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 !