Enhancing research publications and advancing scientific writing in health research collaborations: sharing lessons learnt from the trenches

Abstract

Background

Disseminating research protocols, processes, methods or findings via peer-reviewed publications has substantive merits and benefits to various stakeholders.

Purpose

In this article, we share strategies to enhance research publication contents (ie, what to write about) and to facilitate scientific writing (ie, how to write) in health research collaborations.

Methods

Empirical experience sharing.

Results

To enhance research publication contents, we encourage identifying appropriate opportunities for publications, publishing protocols ahead of results papers, seeking publications related to methodological issues, considering justified secondary analyses, and sharing academic process or experience. To advance writing, we suggest setting up scientific writing as a goal, seeking an appropriate mentorship, making full use of scientific meetings and presentations, taking some necessary formal training in areas such as effective communication and time and stress management, and embracing the iterative process of writing.

Conclusion

All the strategies we share are dependent upon each other; and they advocate gradual academic accomplishments through study and training in a “success-breeds-success” way. It is expected that the foregoing shared strategies in this paper, together with other previous guidance articles, can assist one with enhancing research publications, and eventually one’s academic success in health research collaborations.

Keywords:

• research publication
• scientific writing
• health research collaboration

Supplementary materials

Table S1 More examples of studies with published protocols and results papers

Table S2 More examples of sharing academic process or experience

References

• MbuagbawLOngolo-ZogoPThabaneLInvestigating community ownership of a text message programme to improve adherence to anti-retroviral therapy and provider-client communication: a mixed methods research protocolBMJ Open20133e002816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MbuagbawLBonono-MomnouguiRCThabaneLKouanfackCSmiejaMOngolo-ZogoPA framework for community ownership of a text messaging programme to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy and client-provider communication: a mixed methods studyBMC Health Serv Res20141444125258249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JohnstoneJMeadeMMarshallJProbiotics: prevention of severe pneumonia and endotracheal colonization trial – PROSPECT: protocol for a feasibility randomized pilot trialPilot Feasibility Stud201511927965798
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• CookDJJohnstoneJMarshallJCProbiotics: prevention of severe pneumonia and endotracheal colonization trial – PROSPECT: a pilot trialTrials20161737727480757
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ThabaneLHopewellSLancasterGAMethods and processes for development of a CONSORT extension for reporting pilot randomized controlled trialsPilot Feasibility Stud201622527965844
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• EldridgeSMChanCLCampbellMJCONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trialsBMJ2016355i523927777223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MaddenKArseneauEEvaniewNSmithCSThabaneLReporting of planned statistical methods in published surgical randomised trial protocols: a protocol for a methodological systematic reviewBMJ Open201666e011188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ThabaneADennisBBGajic-VeljanoskiOPaulJThabaneLReporting quality of stepped wedge design randomized trials: a systematic review protocolClin Epidemiol2016826126627468249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JohnsonDWClarkCIsbelNMThe honeypot study protocol: a randomized controlled trial of exit-site application of medihoney antibacterial wound gel for the prevention of catheter-associated infections in peritoneal dialysis patientsPerit Dial Int20092930330919458303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PascoeEMLoSScariaAThe HONEYPOT randomized controlled trial statistical analysis planPerit Dial Int201333442643523843589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OdueyungboAThabaneLMentoring in biostatistics: some suggestions for reformJ Multidiscip Healthc2012526523093907
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ThabaneLThabaneMGoldsmithCHMentoring young statisticians: facilitating the acquisition of important career skillsAfr Stat J20074123136
   Google Scholar
• ThabaneLWalterSDHannaSGoldsmithCHPullenayegumEDeveloping a biostatistical collaboration course in a health science research methodology programJ Stat Educ20081611621833159
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MachekanoRYoungTRusakanikoSThe Africa Center for Biostatistical Excellence: a proposal for enhancing biostatistics capacity for sub-Saharan AfricaStat Med2015343481348926137996
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ThabaneLThomasTYeCPaulJPosing the research question: not so simpleCan J Anesth200956717919247780
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MbuagbawLThabaneLOngolo-ZogoPLangTThe challenges and opportunities of conducting a clinical trial in a low resource setting: the case of the Cameroon Mobile Phone SMS (CAMPS) trial, an investigator initiated trialTrials20111214521658262
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YeCGiangregorioLHolbrookAPullenayegumEGoldsmithCHThabaneLData withdrawal in randomized controlled trials: defining the problem and proposing solutions: a commentaryContemp Clin Trials20113231832221300179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ThabaneLMaJChuRA tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and howBMC Med Res Methodol201010120053272
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ThabaneLMbuagbawLZhangSA tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why, when and howBMC Med Res Methodol2013139223855337
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LiGTaljaardMVan den HeuvelERAn introduction to multiplicity issues in clinical trials: the what, why, when and howInt J Epidemiol20174674675528025257
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dr Sharon Straus for her helpful suggestion and input in the manuscript.

Author contributions

All authors contributed toward data analysis, drafting and critically revising the paper and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.