Atnaujinkite slapukų nuostatas

Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences 2022 ed. [Kietas viršelis]

,
  • Formatas: Hardback, 186 pages, aukštis x plotis: 235x155 mm, weight: 471 g, 34 Illustrations, color; 21 Illustrations, black and white; XIII, 186 p. 55 illus., 34 illus. in color., 1 Hardback
  • Išleidimo metai: 01-Jun-2022
  • Leidėjas: Springer Nature Switzerland AG
  • ISBN-10: 3030981746
  • ISBN-13: 9783030981747
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:
Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences 2022 ed.Didesnis paveikslėlis
  • Formatas: Hardback, 186 pages, aukštis x plotis: 235x155 mm, weight: 471 g, 34 Illustrations, color; 21 Illustrations, black and white; XIII, 186 p. 55 illus., 34 illus. in color., 1 Hardback
  • Išleidimo metai: 01-Jun-2022
  • Leidėjas: Springer Nature Switzerland AG
  • ISBN-10: 3030981746
  • ISBN-13: 9783030981747
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:
Pastovi nuoroda: https://www.kriso.lt/db/9783030981747.html
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. 
Part I Introduction
1 Introduction
3(18)
1.1 The Pathway to Publishing
3(2)
1.2 Think-Before-You-Write Approach
5(7)
1.2.1 Develop a Framing Document
5(1)
1.2.2 Focus on the High-Level Outline
5(1)
1.2.3 Use the "Most Common Errors"
6(1)
1.2.4 Understand Authorship and Mentoring Responsibilities
6(4)
1.2.5 Structure the Writing and Feedback Process
10(1)
1.2.6 Responding to Co-author Comments
11(1)
1.2.7 Summary of the Think-Before-You-Write Process
12(1)
1.3 The Writing and Publishing Process
12(4)
1.3.1 Converting Preliminary Work into a Manuscript
12(1)
1.3.2 The Peer Review Process
13(3)
1.4 The Scientific Writing Style
16(5)
Part II Most Common Errors
2 General Research and Writing Practices
21(20)
2.1 Insufficient Knowledge of the Literature
21(1)
2.2 Insufficient Citations
22(3)
2.2.1 Not Providing a Reference to Support an Observation
23(1)
2.2.2 Plagiarism
23(2)
2.3 Weak Citations
25(2)
2.3.1 Citing a Secondary Source
25(1)
2.3.2 Presenting Conclusions Rather Than Data from References
26(1)
2.3.3 Arguing from Authority
26(1)
2.4 References Not in Standard Style
27(1)
2.4.1 Varying Citation Format
27(1)
2.4.2 Not Proofreading References Prior to Submission
28(1)
2.5 Not Using Standard Draft Manuscript Form
28(1)
2.6 Repeating Information
29(1)
2.7 Labeling a Scientific Document as "Final"
30(1)
2.8 Characterizing an Observation as "The First"
30(1)
2.9 Errors in Reasoning
31(6)
2.9.1 Casual Assertion of Causality
32(1)
2.9.2 Assuming Association Is Causality
33(1)
2.9.3 Assuming Reported Behavior Reflects Actual Behavior
34(1)
2.9.4 Confusing Imperfect Recall with Recall Bias
35(1)
2.9.5 Confusing Absence of Recognition with Absence
35(1)
2.9.6 Asserting Seasonality with a Single Year of Data
36(1)
2.9.7 Drawing Conclusions Using Confirmation Bias
36(1)
2.10 Constructing a Multivariate Model Using Only Statistical Criteria
37(4)
3 Content of Quantitative Papers
41(16)
3.1 Improper Focus or Format of Title and Abstract
41(1)
3.2 Confusing the Role of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion
42(1)
3.3 Not Writing the Methods Section in Chronological Order
43(1)
3.4 Not Emphasizing Steps Taken to Protect Human Subjects
44(1)
3.5 Listing Interpretations, But Not Defending One in the Discussion
44(1)
3.6 Not Fully Explaining Limitations
45(1)
3.7 Writing Generic Recommendations
46(1)
3.8 Presenting New Data in the Discussion
46(1)
3.9 Reporting the Number of Enrolled Subjects in the Methods
47(1)
3.10 Specifying the Contents of a Questionnaire
47(1)
3.11 Naive Theories of Change
48(4)
3.11.1 Recommending a Massive Increase in Funding
49(1)
3.11.2 Ignoring Incentives and Barriers
49(1)
3.11.3 Assuming Weak States Can Implement
50(2)
3.12 An Insufficiently Focused Introduction
52(1)
3.13 Failure to Clarify Key Sample Size Assumptions
52(1)
3.14 A High-Level Outline That Is Not High Level
53(1)
3.15 Specifying Software Used for Routine Data Analysis
54(1)
3.16 Presenting Rationale in the Last Sentence of the Introduction
54(3)
4 Mechanics of Writing
57(10)
4.1 Using Nonstandard Acronyms
57(1)
4.2 Using Nonstandard Spaces
58(1)
4.3 Improper Spelling
59(1)
4.4 Capitalization Problems
60(1)
4.4.1 Using All Capital Letters
60(1)
4.4.2 Capitalizing Non-proper Nouns
60(1)
4.5 Failure to Spell Out an Isolated Numeral < 10
60(1)
4.6 Starting a Sentence with a Numeral
61(1)
4.7 Not Indenting Paragraphs
62(1)
4.8 Not Aligning Text to the Left
62(1)
4.9 Problems with Parentheses
62(1)
4.10 Not Recognizing When an Abbreviation Has Become a Name
63(1)
4.11 Misplaced Commas in Large Numbers
64(1)
4.12 Varying Fonts Within the Narrative
64(1)
4.13 Using Bulleted Lists Rather Than Sentences
64(2)
4.14 Uninformative Document Names
66(1)
5 Grammatical Structures and Stylistic Strategies
67(6)
5.1 Using Present Rather Than Past Tense
67(1)
5.2 Failure to Use Definite and Indefinite Articles
68(1)
5.3 Excessive Use of Passive Voice
68(1)
5.4 Improper Use of "We"
69(1)
5.5 Writing from a Psychological Perspective
70(1)
5.6 Using Excessive Subheadings in the Discussion
70(1)
5.7 Misplaced Modifiers
71(1)
5.8 Using Nouns with Awkward Syntax in Place of Verbs
71(1)
5.9 Using Different Terms for the Same Object or the Same Idea
72(1)
6 Achieving Clarity and Conciseness
73(14)
6.1 Labeling Rather Than Explaining
73(1)
6.2 Using Weak Opening Phrases for Sentences
74(1)
6.3 Using Adjectives and Qualifiers
74(1)
6.4 Overusing Studies or Authors as Sentence Subjects
75(1)
6.5 Using Nondescriptive Numeric or Alphabetical Labels
75(1)
6.6 Using Respectively
76(1)
6.7 Using the Word Etcetera
77(1)
6.8 Using a Non-English Word as an English Word
77(1)
6.9 Describing Costs Only in Local Currency
78(1)
6.10 Using the Term "Developing Country"
78(1)
6.11 Using the Term "Socioeconomic Status" as a Synonym for Wealth
79(1)
6.12 Using a Technical Term in Its Nontechnical Sense
79(3)
6.12.1 Using the Term "Random" in Its Nontechnical Sense
79(1)
6.12.2 Using the Term "Reliable" in Its Nontechnical Sense
80(1)
6.12.3 Using the Term "Significant" in Its Nontechnical Sense
80(1)
6.12.4 Using the Term "Valid" in Its Nontechnical Sense
80(1)
6.12.5 Using the Term "Incidence" Incorrectly
81(1)
6.12.6 Using the Term "Correlated" Incorrectly
82(1)
6.13 Using the Term "Documented"
82(1)
6.14 Framing an Argument in Terms of Need
82(1)
6.15 Using the Term "Illiterate" as a Synonym for "No Formal Education"
83(1)
6.16 Using the Word "Challenging" as a Synonym for "Difficult"
84(1)
6.17 Describing a Laboratory Test Result as Positive
84(1)
6.18 Using Increase or Decrease in the Absence of a Time Trend
85(1)
6.19 Describing a Test as a Gold Standard
85(2)
7 Recording Scientific Data
87(18)
7.1 Using Statistics in Place of the Study Question to Frame Results
87(2)
7.1.1 Framing Narrative Results Around P-Values
88(1)
7.2 Not Presenting the Core Data
89(1)
7.3 Using Too Many Decimal Places
90(1)
7.4 Using Too Few Decimal Places
91(1)
7.5 Using Incomplete Headings for Tables and Figures
91(1)
7.6 Imbalance Between Table and Narrative Presentation of Results
92(1)
7.6.1 Too Little Narrative Explaining the Tables
92(1)
7.6.2 Too Much Narrative Explaining the Tables
92(1)
7.6.3 Presenting Results in Narrative that Would Be Clearer in a Table
92(1)
7.7 Pointing Too Explicitly to Tables and Figures
93(1)
7.8 Using Inappropriate Figures
94(1)
7.9 Generic Data Tables That Lack a Clear Message
94(1)
7.10 Table Layout That Impairs Comparisons
95(1)
7.11 Using Less Informative Denominators in a Table
96(2)
7.12 Comparing to a Varying Baseline
98(1)
7.13 P-Value in a Baseline Table of a Randomized Controlled Trial
99(1)
7.14 Using Nonstandard Footnote Symbols in Tables
100(1)
7.15 Using the Wrong Symbol to Designate Degree
101(1)
7.16 Numbering Figures or Tables out of Sequence
101(1)
7.17 Maps with Irrelevant Details
101(4)
8 Approaching Publication
105(14)
8.1 Failure to Respond to Reviewers' Comments
105(1)
8.2 Incomplete Response to External Reviews
105(1)
8.2.1 Not Including Text of the Manuscript Changes in Response to External Reviewers
106(1)
8.3 Invalid Authorship Line
106(1)
8.4 Retaining Comments in Subsequent Drafts
107(1)
8.5 Choosing an Inappropriate Journal
108(2)
8.6 Not Following a Specific Journal's Details of Style
110(1)
8.7 Not Using an Appropriate Reporting Guideline
110(1)
8.8 Exceeding the Journal Word Limit
111(1)
8.9 Asking Your Senior Author to Recommend Reviewers
112(1)
8.10 Responding to Journal Reviewers Using the First Person Singular
112(1)
8.11 Missing Acknowledgment Section
113(1)
8.12 Reusing an Email Thread when Circulating a Revised Manuscript
113(1)
8.13 Requesting an Unprofessionally Short Turnaround Time
114(1)
8.14 Sending Blank Forms for Co-authors to Complete
114(1)
8.15 Not Providing Co-authors a Copy of the Submitted Manuscript
115(1)
8.16 Not Keeping Co-authors Informed of Discussion with Journal Editors
115(1)
8.17 Emailing Draft Manuscripts with Figures That Are Not Compressed
115(2)
8.18 Not Including Readability Statistics
117(2)
9 Slide and Poster Presentations
119(24)
9.1 Bullets on the Wall
119(2)
9.2 Using Sentences for Bullet Points
121(1)
9.3 Too Much Space Between Bullets
122(2)
9.4 Using Bullets Without Hanging Indents
124(1)
9.5 Chart Junk
125(2)
9.6 Using Three-Dimensional Chart Features as Decorations
127(1)
9.7 Using a Pie Chart
128(3)
9.8 Using Vertical Bars When Horizontal Bars Would Communicate Better
131(2)
9.9 Copying a Manuscript Figure Instead of Developing a Custom Figure
133(1)
9.10 Photos with an Unnatural Aspect Ratio
134(2)
9.11 Too Many Photographs on a Single Slide
136(2)
9.12 Fieldworkers as the Dominant Subject of Photographs
138(1)
9.13 Including a Final "Thank You" Slide
139(1)
9.14 Failure to Separate Ideas in a Multilined Title
140(3)
Appendix 1 Concept Note Outline 143(2)
Appendix 2 Concept Note Example 145(14)
Appendix 3 Critical Questions for Protocol Development 159(2)
Appendix 4 Framing Document 161(2)
Appendix 5 Flowchart for Review of Scientific Documents 163(2)
Appendix 6 High-Level Outline 165(2)
Appendix 7 Example of Quantitative Manuscript HLO 167(4)
Appendix 8 Authorship Scorecard 171(4)
Appendix 9 Conference/Scientific Meeting Abstracts 175(2)
Appendix 10 JANE (Journal/Author Name Estimator) 177(2)
Appendix 11 List of Common Errors 179(6)
References 185
Stephen Luby, Professor of Medicine, Director of Research at Center of Innovation in Global Health, Stanford University Dorothy Southern, Independent Scientific Writing Advisor