How to Write and Present a Scientific Paper for Radiological Technologists

Transcription

How to Write and Present a Scientific Paper for Radiological Technologists
How to Write and Present a Scientific
Paper for Radiological Technologists
Kweon Dae Cheol, RT., PhD
Department of Diagnostic Radiology
Seoul National University Hospital
Review
Contents
1. Why do you write a scientific paper ?
2. Why publish ?
3. How to write a scientific paper
4. Process research
5. Components in research manuscripts
6. Submission
7. Authorship
8. How to present a scientific paper
9. RSNA
Why do you write a scientific paper ?
1. Source of supply of medical knowledge
To share your experience with other RTs
2. Barometer of a science level of a person
a department, a university, and a country
3. To be up to date
4. The academic world has respected for them and sets
a high value on their hard work
Why publish ?
• Communicate your work
– To your colleagues (advance the field)
– To future researchers (archival record)
• Advance your career
– Publish or Perish is a fact of life
– Strengthen research proposals
– Fill out your resume
• Helps your research
– Setting goals
– Getting feedback (reviews)
– Relevance and context
Qualities of a Good Paper
• Direct and easy to understand
– Holds interest
– Educates reader
• Makes one or more “points”
• Concise but thorough
– Others could replicate your results
– Proves the intended points
• Sets your work in context
How to Write a Scientific Paper
1. Selecting and limiting the subject
2. Assembling materials
3. Organizing materials
4. Making on outline
5. Writing the first draft
6. Revising
7. Writing the final draft
Publish or Perish
1. Conference papers
Usually regarded as non-peer-reviewed
2. Journal papers
Value assured/added by rigorous peer-review
3. Patents
Innovative & practical
4. Book chapters
An Essential Conditions
1.
Originality
2.
Complete study design
3.
Precision
4.
Clarity and logic
5.
Correct formatting to the guidelines for authors
6.
Practical expression in Korean and English
Types of Scientific Papers
1. Original article (laboratory research paper)
properly designed to answer a specific question
2. Review article
an objective perspective on previous work understandable to readers,
useful information
3. Case report
First or rare case and through investigation
4. Clinical trial
5. Others: brief note, letter to the editor
Clinical Radiology
Clinical Radiology invites submission of the following:
Original Papers should be no more than 4,000 words in length.
Case Reports must be original and carry an important message. For further guidance on the criteria for accepting
case reports, refer to Clin Radiol 1999;54:557. Authors should note that acceptance of case reports is exceptional
(less than 10% of submitted case reports are published).
Technical Reports should be no more than 2,000 words in length.
Letters to the Editor concerning papers published in the journal, and other points of interest to readers, are welcomed
by the Editor and are published at the Editor discretion.
Review Articles should not exceed 5,000 words and should include no more than 8 single illustrations, which will be
printed at single column width. If multiple images are to be used (eg la, lb,lc) these must be included in the total
Pictorial Reviews should not exceed 2,500 words and should include no more than 16 single illustrations which will
be printed at single column width. If multiple images are to be used (eg la, lb,lc) these must be included in the total
Roadmap for Writing a Paper
Select Journal
Read instructions for Authors
Abstract
References
Time-schedule
Make (sub)headings
(temporary) Title
Revise
process
Methods
Introduction
Discussion
Results
Show to colleagues
Present at meeting
Process of Research
Completion of research
Preparation of manuscript
Submission of manuscript
Assignment and review
Decision
Rejection
Revision
Resubmission
Re-review
Acceptance
Publication
Rejection
Journal Review
Components of a Research Article
1.
Title
2.
Abstract
3.
Introduction
4.
Materials and Methods
5.
Results and Discussion
6.
Conclusions
7.
Acknowledgement
8.
References
9.
Tables and Figures
The Winning Team
Study design
Acknowledgements
Title
Abstract
Tables
References
Figures
Introduction
Materials
Discussion
&
Methods
Results
Title
• Title should accurately and clearly describe the nature or
content of study with fewest words(20 words)
• Should be clear and informative
• Should capture the importance of the study and the attention
of the reader
• Actual findings should be described with claims that can be
supported in the manuscript
Give the paper an eye-catching title
Giving a title to a paper is like naming your child
• Distinguishing Benign from Malignant Adrenal Masses: Multi–Detector Row CT Protocol with 10-Minute Delay
• Comparison of Z-Axis Automatic Tube Current Modulation Technique with Fixed Tube Current CT Scanning of Abdomen and Pelvis
Introduction
Classic introduction 3 paragraphs:
2-3 paragraphs, <450 words
First paragraph: Introduce broad area
Second paragraph: Explicit rationale
Last paragraph: Hypothesis
Background infromation: What is the problem or issue?
1. Importance of the problem and list unresolved issues
2. Rationale for the current study. State your research question or hypothesis
Radiology 2005;238:578-585
Distinguishing Benign from Malignant Adrenal Masses: Multi–Detector Row CT Protocol with 10-Minute Delay
Michael A. Blake, Mannudeep K. Kalra, Ann T. Sweeney, Brian C. Lucey, Michael M. Maher, Dushyant V. Sahani, Elkan F. Halpern, Peter R. Mueller, Peter F.
Hahn, and Giles W. Boland
Materials and Methods
1. Detailed description how study was performed.
2. Use sufficient detail to allow readers to:
1
2
1. Judge the appropiateness of the methods
2. Assess the validity of the results
3. Replicate the study
3. Subjects:
1. Approval of local medical ethics committee
2. Selection and recruitment
3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
4. Patient characteristics
5. Informed consent of participants
3
3
Materials and Methods
1. Animal Preparation
1
3
2. Hemodynamic Measurements
6
3. Experimental Protocol
4. Acquisition of CT Data
4
2
5. Analysis of CT Scans
6. Statistical Analysis
5
Radiology 2005;234:151-161
Acute Lung Injury: Effects of Prone Positioning on Cephalocaudal Distribution of Lung Inflation—CT Assessment in Dogs
Hyun Ju Lee, MD, Jung-Gi Im, MD, Jin Mo Goo, MD, Young Il Kim, MD, Min Woo Lee, MD, Ho-Geol Ryu, MD, Jae-Hyon Bahk, MD and Chul-Gyu Yoo, MD
Data Analysis
1. Image analysis
2. Statistical analysis
Consult a statistician before the onset of the study
Power analysis
Apply appropiate statistical tests
Radiology 2005;238:578-585
Distinguishing Benign from Malignant Adrenal Masses: Multi–Detector Row CT Protocol with 10-Minute Delay
Michael A. Blake, Mannudeep K. Kalra, Ann T. Sweeney, Brian C. Lucey, Michael M. Maher, Dushyant V. Sahani, Elkan F. Halpern, Peter R. Mueller, Peter F.
Hahn, and Giles W. Boland
Statistical Analysis
Simplicity is the key
Summarized results
Use a “ p” value (statistical significance)
Statistical analysis used: Package
Statistical Analysis
All data are expressed as means ± 1 SD, unless specified otherwise. Comparisons between different periods
were performed by using the Friedman test.
When the Friedman test resulted in a P value of less than .05, comparison between two different periods was
performed by using the sign test.
Comparisons between the prone and supine group were performed by using the Mann-Whitney test.
Statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS 10.0 software (SPSS, Chicago, Ill). The significance level
was fixed at .05.
Radiology 2005;234:151-161
Acute Lung Injury: Effects of Prone Positioning on Cephalocaudal Distribution of Lung Inflation—CT Assessment in Dogs1
Hyun Ju Lee, MD, Jung-Gi Im, MD, Jin Mo Goo, MD, Young Il Kim, MD, Min Woo Lee, MD, Ho-Geol Ryu, MD, Jae-Hyon Bahk, MD and Chul-Gyu Yoo, MD
Results
• Aim: provide data to confirm or reject hypothesis
• Include only the results, no opinion or discussion
• Use tables or graphs to represent large volumes of data
• Appropiate statistical analysis is essential
• Use the past tense; you are writing about what happened
in your experiments.
• Common pitfalls:
Data do not answer the research question
Adding interpretation to the findings
Failure to address the statistics
Discussion
The purpose of the Discussion is to explain the relevance
of your findings
Discussion
1. Present your valid conclusions, and then explain why
they are valid
2. Relate the observations to other studies
3. Include the implications of the findings and their
limitations with references
4. Finish with a short summary or conclusion to confirm
the significance of your study
Discussion
DO NOT:
DO:
• Repeat results
• Try to present the principles,
• Belabour shortcomings
relationships and generalisations
• Discuss non-significant results as
shown by your results
if they were significant findings
• Accept a null hypothesis on the
basis of non-significant results;
• Point out any exceptions, lack of
significance, and consider
“unsettling” points
absence of evidence is not
• Discuss shortcomings
evidence of absence
• Show how your results and
• Ignore alternative interpretations
interpretations agree or disagree
with previous work
Discussion
• Summary of key findings
• Primary outcome measures
• Secondary outcome measures
• Relation of outcomes to former hypothesis
• Strengths and limitations of the study
• Study question
• Study design
• Data collection
• Data analysis
• Interpretation
Conclusions
• Conclusions should not be a summary of the work
done or a virtual duplication of the abstract
• Conclusions should be justified by the data
presented- Not misleading
• Emphasis should be on key points and implication
Radiology 2005;238:578-585
Distinguishing Benign from Malignant Adrenal Masses: Multi–Detector Row CT Protocol with 10-Minute Delay
Michael A. Blake, Mannudeep K. Kalra, Ann T. Sweeney, Brian C. Lucey, Michael M. Maher, Dushyant V. Sahani, Elkan F. Halpern, Peter R. Mueller, Peter F.
Hahn, and Giles W. Boland
References
• Reference citations are accurate and complete
• Too many or too few references
• Current and key pertinent references without a complete
historical bibliography
• Reference Section
– Journal article
– Books
– Chapter in book
– Patents
Abstract
Concise summary of what you did and why, how you did it,
the main results and conclusions.
Contain essence of work (stand alone)
4 basic parts
Why
How
What
Conclusions
Clear, concise & avoid unnecessary detail
Radiology 2004;232:347-353
Comparison of Z-Axis Automatic Tube Current Modulation Technique with Fixed Tube Current CT Scanning of Abdomen and Pelvis
Mannudeep K. Kalra, Michael M. Maher, Thomas L. Toth, Ravi S. Kamath, Elkan F. Halpern, Sanjay Saini
Acknowledgements
Contributors to the work, but not sufficiently to earn authorship
In-house reviewer, data-collection personnel, statistical
consultant or typist
Ask permission of the individuals!
Do not make long dedications
Statements about financial support should be mentioned on the
title page
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Kyoung Won Kim, MD,
Chang Jin Yoon, MD, Ja Young Choi, MD,
Young Ho Yoon, MD, Hyun Jung Lee, RT, Chang
Ho Han, RT, Myung Sun Jang, RT, and Hyuk Jae
Choi, RT, for their essential help in initiation of
the experiment and for technical assistance in
animal preparation.
Data Presentation
Text
Table
Graph
Illustration
Content
+++
++++
++
+
Precision
+++
+++
++
+
Impact
+
++
++++
+++
Interest
+
++
+++
++++
From Heart, Lung and Circulation 2000
Data Presentation
FIGURE 1. Hypothesis of the anatomic variation of the anterior cerebral artery (ACA) and
redistribution of flow at the anterior communicating artery (AcoA) area on a hypogenetic A1
segment. A, Blood flow via the AcoA is nearly absent in the anatomically normal ACA. B,
When unilateral A1 hypogenesis exists, blood flow passes through the AcoA to enter into the
contralateral A2 segment. C, As a consequence, the remodeled bifurcation shape of the AcoA
region is generated.
Table 1. Comparison of Degree of Signal Defects on 3D-TOF Brain MR
Angiography With the Bifurcation Angle in Patients With Hypoplastic A1
Segment
FIGURE 2. Degree of signal defect at the anterior communicating artery. The degree of signal
defect is divided as follows: 1) no defect, 2) mild defect (mild signal defect with preserved
vascular outline), 3) moderate defect (partial loss of vascular outline with preserved vascular
continuity), and 4) severe defect (loss of vascular continuity). A moderate or severe degree of
signal defect can make the residual normal vessel appear to be an aneurysm. Digital subtraction
angiography images of the same cases show that all were continuous vessels with no aneurysm
or stenosis.
Clinical and Experimental Investigation of Pseudoaneurysm in the Anterior Communicating Artery Area on 3-Dimensional Time-of-Flight
Cerebral Magnetic Resonance Angiography
Chung, Tae-Sub; Lee, Young-Jun; Kang, Won-Suk; Kang, Sei-Kwon; Rhim, Yoon-Chul; Yoo, Byeong-Gyu; Park, In Kook
J Comput Assist Tomogr, Volume 28(3) 2004, 414-421
Figure Captions
• Provide a capture for each figure
• Make sure figures are labeled and captions explain the labels
• Clarity through simplicity
Figure Captions
AJR 2005; 184:1594-1596
Technical Innovation
CT Voiding Cystourethrography Using 16-MDCT for the Evaluation of Female Urethral
Diverticula: Initial Experience
Sun Ho Kim, Seung Hyup Kim, Byung Kwan Park, Se Young Jung, Sung Il Hwang, Jae-Seung Paick and Soo Woong Kim
Fig. 1B. Urethral diverticulum in 52-year-old woman. Three-dimensional reformatted CT VCUG image (left
anterior view) shows diverticulum (large arrows) left lateral to proximal urethra (U), and ostium (small
arrow) is identified.
Tables
• Use tables to keep related data together
• Make sure tables are properly captioned
• Use tables if data are better tabulated than displayed as a figure
Tables
Table 1. Optimized Tool Settings for Volume-Rendering Technique
Setting No.
Density Range (H)
Opacity (%)
Corresponding Phantom Region
I
-1000 to 45
0
Soft tissue
II
112-113
75
Transition zone (endothelium)
III
180 - 1900
50
Contrast-filled vessel lumen
IV
2000 - 3000
85
High-density lesions (e.g., calcifications)
AJR 2001; 177:1171-1176
CT Angiography
In Vitro Comparison of Five Reconstruction Methods
Kimberly A. Addis, Kenneth D. Hopper, Tunç A. Iyriboz, Yi Liu, Scott W. Wise, Claudia J. Kasales, Judy S. Blebea and David T. Mauger
Structure of a Scientific Paper at Submission
1.
Title
2.
Abstract
3.
Introduction
4.
Materials & Methods
5.
Results
6.
Discussion
7.
Acknowledgements
8.
References
9.
Tables
10.
Figures
Title of Paper and Copyright Agreement
TITLE OF PAPER :
Subcutaneous Injection Contrast Media Extravasation: 3D CT Appearance
Dae Cheol Kweon,
PhD.1
Tae Hyung Kim,
M.S.2
Sung Hwan Yang,
PhD.3
Beong Gyu Yoo,
PhD.4
Myeong Goo Kim,
M.S.1
Peom Park,
PhD.5
1Department
of Diagnostic Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital,
Seoul, Korea
2Department
of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
3Department
of Dept. of Prosthetics & Orthotics, Korean National College
of Rehabilitation & Welfare, Pyeongtaek, Kyonggi, Korea
4Department
of Radiotechnology, Wonkwang Health Science College,
Iksan, Jeonbuk, Korea
5Department
of Industrial and Information Systems Engineering, Ajou
University, Suwon, Kyonggi, Korea
Address reprint requests to:
Dae Cheol Kweon, PhD
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital,
28, Yeongeon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
Telephone 82-2- 760 - 3687
FAX 82-2-3672-4948
E-mail: [email protected]
Review
Make sure if you meet every requirements
Review them closely again to make your paper concise
1. The Instructions to authors of the journal
2. The references
3. Figure legends and figures
4. Abbreviations, numbers
5. Mistakes and inconsistencies
Submission
1. Read instructions carefully
2. Fill out all necessary forms
Copyright transfer
3. Write cover letter (suggest reviewers)
4. Confirm receipt after 6 weeks
Submit Manuscripts
Who should be granted authorship credit ?
1. Concept and design, or analysis and interpretation of data
2. Drafting or critical revision for important intellectual content
3. Final approval of the version to be published
All three conditions must be met!
Criteria International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors
Who should NOT be granted authorship ?
1. Holding the door while the patient is brought in
2. The nurse who takes the blood samples during the night
3. The laboratory technician who analyses the samples
4. The chairman who requests his registrar to write the paper
5. The colleague who helps in the lay out and assembly of a poster
6. The statistician who only analyzes the data
7. The chairman who signs the research project or looks for funding
8. The colleague who edits the manuscript or provides advise
but…deserves Acknowledgment
Fraudulent Authorship
1. Gift authorship
2. Honorary authorship
3. Ghost authorship
4. Hierarchical authorship
Reasons for Fraudulent Authorship
1. Obligation to publish
2. Enhancing chances of publication
3. Repay favors, motivate team, encourage collaboration
4. Maintain good relationships
Steps to Publication
First draft
Publication
Read
Revise
Next draft
Outside reader
Return
Revise
Final draft
Submit
Correct
Proofs
Rebuttal
Review
Revise
Return
Read
Typeset
Resubmit
Final manuscript
Acceptance
1. Reply to the comments
2. Make the necessary changes
3. Return the copies of the revised text with a cover letter
as soon as possible
4. Useful criticisms improve quality of the paper
Reject Why ?
• Wrong Journal
• Offering too long
• Faults in presentation
• Retrospective study
• Statistics
• Failure to standardize methods
• Groups in trial not comparable
The Rejected Article
• More and more papers are submitted to scientific journals each year.
• Rejection rates are climbing in most “allergy orientated” journals.
• Use reviewers comments to improve your paper.
• 50% of initially rejected articles are eventually published somewhere else1!
• Try not to be discouraged if your paper is rejected
• This is inevitable.
• Your papers may be not appropriate for the journal
• You should be ready to learn by mistakes or failures.
1Opthof,
Cardiovasc Res 2000
To Increase the Acceptance Rate
1. Read as many as papers relevant to your study and take a note
2. Set up your own style as you have more experience
3. English revision
4. Find seasoned coauthors with publication experience
5. Short papers (less than 15 pages) are better
6. Write a paper in time
7. Painstaking work is required for success
How to Get a New Idea
1. Patients (Difficult cases, complication)
2. Writing manuscripts
3. Reading papers
4. Scientific meetings
5. Collaborative research meetings
American Journal of Roentgenology
Technical Innovation
The Application of the Six Sigma Program for the Quality Management of the PACS
Jin Oh Kang1, Myoung Ho Kim1, Seong Eon Hong1, Jae Ho Jung2 and Mi Jin Song3
1
Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyunghee University Medical College, Kyunghee University Hospital, Hoikidong, Dongdaemungu, Seoul, South Korea.
Department of Radiology, Kyunghee University Medical College, Kyunghee University Hospital, Hoikidong, Dongdaemungu, Seoul, South Korea.
3 Department of Radiology, Samsung Cheil Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Mukdong, Junggu, Seoul, South Korea.
Received May 6, 2004; accepted after revision December 16, 2004.
2
Address correspondence to J. O. Kang ([email protected] ).
Best Luck in Your Publications !
“There is no way to get experience except through experience.”
How to Present a Scientific Paper
RSNA
How to Present a Scientific Paper
How to Present a Scientific Paper
RSNA
RSNA
Cum Laude
Thank you for your attention !