Cart
Free Shipping in Australia
Proud to be B-Corp

The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences Stephen Luby

The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences By Stephen Luby

The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences by Stephen Luby


$100.59
Condition - New
Only 4 left

Summary

Writing manuscripts is central to the advance of scientific knowledge. Careful, thorough reviews of draft manuscripts are difficult to secure, and experienced scientific supervisors face more demands on their time than they have time available.

The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences Summary

The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences by Stephen Luby

Writing manuscripts is central to the advance of scientific knowledge. For an early career aspiring scientist, writing first author manuscripts is an opportunity to develop critical skills and to credential their expertise. Writing manuscripts, however, is difficult, doubly so for scientists who use English as a second language. Many science students intentionally avoid a writing-intensive curriculum. Careful, thorough reviews of draft manuscripts are difficult to secure, and experienced scientific supervisors face more demands on their time than they have time available. Weak draft manuscripts discourage supervising scientists investing the time to coach revisions. It is easier for experienced scientists to ignore the request, or to simply rewrite the article. Early career scientists are motivated to address these barriers but specific advice is difficult to find, and much of this advice is behind a pay wall.
This essential, open access text presents writing lessons organized as common errors, providing students and early-career researchers with an efficient way to learn, and mentors with a quick-reference guide to reviewing. Error descriptions include specific examples drawn from real-world experiences of other early-career writers, and suggestions for how to successfully address and avoid these in the future. Versions of this book have been used by Stanford University, UC Davis, Johns Hopkins, and numerous international institutions and organizations for over a decade.

About Stephen Luby

Stephen Luby, Professor of Medicine, Director of Research at Center of Innovation in Global Health, Stanford UniversityDorothy Southern, Independent Scientific Writing Advisor

Table of Contents

1. Introduction1.1 The pathway to publishing1.2 Think before you write approach1.2.1 Develop a framing document1.2.2 Focus on the high level outline (HLO)1.2.3 Use the 'most common errors'1.2.4 Understand authorship and mentoring responsibilities1.2.5 Structure the writing and feedback process1.3 The scientific writing style1.4 Converting preliminary work into manuscripts1.4.1 Converting reports into manuscripts1.4.2 Converting posters and verbal presentations into manuscripts1.5 The process of peer review
2. Most common errorsA. General research and writing practicesA1. Insufficient knowledge of the literatureA2. Not referencing statementsA3. Weak citations A3a. Citing a secondary sourceA3b. Presenting conclusions rather than data from referencesA3c. Arguing from authorityA4. Endnotes not in standard styleA4a. Varying endnote notationA5. Not using standard draft manuscript formA6. Repeating informationA7. Labelling a scientific document as 'final'A8. Characterizing an observation as 'the first'A9. Errors in reasoningA9a. Casual assertion of causalityA9b. Assuming association is causalityA9c. Assuming reported behavior reflects actual behaviorA9d. Confusing imperfect recall with recall biasA9e. Confusing absence of recognition with absenceA9f. Asserting seasonality with a single year of dataA9g. Drawing conclusions using confirmation biasA10. Constructing a multivariate model using only statistical criteriaA11. Plagiarism
B. Content of quantitative papersB1. Improper focus or format of title and abstractB2. Confusing the role of Introduction, Methods, Results, and DiscussionB3. Not writing the Methods section in chronological orderB4. Not emphasizing steps taken to protect human subjectsB5. Listing interpretations, but not defending one in the DiscussionB6. Not fully explaining limitationsB7. Writing generic recommendationsB8. Presenting new data in the DiscussionB9. Reporting the number of enrolled subjects in the MethodsB10. Specifying the contents of a questionnaireB11. Naive theories of changeB11a. Recommending a massive increase in fundingB11b. Ignoring incentives and barriersB11c. Assuming weak states can implementB12. An insufficiently focused IntroductionB13. Failure to clarify key sample size assumptionsB14. A high level outline that is not high levelB15. Specifying software used for routine data analysisB16. Presenting rationale in the last sentence of the Introduction
C. Mechanics of writingC1. Using non-standard abbreviationsC2. Using non-standard spacesC3. Improper spellingC4. Capitalization problems C4a. USING ALL CAPITAL LETTERSC4b. Capitalizing non-proper nounsC5. Failure to spell out an isolated numeral < 10C6. Starting a sentence with a numeralC7. Not indenting paragraphsC8. Not aligning text to the leftC9. Problems with parenthesesC10. Not recognizing when an abbreviation has become a nameC11. Misplaced commas in large numbersC12. Varying fonts within the narrativeC13. Using bulleted lists rather than sentencesC14. Uninformative document names
D. Grammatical structures and stylistic strategiesD1. Using present rather than past tenseD2. Failure to use definite and indefinite articlesD3. Excessive use of passive voiceD4. Improper use of weD5. Writing from a psychological perspectiveD6. Using excessive sub-headings in the discussion sectionD7. Misplaced modifiersD8. Using nouns with awkward syntax in place of verbsD9. Using different terms for the same object or the same idea
E. Achieving clarity and concisenessE1. Labelling rather than explainingE2. Using weak opening phrases for sentencesE3. Using adjectives and qualifiersE4. Overusing studies or authors as sentence subjectsE5. Using non-descriptive numeric or alphabetical labelsE6. Using respectivelyE7. Using the word etceteraE8. Using foreign wordsE9. Using local words, expressions or monetary figuresE10. Using the term 'developing country'E11. Using the term 'socio-economic status' as a synonym for wealthE12. Using a technical term in its non-technical senseE12a. Using the term 'random' in its non-technical senseE12b. Using the term 'reliable' in its non-technical senseE12c. Using the term 'significant' in its non-technical senseE12d. Using the term 'valid' in its non-technical senseE12e. Using the term 'incidence' incorrectlyE12f. Using the term 'correlated' incorrectly E13. Using the verb 'documented'E14. Framing an argument in terms of needE15. Using the term 'illiterate' as a synonym for 'no formal education'E16. Using the word 'challenging' as a synonym for 'difficult'E17. Describing a laboratory test result as positiveE18. Using increase or decrease in the absence of a time trendE19. Describing a test as a gold standard
F. Recording scientific dataF1. Using statistics in place of the study question to frame resultsF1a. Framing narrative results around p-valuesF2. Not presenting the core dataF3. Using too many decimal placesF4. Using too few decimal placesF5. Using incomplete headings for tables and figuresF6. Imbalance between table and narrative presentation of the resultsF7. Pointing too explicitly to tables and figuresF8. Using inappropriate figuresF9. Using the wrong symbol to designate degreeF10. Using non-standard footnote symbols in tablesF11. Comparing to a varying baselineF12. Generic data tables that lack a clear messageF13. Table layout that impairs comparisons*F14. Maps with irrelevant detailsF15. Numbering figures or tables out of sequenceF16. Listing results in a paragraph that are more clear in a tableF17. Using less informative denominators in a tableF18. p-value in a baseline table of a randomized controlled trialF19. Emailing draft manuscripts with figures that are not compressed
G. Approaching publicationG1. Failure to respond to reviewers' commentsG2. Incomplete response to reviewsG3. Invalid authorship line G4. Missing acknowledgement sectionG5. Choosing an inappropriate journalG6. Not following a specific journal's details of styleG7. Not using a checklist to review your paper before submissionG8. Exceeding the journal word limitG9. Asking your senior author to recommend reviewersG10. Responding to journal reviewers using the first person singularG11. Retaining comments in subsequent draftsG12. Not finding a description of the error codeG13. Requesting an unprofessionally short turnaround timeG14. Sending blank forms for co-authors to completeG15. Not providing co-authors a copy of the submitted manuscriptG16. Not keeping co-authors informed of journal discussionsG17. Re-using an email thread when circulating a revised manuscriptG18. Not proofreading references prior to submissionG19. Not including text of the manuscript changes in response to reviewersG20. Not including readability statistics
H. Slide and poster presentationsH1. Bullets on the wallH2. Chart junkH3. Copying a manuscript figure instead of developing a custom figureH4. Photos with an unnatural aspect ratioH5. Too many photographs on a single slideH6. Field workers as the dominant subject of photographsH7. Using bullets without hanging indentsH8. Using a pie chartH9. Using vertical bars when horizontal bars would communicate betterH10. Including a final Thank you slideH11. Using sentences for bullet pointsH12. Too much space between bulletsH13. Failure to separate ideas in a multi-lined titleH14. Using 3 dimensional chart features as decorations
Appendix 1: Flowchart for reviewing scientific documents Appendix 2: Concept note outlineAppendix 3: Critical questions for protocol developmentAppendix 4: Framing documentAppendix 5: Conference/scientific meeting abstractsAppendix 6: Quantitative manuscript high level outline (HLO)Appendix 7: Example of quantitative manuscript HLOAppendix 8:Authorship Scorecard Appendix 9:JANE (Journal/Author Name Estimator)Appendix 10: STROBE StatementAppendix 11: CONSORT StatementAppendix 12: List of common errors Appendix 13: Concept note exampleReferences

Additional information

NGR9783030981747
9783030981747
3030981746
The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences by Stephen Luby
New
Hardback
Springer Nature Switzerland AG
2022-06-01
186
N/A
Book picture is for illustrative purposes only, actual binding, cover or edition may vary.
This is a new book - be the first to read this copy. With untouched pages and a perfect binding, your brand new copy is ready to be opened for the first time

Customer Reviews - The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences