Choosing the right journal to submit your work can be a minefield. Sharing your research results is essential to the progress of your clinical area, to evidence-based practice, and to your own career. With so many different publications on offer, and many approaching you directly to write and publish, how can you be sure you can trust a particular journal? We recommend that you follow the Think Check Submit checklist to make sure you choose well respected journals for your research.
Think Check Submit do not have a “white list” of journals that are trustworthy, as with such a large market, maintaining its currency would be a huge task. Instead, the site aims to help researchers and would-be authors to make informed decisions about submission of their work to a particular publication.
If you need more help in selecting the best journal to submit your paper to, please consult the staff at UHL Libraries & Information Services for advice.
And of course, make sure you follow the journal’s submission criteria and instructions to authors!
You can follow Think Check Submit on Twitter @thinkchecksub
We have run Writing Club workshops about reporting guidelines, mostly about PRISMA. A new paper (1) from members of the Equator Network outlines the reasons why reporting guidelines are needed and how they can help you report your research. It discusses generic reporting guidelines but also oncology specific ones.
If you are writing up your research or study, and have not been able to make one of our workshops, have a look at the paper. It is open access.
(1) MacCarthy A, Kirtley S, de Beyer JA, Altman DG, Simera I. Reporting guidelines for oncology research: helping to maximise the impact of your research. Br J Cancer. 2018;118:619–28. Available from https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2017407 [Accessed 15th March 2018].
March’s meeting was scheduled for Thursday March 15th but due to low take up, we have postponed it until a future date.
Watch for details of that new date.
We are grateful to Rachael Dowling for being willing to speak at the Writing Club. If you are in UHL and have research you want to talk to the media about, she would be pleased to hear from you.
Very few attendees so we have postponed this meeting. We will rearrange it for a later date: watch for details.
The next Writing Club is on Thursday March 15th at 1 pm. We welcome Rachael Dowling, UHL Research Communications Manager. Rachael will talk about presenting your research to the media.
What do journalists look for in a research story? How can you build your own research stories for the media? Where does social media fit into this picture?
If you want to tell the media about your research or other work, come along to find out more. The meeting is from 1 – 2 pm in the Odames Meeting Room, Odames Library, Victoria Building, LRI. Book a place by email, or phone extension 5558. All UHL and LPT staff, and medical students on placement, welcome.
This is an updated repeat of the Writing Club meeting of September 2017.
A core outcome set (COS) is a minimum set of outcomes, a recommendation of what ought to be reported in all trials. This definition is taken from COMET (http://www.comet-initiative.org/glossary/cos/). COMET is a project that is collecting resources relevant to core outcomes sets. It includes a database of COS, and there are plentiful examples of COS because the outcomes that you would want to report vary by clinical area. I searched the database for cardiology and found 14 studies that report a core outcome set. A perhaps more realistic search would be to search for a condition, so searching for atrial fibrillation finds 4 studies, one each for trials of Chinese traditional medicine, patient reported outcomes, studies of ablation and outcome parameters.
The database is being added to, as there is a systematic review underway to identify studies.
Two recent papers about core outcome sets are:
Kirkham JJ, Davis K, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Tunis S, Williamson PR.
Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations.
PLoS Med. 2017 Nov 16;14(11):e1002447. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447.
This looks at quality assessment of core outcome sets, trying to identify minimum standards to be followed by developers of COS.
Clarke M, Williamson PR.
Core outcome sets and systematic reviews.
Syst Rev.2016 Jan 20;5:11. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0188-6.
This argues for a greater involvement of systematic reviewers in the development of COS, and consideration of COS when registering a review in PROSPERO. Synthesis of studies is made difficult by inconsistencies in COS in the studies being synthesised.
Our thanks to Carolyn for coming to speak to the Writing Club, and for the slides. The delay in putting them on the blog is entirely down to the Clinical Librarian writing this post…. apologies.