Writing Up the Research Paper
for Medical Journals
Jeanne M. Ferrante, M.D., M.P.H.
Associate Professor
Department of Family Medicine
You’ve spent months/years
conducting your research.
Now What?
Get It Published!
Title


Research question reshaped into the
manuscript title
Method of study
Abstract









Context/Background
Objective
Design
Population/Setting
Intervention (if applicable)
Outcome measures
Analysis
Results
Conclusion
OBJECTIVE
METHODS
Introduction



Importance of this paper
Gap this paper is addressing
Background information



Follow-up study
Conceptual model/theoretical framework
Purpose


Research question
Hypothesis
Methods





Overall research study design
Statement of IRB and informed consent
Intervention, if applicable
Population and Setting
How were data collected and obtained?


Validity
Reliability
Methods


Alteration of data to facilitate analysis
Variables


Statistical Analysis


Main and secondary outcomes, independent
variables, confounders
Missing data, lost to follow-up
Power calculation for null studies
Results






Description of study population and setting
Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means)
Bivariate analysis results
Multivariate analysis results
Results presented in text OR tables
Objective findings without commentary
Methods/Results of Qualitative
Research Papers

Study Design







Participants and setting
Sampling and sample size
Data collection
Rationale for methodological choice
Theoretical background
Data collection and analysis iterative?
How was data processed?
Qualitative Research Papers

How was bias managed ?




Interpretivist vs. realist perspective
What procedures were used to reduce,
compare or contrast data?
Descriptions of outliers or negative
evidence
Themes organized to produce higher-order
insights
Qualitative Research Papers



Strategies used to draw and verify
conclusions
Processes used to establish validity and
reliability of analysis (interpretivist vs.
realist perspective)
Enough direct quotations but not too much;
avoid very short quotations.
Interpretivist Versus Realist

Interpretivist






Multiple ways to understand reality
Provide meaningful account
Rich substance and content
Description of interpretive process
Immersion and self-reflection
Strong evidence of inference and conclusions
Cohen and Crabtree (2008). Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health
Care. Controversies and Recommendations. Ann Fam Med; 6:331-339.
Interpretivist Versus Realist

Realist




Knowledge of reality is imperfect
Strives for plausibility and accuracy
Processes used to repeat and affirm
observations
Validity and Reliability

Triangulation, external auditing, multiple coding,
member checking
Cohen and Crabtree (2008). Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care.
Controversies and Recommendations. Ann Fam Med; 6:331-339.
Discussion






Summarize main findings
Highlight study’s particular strengths
Explain findings
Compare findings with previous work
Suggest implications of findings
Suggest future directions
Discussion

Limitations





External validity- population and setting
Internal validity- limitations in quantity or
quality of data, potential confounding, biases,
imprecision
Limitations of study design
Effect of limitations on results
Summary paragraph
References



Usually 10-30
Current
Places study in appropriate context
Tables/Figures




Clear and able to stand alone
Footnotes used for explanation
Has good use of space
Use to decrease text
Cover Letter to Editor







Title and journal
Importance of this research
Has not been submitted or published elsewhere
Seen and approved by all authors and take public
responsibility
Conflict of interest statement
Funding of research
Your contact information
Choosing the Right Journal




What is your audience?
Refer to journals where articles from your
literature review were published.
Look at articles in your targeted journal.
Look at citation index (ISI Journal Citation
Reports) for impact factor.
Other Tips




Proof read!
Make sure writing is clear and concise.
Look at similar articles in your topic or
method for outline.
Use Endnote or other bibliography
software.
Reasons Manuscripts are Accepted







Literature review thoughtful, focused, up-to-date
Problem important, timely, relevant, critical
Problem well formulated, well stated
Study well-designed
Sample size sufficiently large
Interpretation took into account the limitations of
the study
Implications practical, useful
Reasons Manuscripts are Rejected





Literature review incomplete, inaccurate,
or outdated
Problem statement insufficient
Conceptual model/theoretical framework
missing
Measures inappropriate or sub-optimal
Sample too small or biased
Reasons Manuscripts are Rejected





Statistics incomplete or inappropriate
Data reported insufficient, inaccurate, or
inconsistent
Tables or figures defective
Results are over interpreted
Text difficult to follow
Responding to Reviewers







Address by reviewer
Number and address all comments
Repeat the comment, or a portion of it, and set it
apart from the response by formatting or change
in font (e.g., italics)
Include page and paragraph numbers
OK to refer to previous responses
Be gracious, even if the reviewer was not
Resubmit within 1-2 months
Guidelines for Different Studies





Randomized controlled trials: CONSORT
Observational studies: STROBE
Non-randomized educational, behavioral, and
public health interventions: TREND
Quality improvement interventions: SQUIRE
Accuracy and use of diagnostic tests: STARD
Keep Writing!