This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: EDITORIAL Writing for Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Richard A. Brand MD Ó The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2008 Because of the growing need for publication space, Clini- cal Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR) was established in 1953 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons [ 13 ] to provide an alternative source of publica- tion to the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (then the only American orthopaedic journal [ 8 ]). CORR always has striven to provide readers with high-quality peer-reviewed articles in the form of original research and survey mate- rial. High quality depends on characteristics of the work and on the reporting. While there is no lack of excellent material on medical reporting and writing [ 7 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 17 , 31 ], this article (and its predecessor on which this is based [ 6 ]) is directed to CORR contributors. Toward that end, I shall provide updated guidelines to our authors for an approach to effective reporting. Standards of reporting, no less than standards of scientific conduct (ethics) and standards of acceptable scientific methods, change. Although ethics has always played a crit- ical part in science and scientific reporting, recent societal and regulatory expectations impose certain new require- ments, while scientific advances require others. These changes have stimulated considerable discussion [ 1 , 2 , 9 , 14 , 22 – 26 ] and CORR contributors are specifically directed to the publications of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [ 16 ] and The Committee on Publication Ethics for general guidelines [ 1 , 2 ]. CORR adheres to these evolving guidelines, particularly regarding ethical issues. Scientific advances in recent years include use of contem- porary outcome measures, more sophisticated statistical approaches, and increasing use and reporting of well-for- mulated research plans (particularly in clinical research such as the CONSORT guidelines [ 18 ]). Although I shall not detail these changing standards of reporting in my review, I shall explicitly note several issues. Scientific writing, no less than any other form of writing, reflects a demanding creative process, not merely an act: the process of writing changes thought. The quality of a report, however, depends on the quality of thought in the study design and the rigor of conduct of the research. Well-posed questions or hypotheses intimately and inexorably interre- late with study design and analysis. Well-posed hypotheses or questions imply a study design and a study design implies hypotheses or questions. The effectiveness of a report relates to focus and brevity. Attention to a few points will allow authors to focus on critical issues. Brevity is achieved in part by avoiding repetition (with a few exceptions to be noted), clear style [ 17 ], and proper grammar [ 27 , 31 ]. Few original scientific articles need be longer than 3000 words. Longer articles (eg, 4000–5000 words) may be warranted if substantially novel methods are...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 07/30/2011 for the course ME 492 taught by Professor Hojinahn during the Spring '11 term at Yeditepe Üniversitesi.
- Spring '11