Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Grant and Manuscript Writing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Essentials of Clinical Research

  • 4669 Accesses

Abstract

Perhaps nothing is more important to a new investigator than how to properly prepare a grant to request funding for clinical research or how to write a manuscript for publication. In this chapter we will review the basic elements for successful grant and manuscript writing, discuss advantages and disadvantages of K versus R applications for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, illustrate the “fundamentals” for each section for a standard NIH R-series application, and describe the key components necessary to transition to a successful NIH research career.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. van Ekelenburg H. The art of writing good research proposals. Sci Prog. 2010;93:429–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fosbol EL. Major medical (Meetings). CardioSource WorldNews. 2012;47.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Winnik S, Raptis DA, Walker JH, Hasun M, Speer T, Clavien PA, et al. From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting publication and citation. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:3034–45. PMC3530902.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA. 2003;290:495–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Brezden-Masley C, Dent R, Tannock IF. Quality of abstracts describing randomized trials in the proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings: guidelines for improved reporting. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1993–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Want to be taken seriously? Become a better writer. In MSN. www.msn.com. Accessed 25 Feb 2013.

  7. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000251.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Quoteland.com. http://www.netrax.net/~rarebook/s971030.htm. Accessed 12 Feb 2013.

  9. Welch HG. Preparing manuscripts for submission to medical journals: the paper trail. Eff Clin Pract. 1999;2:131–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Altman DG. Comparability of randomised groups. Statistician. 1985;34:125–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Branson RD. Anatomy of a research paper. Respir Care. 2004;49:1222–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grammarly: the world’s best grammar checker. http://grammerly.com. Accessed 12 Feb 2013.

  13. Accad M. Statistics and the rise of medical fortunetellers. Tex Heart Inst J. 2009;36:508–9. PMC2801944.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e296. PMC2020495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. PMC2707010.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, Moher D, Gagnon F, Von Elm E, et al. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e22. PMC2634792.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, Deangelis CD. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. Br Med J. 2011;343:d6128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mowatt G, Shirran L, Grimshaw JM, Rennie D, Flanagin A, Yank V, et al. Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA. 2002;287:2769–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenland P, Fontanarosa PB. Ending honorary authorship. Science. 2012;337:1019. doi:10.1126/science.1224988.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilhite AW, Fong EA. Scientific publications. Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science. 2012;335:542–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1212540.

  22. Franck G. Essays on science and society. Scientific communication – a vanity fair? Science. 1999;286:53–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hirsch LJ. Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications: the tort bar and editorial oversight of medical journals. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84:811–21.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Booth CM, Cescon DW, Wang L, Tannock IF, Krzyzanowska MK. Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5458–64. PMC2651075.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rose SL, Krzyzanowska MK, Joffe S. Relationships between authorship contributions and authors’ industry financial ties among oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1316–21. PMC3040064.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chalmers TC, Smith Jr H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981;2:31–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaiser KA, Cofield SS, Fontaine KR, et al. Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals? Int J Obes. 2012;36:977–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Commercial sponsorship and the Cochrane Collaboration: the Cochrane Collaboration policy on commercial sponsorship. Revised April 2006. Accessed at www.cochraneorganization/docs/commercial/sponsorship

  29. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. Br Med J. 2007;335:1202–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Califf RM. Conflicting information about conflict of interest. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1137–43. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.12.030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Blum JA, Freeman K, Dart RC, Cooper RJ. Requirements and definitions in conflict of interest policies of medical journals. JAMA. 2009;302:2230–4. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1669.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rochon PA, Hoey J, Chan A-W, Ferris LE, Lexchin J, Kalkar SR, et al. Financial Conflicts of Interest checklist 2010 for clinical research studies. Open Med. 2010;4:e69–91. PMC3116675.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Weber M. Conflict of interest: an outdated phrase for physician-industry relationships. Orthopedics Today. 2010. Accessed at: http://www.healio.com/orthopedics/business-of-orthopedics/news/print/orthopedics-today/%7Bd5f9514f-4796-47ce-a8c6-a02ef9b87a5f%7D/conflict-of-interest-an-outdated-phrase-for-physician-industry-relationships

  34. Open Access Overview. Retrieved on November 11, 2012. Accessed at http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_planta/what_is_open_accessan_overview_2004_162.pdf

  35. No-fee open-access journals. 2006. Accessed at http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4552050/suber_nofee.htm?sequence=1

  36. Scholarly Open Access: critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Accessed 2013, at www.scholarlyoa.com

  37. Nissan S. Predatory Publishers; Authors Beware. CardioSource WorldNews. 2013;42.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Donna K. Arnett Ph.D., MPH

  2. Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1717 11th Ave S MT638, Birmingham, AL, 35205, USA

    Stephen P. Glasser M.D.

Authors
  1. Donna K. Arnett Ph.D., MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen P. Glasser M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen P. Glasser M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

    Stephen P. Glasser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Arnett, D.K., Glasser, S.P. (2014). Grant and Manuscript Writing. In: Glasser, S. (eds) Essentials of Clinical Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05470-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05470-4_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05469-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05470-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation