See our process for creating your General Scholarly Activity.

The first, and sometimes most difficult, step in the research process is to develop a specific research question on a topic of interest to you and then refine it to the point where it can be answered.  We have provided two frameworks for creating your questions below.

PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) is an evidence-based process for framing and answering a research question.  The PICO process can help identify the important parts and key concepts of a well-built foreground clinical question and develop a research strategy to effectively answer the question.  PICO is one of the foundational concepts in Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and is the starting point for most scholarly activity that is not investigator-initiated research.

FINER (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical and Relevant) is another framework used to formulate and further define a research question.  This often is used with investigator-initiated or original research.  

Once you have created a clear and specific research question, it is critical to determine what is already known on the topic and where the gaps in knowledge are.  A methodical literature search will help identify what has previously been discovered and how they discovered it (research methods). Chapter 3 of The Recipe offers valuable information on how to perform a literature search.

A comprehensive literature review can 1) help refine your research question (through study conclusions and/or recommendations of future studies); 2) build your research plan and methods; and 3) create a list of journals that publish similar work (and are more likely to publish yours).  Keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), which represent your primary concepts, should be used to ensure that your literature search results are as specific as possible.

The Hardin Library for the Health Sciences offers several resources, including librarian support, to help with your literature review.  Additionally, a good place to begin is a video on PubMed Basics, which provides instructional tips on how to best search the database.

Several searching guides, both general guidelines and specific Google Scholar guidelines, can provide direction on how to best use keywords, key phrases, and specific or controlled vocabulary to refine your search.  There is an available guide to creating saved searches and automatic email alerts (video tutorial) based on your search criteria.

It is important to determine the validity of your resources.  Validity is one of the many ways to rate the evidence that you are reviewing, and determining validity is part of the process known as critical appraisal.  With validity, you are examining how trustworthy the resource is. Once you determine how trustworthy it is, you also should be asking “Does this matter to me? Does this matter to my patients? Does this change my practice?”. The more valid or higher the evidence level of a project or resource, the more likely it is to provide a good answer for you and your patients, while also increasing your chances of publication.

Strength of evidence includes discussion of sources and their designation.  Primary source articles include double-blind, randomized controlled trials. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also considered primary source materials and are at the top of the evidence hierarchy, also known as the levels of evidence pyramid.  The American Family Physician (AFP), the flagship journal for the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the most widely-read primary care journal in the world, offers an EBM toolkit with resources including articles, validity checklists and website recommendations.

Many journals, such as American Family Physician, use rating systems to grade the evidence or strength of articles and reviews found during a literature search, such as the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) or the Duke FRISBE Validity Guide Duke FRISBE Validity Guide  for evidence-based resources. Another common reporting/rating system for the strength of evidence is GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). GRADE is used by the Cochrane Library, the premier source for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Some additional resources for assessing study bias and quality are described here.

The sheer volume of resources, articles, websites and information available is overwhelming when you initiate a literature search.  Having a system to your literature search is not only good practice, but critical to successfully analyzing and categorizing your sources. A good starting place is with a valid search tool.  

The list below contains the more commonly used general literature databases.  In some cases, specialty-area specific databases may also be useful.  As some databases may require a subscription to access full content, check with your institution or department to determine if a subscription is already licensed.

To search utilizing the PICO concept, consider using PubMed4HH (Pubmed for Handhelds) as a starting point.  This is both a website and an app available for your phone. App available on Google play store only (PubMed4HH).  Cochrane and TRIP also have PICO search options.

Certain common styles are widely used for citing sources in medical research.  Individual journals usually require specific formatting for citations; therefore, please check the Author Instructions on the individual journal site for specific guidance.  One of the most common citation sources is PubMed through the National Library of Medicine (NLM).

Citation Examples:
American Medical Association (AMA) format:
Author(s). Article Title. Abbreviated NLM Journal title. Year; Vol(Issue):pp-pp.

Example: Shaughnessy A.  Keeping Up with the Medical Literature: How to Set Up a System. Am Fam Physician. 2009;79(1):25-26.

American Psychological Association (APA) format:
Author, A. (Publication Year). Article title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp-pp.

Example: Shaughnessy A. (2009). Keeping Up with the Medical Literature: How to Set Up a System. Am Fam Physician, 79(1), 25-26.

Guidelines on Style for Scientific Writing discusses scientific writing in the APA style.

Citation managers, such as Endnote (available for free through the UI libraries), which help you organize and cite your research and create bibliographies as you write, may be very helpful.  There are many choices, including free, on-line versions such as Zotero. Some additional information and description of citation managers can be found here.

There are a variety of ways that we support presenting your final product. Pick from the list below.

Poster presentations provide an opportunity to present finished or ongoing work, and can be presented at numerous conferences, thus increasing the exposure of your work and the potential for feedback and networking.  A poster can also be used to present work from other final products, such as Case Reports and Photo Quizzes. Thus, learning how to create a successful poster and improving your presentation skills can be invaluable assets.  The resources below, including Chapter 6 of The Recipe are intended to help you in this endeavor. The UI Design Center also offers some great tips on creating effective posters.

A poster (or paper) abstract is a critical first step in creating a successful poster.  The abstract is both an outline and a summary of your poster and is primarily what will draw viewer interest in your presentation.  An abstract is also often required when submitting your paper for publication or presentation.

The IMRaD format for abstracts is the most commonly used format for scientific and research publications. IMRaD structures the abstract into four sections: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. Several resources, provided below, can help you in creating a well-written abstract.

A Case Report is a brief clinical report that accomplishes one of two objectives.  The first potential objective is the “Grand Rounds-style” case report, which focuses on an unusual or novel occurrence of symptoms, signs, diagnosis and/or therapies. Think of that “crazy case” that was presented at your last Grand Rounds discussion. The second potential objective of a case report uses a clinical case as a “vehicle” to educate, hypothesize or innovate.  Think of someone who wants to propose a new research study, areas for quality or process improvement or patient safety innovations.

Chapter 4 of The Recipe offers some guidance on how to write a Case Report.  Provided below are some useful resources and articles on writing a case report:

Clinical Review articles (or updates) are evidence-based articles that broadly discuss a topic by examining the medical literature, reviewing the relevant information and providing a comprehensive overview of what is known on the topic.  The authors are tasked with reviewing the available evidence (literature search and critical appraisal of the literature) and then synthesizing and interpreting that research into a coherent summary.  Clinical reviews are considered secondary sources and are extremely useful for background information and often for point-of-care medical decision-making.  Examples include the main articles in American Family Physician and every article on UptoDate®.

Book Chapters are generally requested by editors from experienced authors who have made significant contributions to the literature on specific topics.However, you may have the opportunity to collaborate with a colleague who has been invited to submit a book chapter.As an example, Essential Evidence Plus solicits book chapter authors on its webpage.Book chapters are versions of clinical reviews, usually in a very specified format.

A photo quiz is a case-based educational tool which presents the audience with a clinical challenge based on a photograph and brief clinical scenario.Photo quizzes can also be easily translated into a poster for presentation at a conference.The American Family Physician journal offers examples in their AFP Photo Quiz department. A useful guide on creating a photo quiz can be found in Chapter 5 of The Recipe.

This is a specific department of American Family Physician, where 1-2 clinicians interpret a larger Cochrane Review (see the Cochrane Library) to be able to answer a foreground clinical question (PICO format) pertinent to patient care.Cochrane reviews can be 50+ pages long and are (usually) not useful at the point-of-care. Cochrane for Clinicians attempts to provide a brief answer to a clinical question from within the larger Cochrane Review.

HelpDesk Answers from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network (FPIN) are concise, structured and evidence-based answers to common clinical questions that are published in a Family Medicine journal.  These short research articles generally take three to five current citations in the medical literature and provide a brief review of the evidence.

As a physician, you may be asked to write a layperson article as part of your interactions with the community.  They can appear in local papers, newsletters, blogs, etc. A layperson medical article is intended to educate patients, family members and the media by providing evidence-based, accurate information about medical conditions or questions in an easily understandable and readable format. Additionally, many grant applications require a layperson summary, particularly when patients or patient advocates sit on the review panels.

Any information presented in layperson language needs to be presented with a readability at the 6th-8th grade reading level for general audiences.  The readability level can be evaluated using online readability check tools.  The UI Human Subjects Office offers a guide for medical terminology in lay language, which may be useful when trying to translate medical jargon to an appropriate readability level. A guide for writing a layperson medical article and an example can be found in Chapter 8 of The Recipe.

A Letter to the Editor is a way to communicate an opinion or insight, offer corrections or alternative ideas, and/or request clarification with the editor and the general medical community or original author of an article in a timely manner.
Letters should be brief, focused on conveying the desired message or question, and referenced (meaning you cite resources reviewed). Chapter 7 of The Recipe offers a guide to writing a Letter to the Editor.

The final product may be influenced by the journal you select, or you may have a nearly finished final product that you want to find a journal for publication. Regardless, it is important to carefully choose an appropriate journal for publication by considering both the scope and the reputation of the journal. 

To maximize your publication success, ensure that your paper fits within the scope of the journal.  This can be easily accomplished by browsing the journal’s previously published content for relevance to your topic.  Additionally, refer to the journal’s website for information about the journal’s Aims and Scope.  This section will provide information about the journal’s target audience. After reading this section, ask yourself these questions:

  • Who reads this journal?
  • Will they be interested in my findings?
  • Do I explain anything that this audience would already know? Ideally you would bring something new to the audience.

Importantly, pay careful attention to the journal’s instructions for authors and any services or tools they offer authors. One of the biggest pitfalls in submissions is NOT following the directions given by the journal.

While submitting a paper to more than one journal simultaneously is considered a breach of publishing ethics, you may submit your paper to a different journal if it is rejected from your first journal choice.  Often, the critiques you receive during the process can help inform and improve your next submission.

Several publication tools can help you identify appropriate journals for your submission.  Beware of predatory or pseudo-journals.  Emails soliciting articles for an apparent scholarly publication or journal may be a phishing attempt or a predatory journal that will accept exorbitantly high fees to “accept and publish” your work. Always verify a journal, and when in doubt, do not click on a link in an email.

A list of common Primary Care journals to consider:

  • American Family Physician: Aims to provide original high-quality continuing medical education for family physicians. Submission Categories: Clinical Review, Curbside Consultation, Letter to the Editor, Photo Quiz, Editorials, and Diary of a Family Physician. They are also soliciting clinical review articles, and articles from multiple other AFP departments, including those mentioned above.
  • Journal of Family Practice: Aims to provide timely, practical, and evidence-based information to practicing family physicians and primary care clinicians.  Submission Categories: Applied Evidence, Original Research, Case Report, Behavioral Health Consult, Letters, and Photo Rounds.
  • Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: Aims to promote the understanding and advancement of family medicine research and clinical practice. Submission Categories: Original Research, Clinical Reviews, Evidence-based Clinical Medicine, Clinical Guidelines and Primary Care, Ethics Features, Family Medicine and the Health Care System, Health Policy, Reflections on Family Medicine, Special Communications, Brief Reports, Family Medicine World Perspective, Research Letters, Commentaries, Editorials, and Letter to the Editor.
  • Annals of Family Medicine: Aims to advance knowledge critical to improving health and primary care and to support a learning community for those who generate and use information about health and generalist health care. Submission Categories: Original Research, Methodology, Theory, Systematic Reviews, Research Briefs, Special Reports, Essays, Innovations in Primary Care.
  • Family Medicine: As the official journal of STFM, this journal focuses on primary care medical education and content relevant to family medicine.  Submission Categories: Original Articles, Brief Reports, Narrative Essays, Letter to the Editor, and Book and Media Reviews.
  • Academic Medicine: Official journal of the AAMC that focuses on major challenges facing the academic medical community. Submission Categories: Articles, Scholarly Perspectives, Invited Commentaries, Research Reports, Innovation Reports, Literature Reviews and Special Features.
  • PRiMER: Another STFM journal that aims to publish original research briefs in family and primary care medical education, learner research, and health workforce policy.  Submission Categories: Research Briefs, Learner Research, Letters to the Editor, and Special Articles.
  • Family Physicians Inquiries Network: Membership organization offering scholarship, education and profession development opportunities for students, residents, and fellows in primary care, including specific writing opportunities.  Submission Categories: such as Good Evidence Matters (GEMs), HelpDesk Answers (HDAs), Clinical Inquiries (CIs) and Priority Updates from the Research Literature (PURLs) (individual or institutional membership required).

Authorship is essentially a public acknowledgment of the scientific or professional contributions to a piece of work.  Why does this matter?  Not only does authorship credit intellectual contributions but setting the authorship order at the beginning of the project sets the expectations and accountability of the different contributors.  Although there are general guidelines for determining authorship and author order, many journals also have implemented their own criteria, so it is important to check those as well.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends authorship determination based on meeting four criteria, which can be considered best practice: 1) substantial contributions in idea conceptualization and design, acquisition, analysis and interpretation; 2) writing or revising for intellectual content; 3) approval of the final work; and 4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.  An individual that meets any one of the criteria should be given an opportunity to meet the others, thus qualifying them as an author. The American Educational Research Association (AERA) Code of Professional Ethics provides additional guidance. Generally, it is considered best practice to determine the order of authorship prior to the work commencing to avoid confusion, conflict, and to hold each contributor accountable.  However, as research can often change or shift directions, an ongoing discussion about authorship can be invaluable.

Contributors that do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged, rather than designated as authors. For example, funders, administrative support, organizations and other contributions should be acknowledged in their own section. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has some additional resources and tools for authorship and contributorship.