Writing for Publication

  • William C. McGaghieEmail author


This chapter addresses writing for publication from eight perspectives: (a) motivation to write, (b) types of publications, (c) International Committee on Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, (d) study design and reporting conventions, (e) peer review, (f) words of wisdom, and (g) the craft of writing. Writing for professional publication is hard work that can improve with practice and feedback. Newcomers to professional writing are encouraged to seek advice from experienced colleagues and from many other published resources. The future of healthcare simulation research will depend, in part, on scholars and writers who advance this craft.


Craft of writing ICMJE recommendations Motivation to write Peer review Study design and reporting conventions Types of publications 


  1. 1.
    McGaghie WC. Scholarship, publication, and career advancement in health professions education. AMEE Guide No. 43. Med Teach. 2009;31(7):574–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tekian A, Harris I. Preparing health professions leaders worldwide: a description of masters-level programs. Med Teach. 2012;34(1):52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strunk W, White EB. The elements of style. 4th ed. New York: Longman; 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh AA, Lukkarila L. Successful academic writing: a complete guide for social and behavioral scientists. New York: Guilford Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2018.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McGaghie WC. Varieties of integrative scholarship: why rules of evidence, criteria, and standards matter. Acad Med. 2015;90(3):294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available at:
  8. 8.
    Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Promoting integrity in research publication. Available at: Accessed 2019
  9. 9.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Appelbaum M, Cooper H, Kline RB, Mayo-Wilson E, Nezv AM, Rao SM. Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: the APA publications and communications board task force report. Am Psychol. 2018;73(1):3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, et al. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND Statement. Am J Pub Health. 2004;94(3):361–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng A, Kessler D, Mackinnon R, et al. Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. Simul Healthc. 2016;11:238–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen ER, McGaghie WC, Wayne DB, et al. Recommendations for reporting mastery education research in medicine (ReMERM). Acad Med. 2015;90(11):1509–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89:1245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levitt HM, Bamberg M, Creswell JW, Frost DM, Josselson R, Suárez-Orozco C. Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: the APA publications and communications board task force report. Am Psychol. 2018;73(1):26–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. RAMSES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van de Wijngaert L, Bouwman H, Contractor N. A network approach toward literature review. Qual Quant. 2014;48:623–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:w1–w12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ogrinc G, Mooney SE, Estrada C, et al. The SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17(Suppl. 1):i13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    EQUATOR Network. Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research. Available at: Accessed 2019.
  25. 25.
    Cicchetti DV. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Beh Brain Sci. 1991;14:119–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharts-Hopko NC. How does a peer review scholarship? J Assn Nurses Aids Care. 2001;12(6):91–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hancock GR. In: Mueller RO, editor. The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. New York: Routledge; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Durning SJ. In: Carline JD, editor. Review criteria for research manuscripts. 2nd ed. Washington DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2015.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. 2001;76(9):889–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G. Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2007;41:737–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meyer HS, Durning SJ, Sklar D, Maggio LA. Making the first cut: an analysis of Academic Medicine editors’ reasons for not sending manuscripts out for external peer review. Acad Med. 2018;93(3):464–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sternberg RJ. How to win acceptances by psychology journals: 21 tips for better writing. Pan-Pacific Mgmt Rev. 2008;11(1):51–9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kellogg RT. Professional writing expertise. In: Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR, editors. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Belcher WL. Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: a guide to academic publishing success. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2009.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rocco TS, Hatcher T, editors. The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Medical Education and Northwestern SimulationNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations