PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10369533

Publishing the research report.

S A Cupples
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Although research is not finished until it is published, many investigators fail to report their research. The purpose of this article is to discuss the dissemination of research findings via the published manuscript. Barriers to publication are reviewed and strategies for overcoming these barriers are presented. Selection of a target journal is discussed, along with the purpose of the query letter. The format of the research report is addressed and specific information is provided regarding the literature review and the use of illustrative materials. Practical tips are provided for each stage of the writing process.

Explore related subjects

Correspondence as TopicManuscripts as TopicPeer Review, ResearchPublishingResearchResearch DesignWritingJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S A Cupples. Publishing the research report.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002093-199904001-00026

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

George Herbert Mead and the Allen controversy at the University of Wisconsin.

This essay uses previously unpublished correspondence of George Herbert Mead to tell the story of his involvement in the aftermath of a political dispute that took place at the University of Wisconsin during the years 1914-1915. It seeks thereby to clarify the historical significance of an article he published on this controversy in late 1915. Taken together with relevant information about the educational activities of William H. Allen of the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, Mead's correspondence and article throw helpful light upon his understanding of how an educational survey of a university should proceed; they also show how he went about the task of evaluating a failed attempt at such a survey.

Correspondence as Topic↗
PubMed2006

A survey of general dental practitioners' opinions of response letters received from hospital specialists following a referred patient's first appointment.

OBJECTIVES: To discover what dentists require of a hospital response letter with regards to content and timeliness. DESIGN: Postal survey. SETTING: South Wales. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A postal questionnaire was issued to all dentists (n = 256) who had referred a patient to the dental hospital between 1 January 2003 and 1 March 2003. RESULTS: The response rate was 60.2% (154). The preferred time frame for the receipt of a letter following a patient's appointment was one to three weeks for 96.4% (n = 133) of respondents, but 58.4% believed that they currently do not receive responses within this time frame. The preferred method of communication remained the letter (n = 82, 53%), followed by the telephone (n = 58, 38%). E-mail accounted for eight percent (n = 12) of communication. Most respondents (70%, n = 107) were satisfied with the letters' content. Eight of the ten items of information suggested as being appropriate in a response letter were considered essential by 53.2% of dentists (n = 82), and 55.8% (n = 76) believed the remaining two items to be desirable. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists agree closely on the information required in a response letter and most are satisfied with the content of current response letters. However, many dentists believe response letters arrive later than three weeks after their patient's appointment.

Correspondence as Topic↗