MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W184499599 · doi:10.1093/pch/11.6.339

Preparing a manuscript for publication: A user-friendly guide

2006· article· en· W184499599 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAcademic Writing and Publishing
Établissements canadiensBC Children's HospitalDalhousie UniversitySickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWorld Wide WebUser FriendlyComputer scienceInformation retrievalData scienceLibrary scienceMedicineProgramming language

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

“Whatever you dream, begin it, for boldness has power,magic and genius in it.”– GoetheAll of us are connected to medical journals, whether it isthrough reading, writing, reviewing or suggesting topics tobe addressed. The purpose of the present commentary is toencourage potential new writers by suggesting ways tosmooth the sometimes bumpy path between having an ideafor a paper and reaching the finish line of publication.While there are many reasons for writing a paper – such asto share clinical and research observations; to submit one’sobservations, ideas and conclusions to critical evaluation bypeers; to provide guidance to improve the health care of chil-dren and youth; to advocate for policy change; and to supportpersonal academic advancement – writing also provides anexcellent learning experience, promotes critical thinking andenhances the ability to be more concise in written communi-cations. These all help to make one a better physician.STEP 1: FINDING THE TIME TO THINKTo write, one needs something to say, which requires think-ing time. There are many times in the day that are ideal forthinking, such as while doing rote tasks that do not requireone’s full attention (eg, riding the bus or walking to work,shovelling snow, gardening or taking a shower). Develop thehabit of using some of these times to think about writing.What to think about?In preparing to write, think about the answers to the fol-lowing questions:• What do you want to say about this topic – what isyour key message?• Why do you care about this?• Who is the intended audience, and therefore, whatformat and type of journal should this piece besubmitted to?• Why would this audience be interested?• Who might want to work on this paper with you?Capture these ideas in a notebook, a file folder or your per-sonal digital assistant, or by sending e-mails to yourself.Review and refine the answers. Regularly review this ‘ideasfile’. Once your ideas are focused, you are ready to write.STEP 2: FINDING THE TIME TO WRITE‘Five minutes here and five minutes there’ does not workfor writing. You need ‘real’ time set aside to write. Thesolution: schedule time for writing by making an appoint-ment in your weekly planner – a one- or two-hour blockonce or twice a week.When and where to write?Writing is a complex task that requires you to be at yourbest. Are you a morning person or one who works best atnight? Do you need a warm-up period (ie, a preliminarytask, perhaps dictating your case notes) to set you up towrite or are you a quick study? What type of environmentdo you find most conducive to a complex task – a quietroom, background music, a cup of tea, etc? To minimize dis-tractions and interruptions while writing, where is the bestplace for you to write – your workplace office, your homeoffice or the library? A ‘do not disturb’ sign may help.Getting startedYou have been using your thinking time and your ideas folder.You have writing time scheduled. The next step is to find a‘personal editor’ and a ‘writing buddy’. The former is afriend or colleague who already is a successful writer andwho is willing to work with you on your writing. This per-son does not need to be physically located near you becausemuch can be done by e-mail. Your ‘writing buddy’ is some-one like yourself who also wants to write, and needs supportand encouragement to do this.Now select your best idea and set yourself a deadline toget your first draft done. Focus on your key message. Write abrief overview to organize your thoughts and arguments.This can form the basis of the later abstract and will help toguide your writing. Remember the AIMRAD format:abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion. Writeyour first draft. Ensure that you focus on your key message(s).Select your journal for first submission (see below).Discuss your first draft with your writing buddy. Makerevisions. Show your second draft to your personal editor.Rewrite and refine. Be as succinct and clear as possible.Tables offer a means to present a large volume of data in aconcise and readable form. Thoughtful and critical review ofthe manuscript by all authors, and writing and rewritingseveral times before submission are critical. Many authors

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,802
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,928

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,261
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle