Back
Many physicians and scientists encounter significant hurdles in creating manuscripts for clinical research that adhere to journal standards. Translating their work into written form presents multiple challenges, such as language use, adherence to standardized formats, and referencing. Physicians are expected to write journal articles scientifically. No formal training in scientific writing is provided to them. On behalf of WIN (women in nephrology) India, we aimed to study the challenges and limitations faced by the Indian nephrology community in scientific paper writing.
A descriptive qualitative research design was conducted by members of Women in Nephrology -India. A questionnaire-based survey was circulated online within the nephrology community across India. After obtaining informed consent, responses were discreetly recorded.
A total of 140 Indian nephrologists responded to the questionnaire. Men comprised 54.3% and 45.7% were women. The majority (59.3%) were in the corporate sector and private practice, followed by medical colleges (40%) and only 0.7% in research. The majority worked in the metropolitan cities (65%) followed by 19.3 % in smart cities and 13.6% in towns and villages. About 92% of them had more than 5 years of clinical practice. About 48.6% of them did not publish their thesis. Around 53% found case reports easy to write, followed by retrospective observational studies (17%). Case-control (2.1%) studies and randomized control trials (4.3%) were the least preferred. The majority of nephrologists (68.6%) had fewer than 5 podium presentations during their clinical practice. A striking majority (71.4%) did not publish their podium/poster presentations. About 40 % required an average number of 2-5 revisions before final publication. About 40% faced an average of less than 2 rejections before a paper got accepted.
SL.No
Characteristics
Participants (N=140)
1.
Age ( years)
36.6 ± 8.8
2.
Gender
Males
Females
76 (54.3%)
64 (45.7%)
3.
Predominant current area of practice
Medical college 56(40%)
Corporate 60 (42.9%)
Private practice 23 (16.4%)
Research 1 (0.7%)
4.
Place of practice
Metropolitan city 91 (65%)
Smart city 27 (19.3%)
Town 19(13.6%)
Village 3 (2.1%)
5.
Number of years of clinical practice
13 .08± 9.29 years
6.
Did you publish your thesis ?
Yes 63 (45%)
No 68 (48.6%)
Not applicable 9 (6.4%)
7.
Ease of writing
Case reports 74 (52.9%)
Case series 15 (10.7%)
Retrospective observational 24 (17.1%)
Case control studies 3 (2.1%)
Cohort -prospective observational study 18 (12.9%)
Randomized controlled trials 6 (4.3%)
8.
Average number of podium/poster presentations during clinical practice
Less than 2 43 (30.7%)
Between 2-5 53 (37.9%)
More than 5 44 (31.4%)
9.
Average number of Podium/poster presentations which got converted into paper publications
Less than 2 100 (71.4%)
Between 2-5 21(15%)
More than 5 19 (13.6%)
10.
Average number of rejections faced before acceptance of paper
Less than 2 56 (40%)
Between 2-5 45 (32.1%)
More than 5 2(1.4%)
Not applicable 37 (26.4%)
11.
Average number of revisions before a paper was accepted
Less than 2 48 (34.3%)
Between 2-5 56 (40%)
More than 5 1 (0.7 %)
Not applicable 35 (25%)
The following were cited as challenges while paper writing: difficulty in formulation of hypothesis (42%), limited access to research articles due to paid access (64%), faulty methodology (43%), funding (67%), attrition /dropouts (52%), burnout (60%), time constraints (81%), lack of knowledge on statistical analysis(89%) and access to research analysis software,difficulty in formatting and proofreading, lack of guidance, difficulty in staying motivated(42%) and absence of research partner(52%).
Contrarily, performing a literature review, writing in English, and creating the introduction and discussion sections were thought to be less difficult.
The key limitations were the inability to pay APC, the necessity for revisions, failure to keep up with AI advances, and concerns that the work might not garner enough citations or have a real world impact.
The majority of the nephrologists in this study had more than 5 years of clinical practice, and worked in corporate or private setups in metropolitan and smart cities. The majority had not published their thesis, and podium/poster presentations at scientific conferences were not converted to scientific papers. Lack of sustained motivation, research partner, supervising mentor, high cost of APCs, burnout from regular clinical work and lack of knowledge on research methodology and statistics were major challenges. Implementing a scientific learning course on research methodology and paper writing in the MBBS curriculum and lowering the APCs may help surpass these hurdles.This will also result in better research publications and boost the credibility of researchers.