EHJ October 2003 page 308

The visioning document from the Health Development Agency and CIEH, Environmental Health 2012: A key partner in delivering the public health agenda1, calls for an enhanced research effort to generate an evidence-base for policy, strategy and practice in environmental health. Publishing in professional and academic journals contributes to this essential resource. Dissemination of current research via peer-reviewed publications, which carry the credibility of a rigorous quality assurance mechanism, is an essential part of developing and maintaining the authority of a profession and validating the work of practitioners.

Key points to converting a dissertation

All doctoral programmes, as well as many masters and undergraduate courses, incorporate a research project from which a dissertation comprising from 15,000 to 80,000 words is generated. Within this document there often lies information of importance and interest to a much wider audience than those who will read it in dissertation format. However, converting a dissertation into a paper for publication is a challenging task. It must be done with care and, ideally, with the collaboration of an academic supervisor.
Selecting key concepts, issues and stages and then rewriting, rather than cutting and pasting dissertation text, is usually necessary. There is no need to try to incorporate a condensed version of every piece of information, only the most salient findings should be included. Table 1 provides a checklist of considerations.

Aims and scope of target journal

In terms of academic credibility and status, publication in peer reviewed journals is the preferred goal. Submitted manuscripts are evaluated first by the editor and, if considered appropriate, are subjected to “double blind” peer review. This requires that each manuscript is judged by two independent experts who have specific scholarly, scientific and/or professional credentials. The identities of the reviewers are not known to the author and the identitie(s) of the author(s) are not known to the reviewers – thus the “double blind” terminology. Table 2 list the steps in the submission of a manuscript to a peer reviewed journal.

It is important that you send your paper to the right journal, therefore you need to carefully read the aims and scope of a range of journals to find the best match. Most journals now have specific web sites or pages and much of the information you need to enable you to target the right journal, follow the journal style and submission procedures can be accessed online. You may decide that a large study needs to be reported in two or more papers, for example if you have looked at the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours/skills of unskilled operatives in the preparation of food, you may need to report the knowledge and attitudes in one paper and the behaviours/skills in another.

Instructions for authors

It is essential that you follow the instructions for authors in every respect. Scholarly articles follow a fairly standard format which commonly includes:

• a title;
• author(s);
• affiliations;
• an abstract;
• key words;
• introduction, including a literature review;
• methods;
• results;
• discussion;
• conclusion; and
• reference list.

Note that if you have not included an abstract, or key words, or have too may sub-headings or have not precisely followed the referencing protocol, the paper will be sent back to you, either rejected or requiring substantial alteration.

The title

The title is important. In professional and popular journals it may be decided by the editor, but in peer reviewed journals it is considered an important part of the author’s work. The title should be specific enough to describe the contents of the paper, but not so technical that only specialists will understand. The title usually describes the subject matter of the article, for example “An investigation of indoor air quality in homes heated by glass-fronted solid fuel fires”, or summarises the results of the study, for example “The indoor air quality in homes heated with glass-fronted solid fuel fires creates a significant risk to the health”.

Names and other details

Each person who made a significant contribution to the paper (or the research work on which it is based) is entitled to be listed as an author. This commonly includes the academic supervisor whose name may appear as a joint author. Some journals (eg BMJ) require an explicit description of the contribution of each named author. The names should be formatted exactly as instructed by the journal in question.

The abstract

The abstract has several purposes. It gives the reader an overview of the content of the paper and may determine whether it is read or not. Abstracts are commonly published separately in bibliographical sources, such as MEDLINE and Environmental Abstracts. These large databases allow readers to quickly search and scan the extensive literature-base and decide which articles they want to read in depth.
The abstract should summarise the purpose, methods, results and conclusions of the paper and is typically between 100 and 350 words. Two possible approaches are to:

• start by writing a summary which includes all that you think is important, and gradually edit it down to size by removing unnecessary words and phrases, while still retaining the necessary concepts; or
• start by writing a bullet-point list of all the essential elements of each section, decide how many words you can allocate to each point and then create the abstract accordingly.

Introduction

The introduction should be fairly concise, but its length will vary depending on the subject and the overall length of the paper. It should be well referenced in accordance with the protocol followed by the target journal. The introduction typically outlines the topic, explains to the reader why you were interested in the subject, summarises the relevant literature by means of a literature review and states how your work, which you are just about to describe, contributes to the subject.

The literature review should identify the key contributions of past researchers, and identify theories or patterns or schools of thought/key debates. You could end the introduction by suggesting that the current research is needed to answer some outstanding question and/or a concise paragraph which explains the aims of your paper.

Method

If you are reporting on a laboratory or field experiment you should include enough information here to allow other experts to repeat your experiment. If you followed a complicated protocol, it may be helpful to include a diagram, table or flowchart to explain the methods you used. It is always necessary to provide the reader with as much confidence as possible in the way you carried out your work by explaining how the methods selected are appropriate, together with adequate reference to documented and evaluated methods.

Results are not usually included here although it may be appropriate to include preliminary results that were used to design or refine your method, for example, the results from a pilot procedure. The method section is usually where you outline how analysis of results was undertaken and assures your readership of the validity and reliability measures taken (trustworthiness in qualitative research) and any relevant ethical considerations. For example, if you used human subjects, did they give their consent?

Results

You need to think carefully about how you will present the results within the constraints of a paper for publication. What would be suitable in a 20,000 word dissertation will almost certainly be beyond the scope of the average academic paper. Use tables and graphs if appropriate, but it is a good idea to also summarise your main findings in the text.

Many journals request a minimal use of tables and graphs or suggest a maximum number allowable. If you do use tables or graphs make sure that you include an explanatory title. If you can summarise the information in a sentence, then a table or graph is not necessary.

The results section is not the place to discuss the data - that comes in the formal discussion unless you have opted for a combined results/discussion section which may be appropriate in some papers. It is, however, the place to record data which may prove that you “failed” to prove your hypothesis (or “hunch” in qualitative work). Remember, recording and discussing the research which “did not work” is as important as recording that which did. If you have conducted your research rigorously, then results differing from what you expected are as interesting and valid to report. You could prevent the wastage of many person-hours and considerable sums of research funds by warning others of pitfalls and unsuccessful designs!

Discussion

In this part of the paper the findings are discussed in the light of various themes. The structure and content will vary depending on the type of work undertaken, but it would usually be appropriate to include:

• an analysis of the findings in relation to the main research question;
• a discussion of the relationship between the findings and the existing literature; and
• the significance of the findings to practice.

Here you can make full use of your earlier literature review and show how your results agree, disagree or add to the existing knowledge. It is not usual to introduce new literature into the discussion which has not previously been placed in context and had its inclusion justified. Once you have finished a first draft you should go back and read the title, aim, objectives and research questions and then read the draft again. Does your writing reflect what the title claims the paper is focusing on? Are the aims, objectives and research questions adequately addressed? If they are, then the discussion is appropriate to the paper.

Conclusion

The characteristics of a good conclusions section are simplicity, logic, ease of understanding and inclusiveness – not easy to achieve in a few words. Yet the conclusions and the abstract may be the only parts of the paper that some people read. It would be appropriate to include a brief summary of the paper’s main points including the clear answers that you have been able to come to as a result of your work. Do not be afraid to say if questions remain unanswered, as it may be appropriate to suggest some further research work to provide further answers. You may also wish to ask a provocative question and/or call for some sort of action.

References

Fundamentally, referencing is a way of indicating your sources in the body of your paper and of listing more details at the end. The purpose is to allow readers to easily see what sources you have used and to give sufficient information for them to conveniently locate the source. There are several referencing styles and it is essential that you follow the style used by your target journal.

The reference list or bibliography provides information on all the sources cited in the text and appears as a list at the end of the paper presented in alphabetical order of authors. The presentation is slightly different depending on where the source is to be found.

References

1. Health Development Agency (HDA) (2002) Environmental Health 2012: A key partner in delivering the public health agenda. Consultation document. London, HDA.
2. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). (2001). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (5th ed) (1999). New York: MLA.

Harold D Harvey, director of the Environmental Health Protection and Safety Centre, University of Ulster, and Paul Fleming, academic co-ordinator (public health), Multidisciplinary Public Health Division, University of Ulster are both editors of the Journal of Environmental Health Research. Contact by e-mail: hd.harvey@ulster.ac.uk or p.fleming@ulster.ac.uk

A list of selected peer reviewed journals relevant to environmental health can be obtained by contacting EHJ by e-mail: ehj@chgl.com

This is an abridged version of a paper first published in Environmental Health Scotland and the Journal of Environmental Health Research and has been edited and reproduced with kind permission of the authors.