Month: December 2022

By Rajesh Gururaghavendran

One of the most important hallmarks of success in academia is publication. It is the holy grail of all academic and research endeavors. Common queries from students interested in research endeavors usually are about publications. The present blog is an attempt to piece together various pointers for scientific writing that I have accrued over a period of time. There is no specific recipe for successful publications. Kindly bear in mind that these are just pointers and not definitive mantras for successful publications.

A majority of the publications will follow the IMRAD format, which indicates Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. I will trace the critical components in this blogpost using the IMRAD structure.

Introduction:

Know your target audience:

One must consider the target audience that the proposed article is addressed to. The simplest individual in the intended target audience should be able to read and comprehend the introduction. It is preferable to avoid all technical jargon and keep it rather simple.

Identify lacunae:

The introduction section should clearly identify the gaps in the present knowledge in the proposed area of research. There is no point in “re-inventing the wheel” and research endeavors should essentially attempt to generate new knowledge.

Explicitly indicate how your paper fills the lacunae:

Specify how exactly your research work contributes towards filling the knowledge void. One can indicate that there are very few papers or no papers which have explored this aspect of the research topic.

Provide numerical data:

A common man will be able to relate to numbers more easily than vague indicators. This is one of the most critical pointers that I realized during my writing assginments/projects during my first semester. Providing numerical data in terms of the number of individuals affected by the problem will add a lot of clarity to the manuscript. This information should be from authentic sources such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), etc. Data provided should also be as recent as possible, which will lend a lot of relevance and credibility to the manuscript.

Gist of review of literature:

Review of literature is an important component of any research protocol. One must keep in mind that scientific papers do not have a separate section for literature review. Invariably, we will have to integrate the most important papers from review of literature section into the introduction section.

Avoid vague sentences:

Writing vague sentences “This particular problem has a substantial impact on the health of young adults in the US” do not convey any clear information. This can be modified as “A total of XXX deaths have been reported due to this problem among young adults in the US” or “1 in 5 young adults are affected by this problem in the US”.

Clear objectives:

Explicitly indicating the objectives of the present research work is very critical. It provides clarity of thought and a clear purpose in conducting this research. The acronym SMART objectives provides a useful guideline for framing objectives. The stated objectives should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time Bound. FINER criteria also provides a helpful framework and stands for Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical and Relevant. The acronym PICOT, which stands for Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Time, is a useful outline for reporting interventions.

Having clear and explicit objectives will set the tone for the rest of the manuscript.

 Maintain flow:

Last but not the least, the introduction section should flow seamlessly from one aspect to the other. There should not be any portions that do not gel with the overall scheme of the introduction. Having the manuscript proofread by your peers, seniors, or juniors will go a long way in addressing this issue.

Methods:

 Have to be reproducible:

Methods section should be clearly written so that any other researcher should be able to implement the same study in a similar fashion.

Outline statistical analysis:

Clearly indicate what statistical tests were employed and the statistical package that was used for statistical analysis.

Results:

Address the objectives:

One must bear in mind that the results should clearly address the objectives laid out in the introduction section. This will provide focus to the researcher to ensure that the objectives are met. Some of the funding agencies will ask for results to be presented for each of the objectives indicated by the researcher. This implies that results section should address all objectives outlined by the investigator.

Assume a neutral tone:

Results section should objectively highlight the results obtained by the investigator. Judgement calls, researcher’s opinions should be avoided in this section.

Discussion:

Compare with previous studies:

Comparison with previous studies and enunciating the probable reasons for similarities/differences are central to discussion. If there are many aspects of the findings, which is often the case, only the main findings of the study can be used for comparison.

Highlight new findings:

New findings in the present study must be highlighted. Research initiatives will usually involve a component or aspect that is new. Findings relevant to these new areas pertaining to the research topic must be highlighted.

Address limitations:

Clear and frank descriptions of limitations must be stated. No study is perfect and there will be some limitations due to practical reasons. Authors should not shy away from addressing these limitations explicitly in the manuscript.

Avenues for further research:

Research, by its very nature, is heuristic and will lead to further questions. Avenues for further research that stem from the findings of the present study must be outlined.

Provide recommendations:

This will involve public health measures that can be implemented to address the health issue being addressed in the paper. This may also involve policy changes, curriculum implications, lobby efforts that can lead to positive changes leading health improvements in populations.

Draw conclusions:

Conclusions that are in line with the objectives outlined must be stated. Some journals ask for conclusions to be stated under a separate sub-heading. The last few paragraphs of the manuscript usually comprise of conclusions.

You can email me at: rajeshg@bu.edu

By Rajesh Gururaghavendran

Drafting a research protocol for my postgraduate dissertation posed several challenges other than the impending deadline. We were all scampering to put together a bunch of words that not only made sense, but also attempted to solve a major oral health problem. Internet had just arrived in its nascent stage, and it was a luxury to be able to afford using it. A majority of my work was centered within the premises of the library, trying to sift through hard-bound copies of articles. This was my first shot at formal writing, and I had clearly pressed the panic button!!

Writing is an integral and inseparable part of public health endeavors. As public health professionals, we will be writing for a wide variety of audiences addressing a plethora of public health issues. The present blog is to discuss the most common mistakes that one makes in public health writing.

Not knowing your audience:

One of the most common mistakes made during writing is not knowing or not focusing on our target audience. Does the audience comprise of all public health professionals or will only a specific group of them will be interested in reading your material? Grant applications will be specifically for the funding agency. Sometimes, we will be writing about a public health problem that is addressed to a common man. Each of this audience is different and unique. Writing without being mindful of the needs and requirements of the target audience will make writing vague and non-specific.

Not knowing the context:

Writing can be utilized as a means of communicating information about a serious health issue at hand. Writing assignments will have a different context compared to a press release about the need for vaccination. Based on the context, the nuances of writing will be different. Understanding the context will help the author to get the right content for their message.

Not reading all relevant information/articles:

Review of literature is one of the most underestimated aspects of scientific writing. It is highly preferable to read all the relevant articles before one starts writing. It helps us understand the work that is already accomplished in our area of interest. It also helps us to highlight the most unique and important aspect of our work.

Not reading instructions to authors:

 All writing assignments come with instructions to the authors. Student project assignments have specific instructions. One must familiarize oneself thoroughly with these instructions before embarking on one’s writing journey. This is most often overlooked by students, and it can be a source of frustration over a period of time. There may be word limits, limits on the number of articles to be cited, limits on the number of tables that can be included, limits on color photographs that can be published. Many times, the instructions might also include critical information about publication fees. Turning a blind eye to these details might lead to re-writing the entire draft all over again.

Not highlighting the need for the study:

 One must make a very strong case for our writing, highlighting the new information/knowledge that our work generates. Students often tend to touch very briefly about this aspect in their writing. Not stressing upon the knowledge lacunae that our work addresses underscores the importance of our work and delegates it to the realm of the routine and mundane.

Not focusing on objectives:

Straying away from the objectives outlined in the paper is one of the seminal mistakes in public health writing. Very often, the authors are too keen to share tables with complex statistical analysis and secondary results. One should always fall back on the objectives of the study, which will act as a guiding source for writing. Adding additional information in the write-up can render the paper too cluttered and confusing for the readers.

Not writing about public health implications:

 Any scientific writing will have some important public health inferences. This can be in the form of policy changes, changes in clinical practice, curriculum implications. This involves taking the research findings forwards to bring about meaningful impact on the health of populations. Students tend to miss this critical piece in their public health writing. Including these aspects can increase the value of their scientific work immensely.

Not keeping it simple and sticking to basics:

 Students tend to think that public health writing must be very complicated to make it look important. This is far from truth and effective public health writing usually involves sticking to the basics and keeping the writing very simple. One must finally remember that the target audience should be able to read and comprehend the information being provided by the authors.

Not Proofreading, not proofreading, not proofreading:

 Reading the contents again and again is a very important for effective public health writing. One can take the help of peers, friends, and acquaintances who might be interested in proofreading your write-up. Sharing your work with others will bring in a fresh perspective that can add a lot of value.

Finally,

There are no shortcuts for effective public health writing, nor are there any magical recipes. One has to be patient and persistent to hone one’s skills in putting across the public health message. Avoiding the pitfalls outlined in this blog will be a step in the right direction in our journey towards effective public health writing.

You can email me at: rajeshg@bu.edu