“So What”, and the Research Question: Tips for Success in Publishing

After reading the Editorial by Dr Sheila West in the previous issue¹, I thought I would continue the conversation that Sheila started.

The goal of Ophthalmic Epidemiology, set by the previous two Editors, Drs Jim Ganley and Sheila West, will remain unchanged, that is, it will continue to provide a platform for scientific exchange for international scholars by publishing their research reports of sufficient scientific quality. Sheila touched on a number of key factors that authors must follow if they want their articles to pass through the “starting gate” of the peer-review process. One factor, very central to improving the quality of scientific research, is the “so what” question: “…it is a pre-emptive question the authors should be addressing”, said Sheila in her editorial article.¹ I trust that every member of this journal’s Editorial Board, who spends his/her spare time tirelessly helping authors to finesse their contributions before they are accepted for publication in Ophthalmic Epidemiology, would agree with Sheila on this point. This is the topic that I would like to explore further and explain why it is key to getting published.

“So what” is a question that researchers should ask themselves at the conceptual stage of their research project, to define, and refine, a research question (termed “The Research Question”) which the project is intended to address. In the field of epidemiology, research questions should be clinically relevant, meaning that findings from the research project should have implications for clinical practice.

Similarly, throughout the entire research project, from design to analysis and reporting, keeping the “so what” question in mind will help to ensure that the project provides adequate and relevant data to generate appropriate answers to the research questions posed.

Writing a research report is no different from designing and conducting a research project: The “so what” or Research Question should guide the thread of the research report.

“So what” helps authors define a clinically relevant research question: To answer a specific research question or questions is the purpose of research. In the introduction of a report, The Research Question, together with the rationale as to why the question is worth investigating, should be spelt out clearly. Background information from the literature is needed to justify either a gap in knowledge or the underlying study hypothesis.

“So what” and The Research Question help authors plan data analyses that specifically address the question: All too often, this Editorial Board has reviewed articles in which the authors compare all variables at hand to search for any possible associations without a particular focus. This type of data analysis is called data mining or fishing. In certain situations, such as genome-wide association studies (GWAS), data mining is the type of analysis conducted to find significant associations between a genotype and a phenotype. However, due to the lack of any hypothesis, GWAS is penalized by a very strict p value (usually <10⁻⁸) for an association to be claimed significant, and requires replication in independent samples, in order to minimize the possibility of false-positive findings. In most circumstances in epidemiological research, hypothesis-driven data analyses are conducted, with The Research Question as the focus of the analysis plan. Provided that The Research Question has a strong underlying hypothesis, either positive (supporting the hypothesis) or negative (failing to support the hypothesis) findings are publishable. Good examples of negative finding reports can be found in the literature.^2,3

“So what” and The Research Question help authors arrange research findings for presentation (story telling), and to find the take-home message (the core of the story): A good story has an essential filament or core, to which all side stories are connected. The Research Question defines not only the main story but also how all the research findings (the side stories) are organized, like the presentation of “a meal” from raw materials, as described by Sheila.¹ Findings should be presented logically, with layers of evidence (e.g. from side stories to the main story) to draw readers’ attention to findings about the study question (the main story). “So what”, or The Research Question, is a filament that glues the study findings coherently in the report, so that the report reads like a story rather than a hotchpotch of data. Authors’ “cooking skills” are needed to make a nice “meal” from a hotchpotch of data. Without a skilful touch for organizing, a hotchpotch of data is not readable and therefore is not considered a research report with a purpose.

“So what” helps authors to revisit The Research Question introduced at the beginning of the report, and to conclude the report with a clear take-home message: Similar to a good story that has an end with the solutions to all puzzles made clear to readers, a good scientific article has a conclusion that tells readers what key new information has come to light as a result of the research project, and what the future direction or next steps should be.

Publication is an important indicator of a researcher’s track record, which is linked to success in obtaining research funding and promotion. It is therefore critical to all researchers, junior or senior. However, publication is not for the sake of publishing per se, rather each manuscript should leave its footprint on the path by which scientific knowledge advances bit by bit, day after day. Previous Editors-in-Chief of Ophthalmic Epidemiology, Drs Jim Ganley and Sheila West, together with the journal Editorial Board members, have left their significant footprints on the captivating journey of this journal. And no doubt, they will continue to do so.