EDUCATION

Transforming a presentation to a publication: Tips for nurse practitioners Rodney (Rod) W. Hicks, PhD, RN, FNP, FAANP, FAAN (Professor) College of Graduate Nursing, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California

Keywords Education; motivation; nurse practitioner communication; nurse practitioners; professionalism. Correspondence Rodney (Rod) W. Hicks, PhD, RN, FNP, FAANP, FAAN, College of Graduate Nursing, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA 91766. Tel: 240-498-6800; Fax: 909-469-5521; E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Received: 23 May 2014; accepted: 21 July 2014 doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12228

Abstract Purpose: Nurse practitioners (NPs) routinely make presentations at regional, national, and international conferences. However, compared to other health professionals, fewer of the presentations are followed by manuscripts in peerreviewed journals. For more than 20 years, the Abstract to Publication rate has been a marker of conference quality and a trail of new knowledge development and dissemination. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide NPs with an approach for converting a presentation to a full manuscript. Data sources: Editorials, journal articles, style guides. Conclusions: The overlap between a podium or poster presentation and a fully developed manuscript is quite significant; the difference is in the style of presentation. Implications for practice: While scholarly writing may be somewhat daunting at first, resources are available to help any NP publish following a presentation. With sufficient planning, NPs can increase their Abstract to Publication rate.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) present information through podium and/or poster presentations at regional, national, and international meetings. An acceptance of an abstract by a professional meeting planner or conference review committee signals to the presenter that the material aligns with the conference theme and reflects likelihood to achieve a meaningful contribution to current topics of importance. Such presentations are valuable venues whereby the author is able to participate in a scholarly exchange, develop networks with colleagues that share similar interests, and obtain informal feedback from fellow attendees. Abstracts submitted at professional meetings, however, may not include sufficient details of an entire study or a clinical presentation (Meissner, Delouya, Marcovitch, Donath, & Taussky, 2014); therefore, presenters should consider following the presentation with a published manuscript. A fair number of articles, books, style guides, and courses provide sufficient detail on preparing abstracts for presentations, preparing posters for optimal effectiveness, and for directing an author on how to publish. There is a natural continuum of preparing an abstract for a presentation and developing a full manuscript, yet, few resources fully describe such a process. Converting an abstract to a publication is a logical extension of the presenter’s work, and

488

within the biomedical literature, is now known as the Abstract to Publication (A:P) rate. The purpose of this article is to describe what is known about abstract to publication rates, present the similarities and differences between presentations and publications, and outline one process for transforming a presentation to a publication. Throughout this article, presentation infers either a podium or poster whereas manuscript refers to a journal article.

Abstract to publication (A:P) rates Researchers, almost exclusively outside of the nursing profession, who have studied the A:P rate determined that the exact rate is unknown (Bowrey, Morris-Stiff, Clark, Carey, & Mansel, 1999; Scherer, Langenberg, & von Elm, 2007). Findings from one of the earliest known studies that examined the association between abstracts and manuscripts found that roughly half of abstracts from various medical specialties resulted in publication (Scherer, Dickersin, & Langenberg, 1994). Byerly, Rheney, Connelly, and Verzino (2000) also summarized publication rates among various medical groups (surgery, emergency medicine, dentistry, cardiology, orthopedics, anesthesia, pharmacy) and found publication rates between 11% and 66%, while Wenzel, Dunser, and ¨

Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners 27 (2015) 488–496  C 2015 American Association of Nurse Practitioners

From presentation to publication

R. W. Hicks

Lindner (n.d.) suggested that only about 50% of abstracts receive full publication. For abstract to publication, time varied with some full text documents available in less than 1 year, while most took about 2 years, and after 3 or more years post presentation the publication rate declined (Meissner et al., 2014; Timmer, Blum, & Lankisch, 2001). The A:P rate has several implications. One implication is that the publication rate proxies as an indirect indicator of the quality of the scientific meeting where the abstract was initially presented; a higher A:P rate signifies better conference quality (Meissner et al., 2014). Another implication lies in the fact that practice is shaped by new knowledge. For example, Bhandari et al. (2002) linked abstracts to publications to major orthopedic textbook chapters, thus establishing the trail of early dissemination (presentation) to formal dissemination (publication) to knowledge. Having the full publication eventually appear in a journal affords a longlasting record of the author’s work (Cohen, Mirza, Dow, & Abboud, 2012). A litany of reasons might explain the significant number of unpublished abstracts. One common theme identified by Byerly et al. (2000), and echoed by Cohen et al. (2012) pertained to an author’s lack of time in completing the formal writing process. The lack of time also extended to an inability in coordinating efforts with multiple coauthors. Good writing takes time and manuscript development is most often an iterative process (Welch, 1999). Meissner et al. (2014) reported that the absence of a mandatory policy for follow-up publication of presented abstracts could explain part of the gap. Often, accepted abstracts can result in conference fee waivers but no such benefit exists from publishing (Timmer et al., 2001). Some authors are simply not afforded sufficient release time to write for publication. Other viewpoints suggest some authors may never have had the intent to publish the presented material (Walby, Kelly, & Georgakas, 2001) or authors just simply procrastinated (Byerly et al., 2000). Other themes reported identified either a change in research focus or job change that interfered with proceeding with publications (Byerly et al., 2000). A subtle, but important contributor to the lack of formal publication pertains to the quality of the final product. The quality of the final manuscript must be sufficient to avoid rejection. Failing to conform to journal guidelines results in rejection of the manuscript (Boyd, Rifai, & Annesley, 2009). Style guides, such as the APA manual (American Psychological Association, 2010) or the AMA Manual (AMA Manual of Style Committee, 2007), reflect current practices in publishing and authors should utilize such valuable resources. Finally, it must be noted

Table 1 Comparison of components between presentations and publications Presentation

Publication

Abstract (submitted preconference) Title slide Motivation Background Methods Results Conclusion Acknowledgments Question and answer

Abstract Title page Introduction Literature review Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgments References Tables Figures Local review Submission Revision Publication

that while the oral presentation can initiate conversations between peers, other scholars may point out flaws or provide undue scrutiny that discourages authors from proceeding to print (Byerly et al., 2000).

Preplanning from presentation to publication There is a need for NPs to present at regional and national conferences and to also submit for publication. Loos (1996) suggests that preplanning even before the presentation is essential to be successful in publishing. This is to say that from the point of beginning to submit for presentation, the author should concurrently preplan for full development of the manuscript. Sometimes the material for the presentation and the publication can be prepared simultaneously. In other instances, presenters may complete the presentation component and then proceed to the manuscript. Welch (1999) suggests that a systematic approach to the writing process must occur and include sufficient planning. Presenters must know not only the requirements for the oral presentation, but also know the journal’s author guidelines. Interpreting Welch’s work, authors can simultaneously plan some of the writing while developing the presentation given the common overlap of background, methods, results, and conclusion (Table 1). Table 2 provides a suggested order of preparation of the manuscript. One rule of thumb is that presenting for 15–25 min, equivalent to about 15–20 slides, generally translates to about 20 double-spaced pages. Longer presentations may be transformed into a series of manuscripts (Loos, 1996). 489

From presentation to publication

R. W. Hicks

Table 2 Steps in the preparation of a manuscript from a presentation Step 1 2

Tables and figures Summary statements

3 4

Determine audience Methods

5 6

Results Discussion

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Conclusion References Introduction Title page Abstract Revision Submission

14 15

Post review Publication

Major accomplishment Create First Draft tables and figures; cursory formatting Create summary statements based on preliminary findings contained tables and figures. Simple bullets of “key points” adequate Select the audience: either podium, poster, or manuscript; know deadlines for submission All authors join in writing methods to ensure all steps adequately described. Remember: detailed to a fault. The “how” Describe results; follow logical order of the methods. The “what was found” Interpret the results in context of study, known landscape, and position the information on the landscape. The “what does this mean” Wrap up, future directions Accurate and complete references. Verify; utilize electronic bibliographic software Sets the context; consider three-paragraph model Identifies authors, affiliations, key words Identifies objective, methods, findings, conclusion Seek “hostile friends” to provide feedback on clarity, key messages, structure Submit as per publisher’s guidelines, policies, software Review copyright implications Detailed resolution of major and minor comments; revise manuscript. Resubmit Celebrate! Share with colleagues, coauthors, and others

Transforming the presentation to publication Editors eagerly accept manuscripts that have the potential for high impact in terms of interest, importance to the field, relevance to the journal’s audience, and clarity of material (Boyd et al., 2009). Individuals with an accepted abstract presentation have already passed one level of peer review and should consider creating a legacy of the information, especially because presenting is a known determinant of full publication (Timmer et al., 2001). Presenters should be comfortable changing the language and style from the spoken word to scholarly voice (Loos, 1996) in order to match the journal’s guidelines. Presentations are often done in conversation style dialogue. Transforming such content into the scholarly voice can be difficult. The best place to begin is at the time of abstract development and submission. The process continues through rehearsal and delivery of the initial presentation and could conclude with manuscript submission. Having an audio recording and transcript of the rehearsal or actual presentation can be a valuable resource in beginning the writing process (Loos, 1996). One caveat to be aware of is that some conferences will not accept material already in press. Presenters can avoid the problem by waiting until after the presentation to attempt to publish. The manuscript could be in development—or even developed—as long as it has not completed the peer-review process, been accepted, and is in press or in print.

The abstract Speakers answer a conference planner’s Call for Abstracts by submitting a brief description of material suitable for 490

presentation. Conference planners often prescribe the format of the abstract in terms of organization and length. The abstract submitted for a presentation may contain sections, such as title, background, methods, results, and conclusions in order to forecast what will be done. Planning committee members or others provide peer review of the abstract and provide a recommendation to the planners for either a podium (oral) presentation or a poster session. In some circumstances, the author submits an abstract for podium presentation and the planners reject for a podium but accept for a poster presentation. Regardless if podium or poster, once accepted, presenters prepare the work product, often in accordance with conference guidelines. Oral presenters may be provided a predetermined “themed template” or be allowed to self-select the background, font, colors, etc. Poster presenters generally conform to size restrictions. References may be supplemented by request. Conference conveners may publish the abstract in the conference proceedings, either in writing or, now, more commonly, in electronic format. The abstract for a manuscript serves a different purpose than for a presentation. In the manuscript, the abstract serves the purpose of providing an overview for the paper and is formatted in accordance with the journal’s guidelines (Boyd et al., 2009). Absent-specific guidelines for the format, authors should at a minimum include the rationale (objective), methods, findings, and conclusion. Such sectional structure is now fairly common, although some journals still allow paragraph style as long as the components are included. Authors should observe word count restrictions. Abstracts are written in past tense and free of abbreviations, jargon, and references (Boyd

From presentation to publication

R. W. Hicks

et al., 2009) and summarize what was done. Manuscript abstracts are discoverable through indexing that occurs in popular databases (e.g., PubMed) and search engines (e.g., Google). Readers often review abstracts and make decisions about retrieving and reading the full manuscript. Lilleyman (1995) advises that the abstract is of such significance that developing an abstract should not be rushed or skimped and that on a time-per-word basis, the abstract could be the most labor-intensive part of the manuscript (p. 269). Abstracts can be written as the last step in the writing process.

Title, title slide, title page The presentation title primarily serves as an invitation for the audience to attend as it is commonly published in the conference brochure. An effective title is short, pertinent, and enticing (Driscoll, 1997), and has the ability to stand alone (American Psychological Association, 2010). To entice conference attendees, a title may include major concepts, the population, the method, or other phrases. The title slide is limited by the amount of “real estate” available for text, pictures, or logos. Typically, the name and affiliation of the presenter is listed. The presenter may be the team leader on a project or a team member. Other members’ names associated with the project may appear on the title slide or later in the presentation. The growth in electronic submission to editorial offices now requires authors to prepare documents in separate files for ease of uploading and processing. One such file is the Title Page. The title page for a manuscript serves several purposes. First, the author selects a title (which will be indexed and widely available once accepted) that contains key elements of the study. For example, major variables, methods, or new innovations could be expressed in the title. Manuscript titles should be accurate, crisp, and clear in order to invite the reader. Another important consideration of the manuscript’s title page pertains to authorship. Authorship is the process of actively contributing intellectual property to the manuscript and bearing responsibility for developing and approving the final content (Wenzel et al., n.d.). The title page also lists the order of the authors. Common phrases include primary author, secondary author, corresponding, and mentor author. The primary (first) author is considered to have done the majority of the work (Nahata, 2009). Secondary authors make lesser contributions to the manuscript. The mentor author typically appears last in the author string. The title page often allows the designation of a corresponding author, the individual who will be the point of communication. The corresponding author may be the first author or the mentor author (Nahata, 2009). An important function of the corresponding author

is to keep open lines of communication between all authors and the editor. Prior to starting any manuscript, author teams must resolve any political issues and determine the order of the authors (Boyd et al., 2009). During the preplanning phase, roles are clarified and the process should be entirely transparent. All involved in authorship should fully understand the Universal Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2014). Another function of the title page is selecting key words used for indexing. Key words should be based on the content of the manuscript, be specific to the field, and align with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) headings. Selecting three to five key words or short phrases will increase the likelihood of discovery during electronic searching (American Psychological Association, 2010; Wiley, n.d.). Journals may limit the number of key words selected.

Motivation and introduction Presenters usually discuss the motivation or introduction topic setting the stage for the “why” and “what.” Because of opportunity constraints in a presentation, this section must be abbreviated in a single slide (rarely more than two). Speech is often supplemented through slides that contain bullets, symbols, pictures, or key phrases. For posters, the motivation may be a single paragraph, typically located as one of the earlier panels. In a manuscript, there is also an expectation that the author identifies the “why” and “what” early in order to engage the reader (Welch, 1999). Table 3 is an example of the bullets from a presentation that was converted to paragraph within the subsequent manuscript. One traditional means of accomplishing the introduction is the three-paragraph model. The first paragraph establishes the context by providing a brief background (Boyd et al., 2009; Johnson, 2008). The second paragraph provides the concept’s rationale or relevance. The final paragraph defines the goals or purpose and further entices the reader to continue (Welch, 1999). Paragraphs should conform to general rules of grammar—such as being written in active voice, contain a topic sentence, being constructed of at least three sentences (Johnson, 2008). The ideal paragraph structure is accomplished through rhythm, whereby the author is able to stagger sentence length. Authors should consider putting key points in short sentences to help readers’ retention. Sentences should use standard English and ´ or excessive medical terms and avoid jargon, cliches, acronyms; furthermore, the use of rich and colorful assortment of wordiness can be a leading reason for manuscript rejection (Pierson, 2004). 491

From presentation to publication

R. W. Hicks

Table 3 Example from an oral presentation and subsequent text in a manuscript Example from an oral presentation

What appeared in printed manuscript

Practitioner’s judgment

Physicians and advance practice NPs Have professional autonomy to make ordinary medical care decisions, and those decisions may lead to an order for a compounded product Respective licensing boards regulate health professions because it is not the role of the federal government to determine medical care (p. 469)

• Professional autonomy

• Not the role of government

Source: Hicks, R. W. (2013). Mixing it up! Understanding compounding issues. Presented at AORN’s 60th Congress, March, 2013, San Diego, CA.

Source: Hicks, R. W. (2014). Understanding medication compounding issues. AORN Journal, 99(4), 467–479.

The introduction section should not serve as the literature review. Beginning authors may be tempted to insert too much information, introduce methods, or state findings in this section (Boyd et al., 2009). This section of the manuscript contains about 350 words and occurs much later in the writing process (O’Connor & Holmquist, 2009; Wenzel et al., n.d.); it is not uncommon for novice writers to begin the writing process out of order (Johnson, 2008).

Background and literature review A presentation’s background is also limited by time constraints. This means that the presenter usually has only one slide to summarize the state of the science. Again, presenters augment bullets or phrases by speaking the main points. In a manuscript, sentinel pieces of literature (with corresponding citations) should provide the reader with sufficient background. This significant background places the topic in context of what is known and leaves the reader informed and ready to proceed (Lilleyman, 1995). Depending on the journal’s style requirements, the introduction and background sections may appear together.

Methods In a presentation, the speaker has limited opportunity to provide in-depth description of the methods and materials. The audience must accept at face value that the author 492

followed rigorous methods and conformed to established scientific principles. The speaker accomplishes this in one to two slides. The speaker’s intent is not to gloss over the importance of the methods and materials sections, but rather, to allocate sufficient time to the results section. In contrast, an author must allocate sufficient time and detail to the methods section within a manuscript, generally, about 1000 words (Wenzel et al., n.d.). The methods section becomes the most critically judged section of the document and is always written in past tense language (Johnson, 2008; Provenzale & Stanley, 2006). Outside references are of little use in the methods section, however, attribution to trademarks may be appropriate. A well-constructed methods and materials sections are detailed to a fault (Boyd et al., 2009) in order to provide a clear overview of what was done (Welch, 1999). The methods section is fairly mechanical in nature (Welch, 1999), which allows others to replicate; a step necessary to ensure that the results are valid and not just because of chance (Nahata, 2009). Working and reviewing the document among coauthors is a useful aspect when writing the methods as it can be difficult for a single author to accurately record all the steps undertaken (Provenzale, 2007). Johnson (2008) reminds us that human subjects are individuals from whom investigators obtain data through intervention or interaction (p. 1065), and there must be adequate detail of protection of subjects’ rights in order to not overlook the importance of describing the informed consent process (Wenzel et al., n.d.). Text should adequately describe subject recruitment, sample size requirements, treatment or interventions, and planned analysis. Diagrams or flow charts can represent the process and be useful for the reader. There are recognized threats that may impede publication. Authors should consult a statistician to affirm that the analysis is appropriate and that text adequately describes the data (Wenzel et al., n.d.). Another threat results from an insufficient sample size (low power). This would threaten the validity. Leaving out critical instrumentation and measurements threatens the accuracy and precision and inhibits reproducibility (Nahata, 2009). Failing to provide a detailed outline or description of all the steps involved in a project can lead others to question the findings. Such inadequate description was the fourth leading cause of rejection by one journal (Pierson, 2004).

Results Oral presentations as well as poster presentations capitalize on study results. The majority of the presentation should focus on the study’s outcomes. During this time, the presenter passionately connects with the data to provide the “what.” Speakers can use up to one-quarter of the

From presentation to publication

R. W. Hicks

allocated time in this portion. During oral presentations, the speaker’s use of bulleted findings serves as “take away points.” Remember, audiences generally are only able to retain two or three key messages. From the presentation, each result bullet can serve as an outline for paragraph development in the subsequent manuscript. The results section is the second most important section in a manuscript (Wenzel et al., n.d.). A typical results section should be approximately 350 words (Wenzel et al., n.d.). In order to increase the likelihood of manuscript acceptance, an author must succinctly describe the findings in a manner that parallels the methods section (Wenzel et al., n.d.). Results are merely provided without interpretation (Provenzale, 2007) and this section would not generally contain references. Provenzale (2007) alerts would-be authors about three common deficiencies in a results section. First, the section is disorganized and does not follow a logical deduction from the methods and instruments. Second, authors may fail to include all results, leaving an incomplete gap. Such gaps can occur when multiple authors are involved in the writing. Third, opposite of incomplete results, there may be an attempt to describe results that were not grounded in the methods section. To avoid these threats, Provenzale indicates that subheadings are visually useful, not only to the author during the writing process, but also to the reader. Wenzel et al. (n.d.) add another important dimension in that tables and figures commonly accompany the results section. Authors must balance the amount of text with data contained in tables and figures. The text merely calls attention to the important elements while avoiding redundant data points. Therefore, data in tables are not reiterated in text. Instead, the author(s) might note or highlight something in the table but not all of the data.

Tables Tables are columnar representation of data and can appear in podium presentations, posters, or manuscripts. Tables are of value when essential material is included, content is directly and clearly related to the topic, readers are able to understand in isolation of the text, tables do not exceed small amounts of text, and are strategically positioned (American Psychological Association, 2010). Tables bring additional advantages in reducing the amount of text (Welch, 1999) through the visual display of data (Boyd et al., 2009). Tables should be formatted to display the variable and the corresponding values as tables make data more understandable (Provenzale & Stanley, 2006). The preplanning phase makes heavy use of tables. First, draft tables (O’Connor & Holmquist, 2009) allow the work group to review data and create summary statements, which in turns builds the outline for writing. Therefore,

creating the rough draft of the table is often the first step to either submitting an abstract for presentation or the manuscript. In a presentation, tables are unlikely to be numbered. Typically the heading on the slide serves as the title for the table. Full legends are also sometimes omitted. In a poster, authors may elect to number the table along with the caption. Tables are important adjuncts to the manuscript’s text, but tables do take up space. Some journals will limit the number of tables. The order of the tables should follow the same order of the methods. The manuscript should have a textual call out for the table so that the reader remains oriented. O’Connor and Holmquist (2009) suggest that the first sentence of each paragraph in the Results section correspond to titles of tables or legends in figures (p. 346). Naming a table is an art and science. The title should infer basic content represented by the data and findings (American Psychological Association, 2010). Abbreviations must be defined, units of measure must be clear. p Values, actual values, and the names (or symbols) of statistical tests should be displayed. Tables for manuscripts should be prepared on individual pages for ease of uploading during the submission process. Formatting should be done using the tables feature of the word processing program to assure proper alignment of rows and columns.

Figures Figures also are constructed during the preplanning phase. Commonly, authors prepare more figures than are included in the presentation. Figures should be easily interpretable and not overly complex as the intent is to provide visual representation of the findings, theories, or other important elements (Boyd et al., 2009). Figures are treated much like tables. Within presentations, figures are only confined by the space available on the slide and presenters may be tempted to show only portions of the information. One advantage of the presentation is the ability to have figures with multiple colors. In print, figures must conform to the journal guidelines in terms of quality and quantity. Like tables, figures would not necessarily “make or break” the manuscript, rather, figures should not be complex, should have sufficient font size for ease of reading, and, unless otherwise advised, be submitted in black and white (Boyd et al., 2009).

Conclusion and discussion Presentations begin to wind down when the speaker reaches the conclusion section. During this brief period, the speaker provides an interpretation of data and answers the “so what does it mean”? The meaning is a logical 493

From presentation to publication

R. W. Hicks

finale of the story. Speakers can position the results in the context of what is known and how the study may affect practice and can propose future directions. Depending on time and the speaker’s skill, the topic of limitations might be included. In print, the discussion section allows the author to return to first person and provide an interpretation of the data and demonstrate what the data means. The author’s task is to put the findings in perspective and this is accomplished by stating the major finding and showing its contribution to practice. The length of the discussion is proportionate to the amount of data presented (Welch, 1999). Any limitations should be addressed.

Having incomplete references is insufficient reason to reject a manuscript, as there is an opportunity for the author to correct. However, failing to follow the bibliographic style of a journal may result in rejection. To minimize the opportunity for incomplete references, the use of electronic bibliographic software is highly encouraged (Wenzel et al., n.d.). Bibliographic software, such as END NOTE or REFWORKS, has replaced the manual burden of maintaining reference lists (Hicks, 2014). Authors should plan for the responsibility of retaining the references; these popular software applications allow the author to retain electronic copies (e.g., PDFs) of the cited works with the digital libraries in lieu of printed copies.

Acknowledgments

Presubmission review

Work groups, such as author teams, accomplish more working together than in isolation. Being a representative of the work group and presenting at a conference is an honor. Rarely do all members of every team attend and present at the same meeting. Therefore, professional etiquette requires that all members of the work group be acknowledged. Other sources of acknowledgments include grant support and other miscellaneous support. Manuscripts typically contain this information at the end of the document. Again, it is important that authors have the ability to distinguish between an acknowledgement and authorship. The Universal Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals does offer guidance (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2014).

A major difference between presentations and manuscripts could be the amount of review. Authors are afforded more review time in a manuscript given the lack of a fixed deadline associated with fixed conference dates. During this extended review period, authors can share drafts of the manuscript and obtain feedback from colleagues. Eliciting such feedback often improves the overall quality of the manuscript. Before sending out the manuscript “cold” for review, obtain a commitment from a colleague. Be sure to direct the reviewer to any specific area that may need attention. Welch (1999) suggests providing the document in electronic format that utilizes triple space between lines. Reviewers may find line numbering and page numbering an efficient manner when providing feedback. As professional courtesy, authors should not edit or make significant changes to the document while the manuscript is under review by a colleague. Wenzel et al. (n.d.) add that it would not be uncommon to undertake moderate revision following this comment period. Authors must abandon self-ego and keenly reflect on the messages provided by the reviewers.

References Manuscripts rely heavily on the use of references. During the planning phase, authors must collect, organize, and paraphrase supporting material. Journal author guidelines will direct the number and the required format of references (Boyd et al., 2009). References also serve the purpose of letting the audience know how the current work relates to prior work (Wenzel et al., n.d.). Reference lists are highly scrutinized by the editor and the reviewers prior to publication. Authors should utilize original works to the extent possible (O’Connor & Holmquist, 2009). There is disagreement in the literature pertaining to the amount of self-citing; excessive self-citing to the exclusion of others should be avoided (Boyd et al., 2009). Following one study (and affirmed by others) that identified many references were either inaccurate or incomplete, editors became sensitized to the value of reference integrity. Simply put, the quality of the references is a direct reflection on the quality of the manuscript (Provenzale & Stanley, 2006) which, in turn, is a direct reflection on the quality of the author’s work. 494

Submission, peer review, and decision Most journals now accept electronic submission of manuscripts through websites sponsored by publishers. During the submission phase, it would be common to have separate files that support the title page, abstract, main document, tables, figures, and permission statements as necessary. Many journals also require a cover letter. A cover letter can be brief, but most convey why the author has selected the journal and provide some rationale (O’Connor & Holmquist, 2009). By the end of the submission process, authors receive an opportunity to review the document and make necessary corrections. A major difference between presentations and publications pertains to copyright ownership. Presenters rarely

From presentation to publication

R. W. Hicks

transfer the copyright of the presentation to the conference convener. However, most journals have a mechanism (copyright agreement) in place that is completed during the submission process. Individuals should be aware of the rights and responsibilities associated with noncopyrighted and copyrighted material. In the case of a presentation, the author is free to distribute the slides, notes, or any other material. Although in copyrighted material, redistribution of published material may be prohibited beyond personal use. Such restrictions generally would not allow authors to post PDFs of the document on websites, social media platforms, or other places. Rather, authors can simply create a full citation of the works and make that citation publically available (Hicks & Pierson, 2014). Following submission to the journal, the manuscript is peer reviewed. In some instances during the submission process, authors might be afforded an opportunity to identify qualified individuals to serve as the reviewer (Wenzel et al., n.d.) The number of peer reviewers will vary by the journal’s policy, as does the amount of time under review. The review process should yield major comments and minor comments (Heddle & Ness, 2009). A thorough review aids in the final decision (Spigt & Arts, 2010). Authors hope to avoid outright rejection and receive comments that suggest the journal is at least interested in receiving a revised manuscript. Should manuscripts be accepted pending revision, authors must objectively review the major and minor written comments provided by the unpaid volunteer reviewers (Johnson, 2008). Every written comment, be it a compliment or a criticism, is an opportunity to reflect on the key message and better position the point(s) in question. Johnson further suggests that each comment be addressed in a letter back to the editor with the revised manuscript. Wenzel et al. (n.d.) suggests not only preparing a point-by-point response letter, but also to highlight changed text within the revised manuscript to make it easier for the editor to clearly see how comments were handled (p. 9). Boyd et al. (2009) offers another suggestion in that authors may wish to secure a neutral third party to review the comments and rebuttal statements. Finally, Provenzale (2007) writes that adequately addressing reviewers’ concerns is among the leading principles to increase the likelihood of publication.

Implications An extensive literature review found no evidence that NPs routinely converted presentations to full peerreviewed manuscripts. As the educational standards for advanced practice increase, there will be more doctoral level prepared individuals with the skillset of presenting and publishing. Given the plethora of course assignments,

in-class presentations, and papers by graduate students, opportunities abound for presenting and publishing. Faculty within today’s graduate programs should mentor all students to be comfortable in presenting and publishing. Faculty, however, should refrain from routinely having students submit for publication without sufficient mentoring, reviewing, and collaboration. Such efforts are needed to promote the knowledge base for practice, influence evidence-based practice decisions, and further advance the profession. Conference planners could accept abstracts for presentations with a goal that many of the presentations ultimately become manuscripts. At a minimum, planners should identify the strongest abstracts and encourage manuscript follow through. Conference planners could go so far as to require submission of the work as a condition of being accepted for presentation. Likewise, conference planners should offer workshops that guide expert clinicians through the writing process. Given that most conferences have a centralized theme, journal editors in attendance should seize on the opportunity to identify emerging topics and develop themed editions of the journals. Finally, NPs themselves must accept the responsibility for advancing the profession. Research is needed to determine the incentives or barriers to proceeding from a presentation to a full manuscript. Given that presentation of content is often a predictor of a publication, with sufficient planning, the NP can plan both the presentation and the publication. While scholarly writing may be somewhat daunting at first, ample resources and colleagues are available to help any NP publish.

Conclusion The overlap between a podium or poster presentation and a fully developed manuscript is quite significant, just emphasized differently. With sufficient planning, a presenter can create the written document with little difficulty or pain. Following established and tried and true rules of organization and persistence, presenters can transform presented work into legacy documents.

Acknowledgment The author is grateful to Judith A. Berg, PhD, RN, WHNP-BC, FAAN, FAANP for her editorial assistance in reviewing this manuscript.

References AMA Manual of Style Committee. (2007). AMA manual of style: A guide for authors and editors. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

495

From presentation to publication

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Bhandari, M., Devereaux, P. J., Guyatt, G. H., Cook, D. J., Swiontkowski, M. F., Sprague, S., & Schemitsch, E. H. (2002). An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 84-A(4), 615–621. Bowrey, D. J., Morris-Stiff, G. J., Clark, G. W., Carey, P. D., & Mansel, R. E. (1999). Peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a regional surgical meeting. Medical Education, 33(3), 212–214. Boyd, J. C., Rifai, N., & Annesley, T. M. (2009). Preparation of manuscripts for publication: Improving your chances for success. Clinical Chemistry, 55(7), 1259–1264. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2009.129916 Byerly, W. G., Rheney, C. C., Connelly, J. F., & Verzino, K. C. (2000). Publication rates of abstracts from two pharmacy meetings. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 34(10), 1123–1127. Cohen, M. A., Mirza, N., Dow, K., & Abboud, S. K. (2012). Presentation and publication rates among women and men at AAO-HNS meetings. ORL, 74(6), 325–329. doi:10.1159/000345099 Driscoll, P. (1997). How to write a paper. Journal of Accident & Emergency Medicine, 14(2), 65–69. Hicks, R. (2014). I write, therefore, I cite: Why and how tools can help the author. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 26(4), 117–178. doi:10.1002/2327-6924.12115 Hicks, R., & Pierson, C. (2014). Author and journal responsibilities postpublication: The relationship continues. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 26(9), 463–464. doi:10.1002/2327-6924.12163 Heddle, N. M., & Ness, P. M. (2009). Reviewing manuscripts: Tips and responsibilities. Transfusion, 49(11), 2265–2268. doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2009.02390.x International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2014). Defining the role of authors and contributors. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-andresponsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html Johnson, T. M. (2008). Tips on how to write a paper. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 59(6), 1064–1069. doi:10.1016/j.jaad. 2008.07.007 Lilleyman, J. S. (1995). How to write a scientific paper—A rough guide to getting published. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 72(3), 268–270.

496

R. W. Hicks

Loos, F. (1996). Converting a presentation to a manuscript. Nurse Author Editor, 6(4), 3–4, 7–8. Meissner, A., Delouya, G., Marcovitch, D., Donath, D., & Taussky, D. (2014). Publication rates of abstracts presented at the 2007 and 2010 Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology meetings. Current Oncology, 21(2), e250–e254. doi:10.3747/co.21.1764 Nahata, M. C. (2009). Tips for writing and publishing an article. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 42, 273–277. doi:10.1245/aph.1K616 O’Connor, T. R., & Holmquist, G. P. (2009). Algorithm for writing a scientific manuscript. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(6), 344–348. doi:10.1002/bmb.20329 Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1246–1252. Provenzale, J. M. (2007). Ten principles to improve the likelihood of publication of a scientific manuscript. American Journal Roentgenology, 188(5), 1179–1182. doi:10.2214/AJR.06.1003 Provenzale, J. M., & Stanley, R. J. (2006). A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 34(2), 92–99. Scherer, R. W., Dickersin, K., & Langenberg, P. (1994). Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(2), 158–162. Scherer, R. W., Langenberg, P., & von Elm, E. (2007). Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2. Art. No.: MR000005. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3 Spigt, M., & Arts, I. C. W. (2010). How to review a manuscript. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 1385–1390. Timmer, A., Blum, T., & Lankisch, P. G. (2001). Publication rates following pancreas meetings. Pancreas, 23(2), 212–215. Walby, A., Kelly, A. M., & Georgakas, C. (2001). Abstract to publication ratio for papers presented at scientific meetings: How does emergency medicine compare? Emergency Medicine (Fremantle), 13(4), 460–464. Welch, H. G. (1999). Preparing manuscripts for submission to medical journals: The paper trail. Effective Clinical Practice, 2(3), 131–137. Wenzel, V., Dunser, M. V., & Lindner, K. H. (n.d.). A step by step guide to writing a ¨ scientific manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.aaeditor.org/StepByStepGuide.pdf Wiley. (n.d.). Search engine optimization: For authors. Retrieved from http://www. wiley.com/legacy/wileyblackwell/pdf/SEOforAuthorsLINKSrev.pdf

Transforming a presentation to a publication: Tips for nurse practitioners.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) routinely make presentations at regional, national, and international conferences. However, compared to other health profess...
130KB Sizes 3 Downloads 7 Views