additional Resources

Edge Writing Resources Roundup

Practical Writing Advice from a Writing Teacher

Published by: 1

One-Minute Writing Tuneup: Comprise vs. Compose

Writing & Publishing

“Comprised of” should never exist in formal writing.  Arguably, the construction is used so much now that sooner or later, style guides will accept it, but not yet.

First, some background. Per the Cambridge Dictionary, Comprise means “to consist of or to be made up of”; i.e., it is the whole.  Compose, sometimes the better alternative, means “to form or make up something [from multiple parts or components].” In a sentence, moving from the whole to the parts uses comprise, while moving from the parts to the whole uses compose.  Example: “The team comprises ten members,” but “Ten members compose the team.”

In the following sentence, try replacing comprised with its synonym contained:

*The experiment was comprised of steps A, B, and C. = *The experiment was contained of steps A, B, and C.

You’d never use the second one, so don’t use the first.

You can rewrite the sentence as “The experiment was composed of steps A, B, and C.”  This is okay, but gets into another problem—passive voice. (Watch for a blog on that soon.)  In this case, because the sentence leads with the whole and ends with the parts, comprised is in fact the best option; it just needs to stand alone. “The experiment comprised steps A, B, and C.”

Use the comprise/compose pair correctly for your writing to comprise clarity and readability.

Related Resources:

Tips for Writing Scientific Manuscripts

Paper-Writing Checklists to Prevent Headaches Down the Road

Top Ten Productivity Tips for More Productive Writing, Revising & Editing

Published by: 0

One-Minute Writing Tuneup: Correcting Comparisons

Writing & Publishing

A rule to instantly improve your writing: “Compared to” (or “compared with”) never replaces “than” without a sentence rewrite.

This construct is common in academic work, and misuse is understandable. Often the sentence does make a comparison. However, using “compared to” in place of “than” inevitably leads you to compare the wrong things.

Take this example:

*Patients who took Drug A experienced greater improvement in symptoms compared to those who took Drug B.

The placement of “compared to” in this sentence suggests the reader should compare improvement to patients, when the comparison intended is patients who took Drug A and patients who took Drug B. We naturally want a participle like “compared” to modify the closest noun, in this case, “improvement.” Placing the items compared at the opposite ends of the sentence breaks this grammatical link and makes your reader work harder—never a good thing.

Two fixes are available:

  1. Patients who took Drug A experienced greater improvement in symptoms than those who took Drug B.
  2. Compared to patients who took Drug B, patients who took Drug A experienced greater improvement in symptoms.

Notice “compared to” now modifies “patients” in the second example.

Both “than” and “compared to” work to compare things, but must be treated differently. Improve your writing by not using them interchangeably.

Related Resources:

The Write Rules

Writing in Academia: An Interview with Helen Sword

11 Tips to Increase your Writing Productivity

Published by: 0

Getting Your Ducks in a Row for that First Big Grant Submission

Writing & Publishing

So you are sailing high with your K career development award ready to pounce on your next grant submission!  But what do you need to reach that next milestone, i.e. “independent” funding such as a R01—the currency of academic medical research?  Well, you better start thinking about it.  You want to get that grant in as early as possible so that you don’t have a funding gap after your K award.  And remember to take into account the resubmission time for additional data generation to strengthen your application.  And you can’t forget about how long it can take from that point sometimes—beyond one year for fundable and/or borderline fundable scores depending on the federal powers that be.

So what do you need to be successful?  Well of course, you need an awesome hypothesis and research plan.  That’s your science, people, and hopefully you are all over that.  Write it, live it, get others to read it.  However, there is much more—are you independent, does your department support you, do you have space and equipment of your own?  Funding is so tight these days that you need to convince reviewers that you have EVERYTHING to succeed on top of great science, even as a new investigator.  Believe me, I have been there and done it.  I fought the battle, and it was cumbersome.  The smallest things can flip you from “sorry, so close” to “congrats on your funding.”

But as we recently discussed at COMPASS, a peer mentoring group at Vanderbilt, getting to that point can be very challenging.  Priorities can change in departments, particularly with changes in leadership.  Promises can be broken.  Your requests can be lost in the shuffle.  You can’t find the right people to work in your lab and are unsure how to even look for them.  What we learned from all of this and others’ past experiences is that you need to take some chances, spend some funds, and most importantly advocate for yourself or have others do it for you.  But how do you let your boss know that you need some help which will make you successful?  There is a fine line between being the broken record and having that record being thrown out—you need to sing a slow and steady song about your needs.

But sometimes your song may not be heard.  If you find your requests and concerns are falling on deaf ears, get some help.  Recruit other faculty in your department and your research head to support your cause.  If that doesn’t work or you need further evidence to make a case, turn to your mentoring committee.  And make sure that committee is awesome—tough, tenured faculty that know the system inside and out and believe in you.  I say this because they can be your best advocate.  If they are sympathetic to your cause and support your needs to be successful, have them write a letter.  Signed by all of them.  Sent to whomever it needs to go to—Lab Director, Director of Research, Chair, Division Head, etc.  And remind your bosses why you are an asset to your department and what you can provide to make it successful.  And do your part as much as you can with early publications, positive grant reviews, talks at national conferences, and other measures of productivity.

You are on a long trek that can’t be done in isolation.  Utilize those around you to help you be successful and advocate for yourself when you can.  No one told you this job was much more than science . . .

Published by: 0

Publishing Null Results

Doing Research / Writing & Publishing

Nearly every scientist has felt the frustration of pouring effort, money and (sometimes) tears into a project only to get null results. The elusive p<0.05 decides whether results get published or not—the oft-mentioned file drawer problem. Others have explained better than I can why this is a problem. Rather, I’d like to contribute some tips I’ve picked up on how to publish null results.

  • Combine results with a significant result. If the story of the paper allows it, consider adding the null results to another related analysis and publishing one big paper. I’ve had some success with this myself, where I decided to include three analyses of biomarkers that were non-significant with one that was.
  • Consider different journals. There is a bias to not even review null results. So consider other options such as open access journals or lower tier journals. The science still gets out there and a publication is better than no publication. Some journals specifically focus on null results such as PLOS One’s Missing Pieces and the Journal in Support of the Null Hypothesis. While I personally haven’t tried any journals focusing on null results, I have had some success looking beyond the top tier journals in my field and even considering journals in other fields.
  • Don’t give up easily, but know when to fold. One part of publishing null results is getting used to rejection, particularly not even having papers reviewed. If you know your methods are solid and your science strong, don’t give up. Human beings are prone to bias and this likely includes a bias against wanting to publish null results (particularly if it counters a favored hypothesis or theory). Be mindful, though, of how much time you have to spend reformatting for different journals compared to the time you need to spend on other responsibilities. There is no shame in giving up once you’ve made a good effort.
  • When designing your study or analysis, try to design it in such a way that even null results are interesting. This, obviously, won’t help after you’ve analyzed your data but you can still consider why the null results would be useful.
  • Add power analyses. I’ve tried this myself and it does seem to help. Showing that your study was powered to find a typical effect size for your field helps establish that the result wasn’t just because the study was too small or had too much error.

These strategies don’t negate the root cause of the file drawer problem, namely a publication system that wants flashy, highly citable papers, and null results just aren’t that. I don’t have any good suggestions for how to solve the systemic parts of the problem except what others have already said: more journals that specifically publish null results or having current journals commit to publishing more null results or abandoning p-values altogether. Hopefully these tips will help other new scientists until the field addresses the problem.

Published by: 0

Research Manuscripts Should Tell Really Good Stories

Book Reviews / Writing & Publishing

Book Review: The Art of Scientific Storytelling by Rafael E. Luna, PhD

Chapter 1: Introduction

Skim or skip. This section promotes the book and the promising ideas it conveys, when many of us (me, me, me) just want to get to the meat of the book. After several pages it reads as blah, blah, blah.

Key takeaways: The author, (who is Executive Director of the National Research Mentoring Network), has golden credentials and oodles of experience to share to help you write better.

Figure 3

Chapter 2: Fashioning Your Scientific Story Using the Basic Elements of Narrative Craft

Here’s the content I expected earlier. If you’re already familiar with narrative arcs, this section will feel familiar. If storytelling form is a new concept, then this can help identify the various narrative structures and prepare you to think creatively about how they apply to a research manuscript.

Figure 3 (at right with modifications) helps make the connection without needing to read the entire chapter. The Essential Toolkit of Storytelling Terms is basic, but does teach how to apply these terms directly to the scientific paper you are writing.

Key takeaways: Lifecycle of a Scientific Story begins with the Introduction, Results Section 1, Results Section 2, Results Section 3, Results Climax, Results Validation, and ends with the Discussion.

Chapter 3: An Order of Operations to Streamline Scientific Storytelling

A bit too wordy when telling stories within the larger story. I would prefer to cut to the chase and lay out the steps needed, which does happen by about the fourth page of the chapter, along with some solid general writing guidelines to consider in early drafts.

Key points are summarized in the following excerpt:

“The Introduction ushers your protagonist into a scene with a major problem/scientific unknown, which sets up your hypothesis. Results Sections 1, 2, and 3 show the protagonist undergoing increasing tension by step-wise experimentation to address the major problem/scientific unknown (overall hypothesis), which drives the reaction forward to its highest tension. The Climax experiment is the critical experiment that is centered on the protagonist and provides the strongest evidence for the major findings in the research study, which drives the reaction toward completion. The Validation step lends the most credibility of the study by making a step that makes your story believable. The Discussion section places your results in the context of the current literature, returning your protagonist to his original scene and showing how he is irrevocably changed.”

Key takeaways: The structure of research narrative mirrors other stories, and you can break it down by section. In fact, you should break it down by section and carefully include essential supporting details.

Chapter 4: Specifics for Writing Each Section (Here are the meat and potatoes!)

In the longest (and best) chapter of the book, we get section-by-section guidance on topics like selecting the best title, abstract essentials (sentence by sentence), storytelling through figures, results, introduction, discussion, and finally revision. These steps read a bit like recipes, and offer concrete and clear guidance about what to include.

The author notes:

“If you remember only two things from this book, it should be the following:

1.) A hypothesis can be defined as Conflict Resolution, which is the basis of all stories, especially Scientific Storytelling.

2.) Boldly state your testable hypothesis in your Title and throughout the text of your manuscript provide scientific evidence to substantiate your hypothesis (or in the urban vernacular: Drop the Mic!).”

Included at the end is a quick-start guide to hosting a Scientific Storytelling workshop of 6-18 participants along with critical analysis questions, which can be helpful even outside of the workshop setting and in solo editing.

Key takeaways: Use this section of the guide when crafting your first draft, then refer back to it throughout the revision process. If you mentor, consider if the Scientific Storytelling framework offers a fresh way to bring out more nuances of the flow of scientific writing.

Additional Resources:

Published by: 1

Bespoke Tailoring: Why You Want to Work with a Writer/Editor

Writing & Publishing

Pitching your luxury hotel to investors? Aiming for the executive suite? Moving towards partnership in an international law firm? Odds on you’ll invest in a high-end wardrobe. First impressions dominate. The out-of-pocket expense is a stepping stone to your goal. A $2000 suit makes sense when the gain is millions.

Hiring a medical editor is like having a bespoke tailor. No one cares what I’m wearing, but I want my work to step out completely dressed for success. Because we make our pitch in writing, work products have to be flawless presentations.

I have an undergraduate degree in writing and masters in science writing from Johns Hopkins. I have earned significant income in the past by writing and editing. I regularly work with an editor* for my most important products. Why? Because I and my research team have millions to gain (aka grant funding and publications that sustain our research). More eyes on make a more perfect product.

Don’t pour your intellect and soul into your scientific passions – your start up – and fail to get a foot in the door because of how your science is “dressed.” We write for a living. We write to explain our methods, to convey our findings, to explain the implications, and to inspire enthusiasm for our next research goals. Do not be fooled, we are marketing our findings and selling our next project. We compete our ideas. Writers and editors can help the work be elegant and polished going into the arena. Strong clear writing confers confidence in your attention to detail, deep understanding of your work, and by extension your abilities and trustworthiness as a scientist. Fair? Of course not, but first impressions matter precisely because the individual forming the impression is not consciously doing so.

Enthusiasm for your science is a gut level response you can influence to your advantage at relatively low costs. Writers and editors can help you be more productive and prepare your science to go more quickly and attractively into the world. Illustrators can make the message more tangible, technical editors can redeem your time by formatting to journal specification, clerical support can organize your bibliographic database, writers can draft cover letters or manuals of procedures to free your time to focus on discovery. More people than you imagine are quietly using these resources. I’m not sure why they feel the need to keep it hush-hush. No shame attaches to working smart.

If you have discretionary funds or training grant funds, often these can be deployed through your work to pay invoices. Ask. You don’t have much to lose. Some faculty have discovered a science writer on retainer in their department or deeply discounted costs for early career investigators by asking. Or form a free accountability structure with peers, like manuscript sprints, to be able to learn to edit and to receive feedback on your work. What you want is a durable, ongoing commitment to group editing, not a 45-minute work-in-progress. Work-in-progress with your research team is crucial but unlikely to be enough buffing.

If you must, pay out-of-pocket. But I still shop at Target!?! I can’t afford this luxury. Scrimp, save, take public transportation, don’t go out to dinner or order pizza, eat rice and beans, put stuff on Craigs list, but make the investment in your career. If I had permission (and I don’t per hush-hush phenomena above), I would share the names of senior people who have had writers as assistants for most of their careers. Writers who are now at their sides well into their leadership roles. Most began the practice very early in their careers. I also have testimonials from early career faculty who firmly believe their grants were funded because of the work of an experienced editor. Why make your work compete in Dockers and a serviceable sweater when it can arrive at the party in a custom tuxedo? You’ll slay them with attention to detail. You want to celebrate the win, right?

 

* Disclaimer: No editor was involved in the tailoring of this post.

Resources:

American Medical Writers Association Directory – Freelance Directory Search

National Association of Science Writers – Find a Writer

Australasian Medical Writers Association list of freelance writers/editors

And the publication below finding: “In this sample of open-access journals, declared professional medical writing support was associated with more complete reporting of clinical trial results and higher quality of written English.”

Gattrell WT, et al. Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomized controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2). PMC4762118.

Published by: 4

Avoiding a Mismatch: How To Work with a Writer or Editor

Writing & Publishing

You don’t have to do it all yourself!  Many successful researchers engage scientific/medical writers and editors for help refining grants, manuscripts, press releases, and more.  At our career development seminar, we heard from two medical writers and an early career researcher, who works with a medical writer, about why you might want to hire one, how to use their services, and best practices for working with writers and editors.

Ms. Donna Ingles
Medical Writer

  • How might you use a medical writer?
    • Grants:
      • Helping update background and significance with current literature
      • Proofreading and technical editing
      • Buffing ancillary materials (abstract, narrative, biosketches, etc.)
    • Manuscripts, book chapters:
      • Fact checking and updating background and significance sections with current literature
      • Proofreading, improving flow of document, and technical editing
      • Formatting, references, etc.
    • Social media/PR releases
      • Enhancing interpretation for lay audience
  • What to ask about when looking for a medical writer:
    • Do they have broad background or more specific training?
    • What is their own experience in science?
    • Experience writing for lay vs. scientific audiences?
    • Experience with grant or manuscript formats and requirements?
      • Differences between journals
      • Differences between NIH vs. foundation or other funding
      • Good references/reputation (ask for examples of recent work and contact with prior clients)
  • Best practices when working with a medical writer
    • Find someone who has time and is willing to commit
    • Set a clear schedule/timeline for completion (ideally in multiple steps)
    • Clarify terms of agreement- how will they be compensated? Fee for service, billing hours, % effort, etc.
    • Communicate changes immediately
    • Include writer in research team meetings if possible

Dr. Elise Lamar
Medical Writer
http://www.eliselamar.com

  • Writers are expensive: seek affordable help first (mentors, offices supporting NIH or foundation grant applications).
    • Web-based resources:
    • Biomedical editing companies (my opinion: most useful for copy-editing).
  • Define where you need help: copy-editing? rewriting? effective letter writing? journal selection? research?
    • Seek someone with skills in that area, preferably recommended by a colleague.
    • My opinion: Deep knowledge of your science ≠ ability to write a competitive grant.
    • Or, advertise for a freelancer with professional organizations like American Medical Writers Association (AMWA)
  • Contract prep is time-consuming. Thus, make sure you have the “right” person.
    • Apply professional standards you would in hiring a car mechanic—not necessarily a post-doc.
    • Politely request candidate’s qualifications (CV, publication list, writing samples, or names of satisfied customers/past employers).
    • It is unprofessional for a mechanic (writer) to work for free; but you might diplomatically ask them to look at the engine (i.e., ONE page of an R01).
    • Ask focused Qs about work habits and compensation.
      • Does writer charge hourly or by word count? Do they bill for answering emails or phone calls? Charge more for research time?
      • Does writer typically work or respond to emails on weekends?
      • Does writer charge more for rapid turn-around?
      • If $$ is a problem, would writer charge less for guaranteed high volume?
  • Finally:
    • Early on, explicitly tell a writer what you like/don’t like.
    • Make deadlines clear AND get info to a writer on time.
    • Pay on time with no “surprises”. Don’t make writer ask where check is.

Dr. Maya Yiadom
K23 Recipient, Medical Writing Client

  • As an early career scientist many writing conventions will be unfamiliar. Having someone involved who regularly edits grants and manuscripts can help you learn these in a turbo-boosted fashion and save you resubmissions.
  • Get a referral from someone, with similar needs and scientific content as you.
  • Work with your department to use your training grant funds or start-up to pay for services. Writers are providing technical assistance with your research and career development.
  • Consider developing a longitudinal relationship with a writer, who can coach you as they edit your material over time. Eventually you will need them less and less and gain a stronger return on your investment.

Check out videos from a later seminar on using medical and scientific writers in your work with this five-video playlist, or via the EFS Video Vault. Or watch the first one below:

 

More Resources:

You MUST Read Dreyer’s English

Using Content-Lexical Ties to Connect Ideas in Writing

A Smorgasbord of Writing Pointers with a Side of Wit

Published by: 1