Tagged / academic writing

Seventh edition of Social Work textbook

BU research, Featured academics, Publishing, writing

Congratulations to Bournemouth University’s  Emeritus Professor Jonathan Parker who has just published the 7th edition of his best-selling Social Work Practice. This latest edition of Social Work Practice comes with updated content and case studies.  First published in 2004, this textbook has guided social work students through the processes of working with people, groups and communities looking at the politics of assessment, planning, intervention and review and negotiating a value-based approach to practice that acknowledged the centrality of relationships and respect for the people with whom social workers practice.
Well done!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

New publication Dr. Pramod Regmi

BU research, Featured academics, international, open access, Research communication, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Pramod Regmi on the publication of his latest Open Access paper ‘Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life of Stroke Survivors in Southeast Communities in Nigeria’ [1].  Dr. Regmi is based in the Centre for  for Wellbeing & Long-Term Health.   The paper’s co-authors include Dr. Folashade Alloh, who completed her PhD studies at Bournemouth University a few years ago.

Well done!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

 

Reference:

  1. Adigwe GA, Alloh F, Smith P, Tribe R, Regmi P. Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life of Stroke Survivors in Southeast Communities in Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(9):1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21091116

New midwifery publication

BU research, nhs, NHS, PG research, Publishing, Research communication, Research news, writing

Congratulations to Ph.D. student Joanne Rack on the publication today of her paper ‘Understanding perceptions and communication of risk in advanced maternal age: a scoping review (protocol) on women’s engagement with health care services’  [1].   Joanne doing a Clinical Doctorate in the Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH) focusing on personalised care for women of advanced maternal age.  Her doctoral study is matched-funded by University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust and Bournemouth University [BU].  Her PhD is supervised and supported by Profs. Vanora Hundley, Ann Luce and Edwin van Teijlingen at BU and Dr. Latha Vinayakarao in Poole Maternity Hospital.

Well done!

 

Reference:

  1. Rack, J., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E., Luce, A., Vinayakarao. L. (2024) Understanding perceptions and communication of risk in advanced maternal age: a scoping review (protocol) on women’s engagement with health care services, MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, 34(3): 201-204.

4th Int Conf on Medical & Health Sciences 2024

Uncategorized

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH) has been invited to give a key note address at the 4th International Conference on Medical & Health Sciences 2024 in Mauritius next month.  Edwin will be highlighting the difficulties of conducting interdisciplinary research, based on recent CMWH publications [1-2].  At the conference Edwin will also join two Bournemouth University Visiting Faculty members in running a workshop on academic publishing, his co-presenters are Ms. Jillian Ireland, Professional Midwifery Advocate at UHD (University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust), and Prof. Padam Simkhada (University of Huddersfield).

 

In addition, Edwin has also been invited at this upcoming conference be act as a panelist to analyse the current research strengths of SSR (Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam) Medical College, Mauritius. Interestingly, the panel activity will take place over two days: a 15-minute SWOT analysis on September 16, followed by a 45-minute panel discussion on September 17.

References:

  1. Shanker, S., Wasti, S.P., Ireland, J., Regmi, P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) The Interdisciplinary Team Not the Interdisciplinarist: Reflections on Interdisciplinary Research, Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences 3(2): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.46405/ejms.v3i2.317 
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P., Adhikary, P., Aryal, N., Simkhada, P. (2019). Interdisciplinary Research in Public Health: Not quite straightforward. Health Prospect, 18(1), 4-7. https://doi.org/10.3126/hprospect.v18i1.19337
  3. van Teijlingen E. (2008) RAE pulls academics away from applied multidisciplinary health promotion research International Journal of Health Promotion & Education 46: 116.

 

Request for your paper: A historical perspective

international, open access, Publishing, REF Subjects, Uncategorized

Any publishing academic will irregularly receive emails for copies of their papers, usually for papers which researchers or students can’t access through their own institution.  Different universities have different expensive deals with publishers, and especially for universities in low-income countries this can be very limiting.  Apart from requests for papers I also receive email requests for book chapter which are part of commercial textbooks, or people asking for a PDF, i.e. a free electronic copy, of the whole textbook.  Recently I have also had a couple of requests for papers which are already freely available as Open Access publications.  I assume the latter are simply requests from lazy students, who searched a bibliographic data base found several (many?) relevant papers.  Without too much thinking they send quick automated email through ResearchGate, which is less work that searching for each actual Open Access paper online.

It did not always use to be that easy to approach an academic for a copy of their scientific paper.  When I started as a PhD student, before the widespread use of the internet, if your university library did not have a subscription to the journal you were looking for, you would write a short letter to an academic author, post the letter, and if your were lucky, receive a printed copy of the requested paper in the post a few weeks later. The more established academics would have pre-printed postcards to speed up the process of requesting an academic paper.  The photo of the 1959 (for the record this was before I was born!) shows one of such cards from a doctor based in the Netherlands.  The effort involved meant you asked only for papers you were pretty sure where central to your research, you would not do the equivalent of sending out 40 emails, hoping to get PDFs of six or seven papers relevant to your essay topic.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH

RKEDF: Writing Academy 18th/19th/20th June 2024

BU research, Events, RKE development framework, Training, writing

Day 1 – Writing for Publication Workshop – 18 June 2024, 10am-4pm

This workshop covers a range of strategies: targeting a journal, writing to prompts, types of prompt for academic writing, ‘snack’ writing, goal-setting for writing, freewriting, generative writing, analysing academic writing in your field, criteria, writing an abstract, using prompts in series, outlining, dealing with reviewers’ feedback, writing groups, micro-groups and retreats. Many of these can be used to prepare for a concentrated spell of writing at a writing retreat – which follows tomorrow. This is a practical workshop. The aim of the writing activities in this workshop is to let you try these strategies and consider how/if/where/when they could fit into your writing practice. You can use these to write for your article during the workshop, and you have a day’s writing to develop it tomorrow.

Day 2 – Writing Retreat – 19 June, 9am-4pm

Aims – To provide dedicated writing time and develop productive writing practices.

Format

This structured retreat uses the ‘typing pool’ model. We all write at the same time, for fixed time slots, using goal-setting and peer and self-monitoring for our individual writing projects. Because we all write together, we can discuss our goals at the start and end of the day (10-15 minutes). Almost all the retreat time is writing time, with regular breaks.

Learning objectives

1. Understand the Structured Writing Retreat model.

2. Structure a writing day.

3. Maintain well-being during intensive periods of writing.

Day 3 – Free Writing Day

An in-person writing day. Lunch will be provided.

 

Book your place here under ‘Writing Academy’ – 18/06/2024 to 20/06/2024’ in the drop-down menu.

For any queries regarding this workshop, please contact RKE Development Framework

 

Proofreading your article accepted for publication

BU research, Featured academics, international, open access, Publishing, Research news, Research Training, Uncategorized, writing

It is always a pleasure to see your own paper in print.  If all is properly organised at the publisher, the first time you see you paper as it will look in its final version when you receive the proof copy.  It is the authors’ task to proofread this final copy and pick up any mistakes you may have made or the journal has made putting your word file into the journal’s layout.  More and more journals now ask you to do the proofreading and editing online.  The first message here is that proofreading is exact business and most certainly time consuming.  Moreover, feeding back mistakes you may find in the proofs is not without its trials and tribulations.

Yesterday we received the proofs for a paper accepted by BMC Health Research Policy & Systems [1]. The BMC is part of the publisher Springer , and it uses an online proof system eProofing to which the authors get temporary access, to read and correct text.  This system looks good online, but beware the online version you get to edit does not look the same as the version that will appear in print.  The draft print version generated by eProofing has line numbers which don’t appear online when you are editing the proofs.  So we had to write on the online system separately that we found a set of quotes glued together, as the system does not allow authors to change the lay-out (for obvious reasons). In this case,  we had to write details like: “There needs to be a space after first quote line 421.”  What might look okay in the eProofing version didn’t do so  in the print version, where it was it is wrong.  This is illustrated in the example picture below.

 

Last month we battled with the proofs of another BU paper forthcoming in the journal Women and Birth [2], which is part of Elsevier.  Again, it has an online system for proofs.  This system does not allow the authors to correct mistakes in in the line spacing.  So we ended up writing to journal manager, not the editor, things like: “There is a very big gap between the end of section 3.7. and Overview of findings section – please could the text be rearranged to get rid of this big gap.”  We also asked for a summary section to be kept on one page, not having an orphan two words on the next page, but that appeared to be too difficult a request.  We think we a little flexibility, i.e. a human intervention the lay-out could have been improved.  See illustration below with text as it appears in the current online-first version.

We like to stress our advice to set plenty of time aside to read and edit the proofs, and to send details instructions to the journal manager or editor about what needs changing.  Changes include typos, grammar and style, but also lay-out of text and illustrations, boxes in the text, tables and figures.  “It is also important to check tables and figures during the proof-reading as the formatting can often go astray during the typesetting process” as we highlighted by Sheppard and colleagues [3].  Also double check correct spelling of names of co-authors and the final author order in the proofs.  Many years ago, I received the proof of pages of a midwifery article [4].

I dutifully read and edited  the proof of the actual text, but I never check the short introduction with the authors’ names which an editor had added to the final proofs.  When the paper came out in print to transpired that this editor has changed the author order, i.e. my name was first, probably because I had submitted the paper on behalf of my co-author.  This cause some problems with my co-author, made all the worse since I am married to her.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

References:

  1. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Rushton, S., Subedi, M., Simkhada, P., Balen, J., Nepal Federalisation of Health Team (2023)  Overcoming the challenges facing Nepal’s health system during federalisation: an analysis of health system building blocks. Journal of the Health Research Policy & Systems. (forthcoming).
  2. Arnold, R., Way, S., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2023) “I might have cried in the changing room, but I still went to work”. Maternity staff managing roles, responsibilities, and emotions of work and home during COVID-19: an Appreciative Inquiry, Women & Birth (online first) 
  3. Sheppard, Z., Hundley, V., Dahal, N.P., Paudyal, P. (2022) Writing a quantitative paper, In: Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V. with Shreesh, K. (eds.) Writing and Publishing Academic Work, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books, pp.78-87.
  4. van Teijlingen E., Ireland, J.C. (2014) Community midwives on the go. Midwives 1: 54-55.

Peer review picking up weaknesses in a scientific paper

international, Publishing, writing

Peer review is the the key pillar of academic publishing.  Peer reviewers will read the submitted paper and assess its knowledge contribution, the appropriateness of the research question, the ethical considerations, the quality of the research methods used and the appropriateness of the discussion, conclusion, and recommendations in the manuscript. [1]  It is worth bearing in mind that most peer reviewers are unpaid volunteers, academics like us who review for journals over and above the day job.[2]  For the authors peer reviewers can give excellent feedback.  Harvey and colleagues remind their readers that peer reviewers reading your manuscript with a fresh pair of eyes, can lead to them raising great questions and offering useful comments.  In short, reviewers’ reservations and misunderstandings can help you to rephrase and better focus your paper. [3]

However, what the review process does not do is picking up every possible minor mistake and typo in a paper.  I was reminded of this last week when I read a peer-reviewed paper in which the basic demographics table (the characteristics of the study participants) did not add up to 100%.  Luckily, the same authors (who shall remain nameless) published a different paper from the same study in another quality journal, which allowed me to check the numbers.  Interestingly, the second paper in another peer-reviewed journal had the same mistake.   In the end I ended up writing to two different editors pointing out this anomaly.   The editors contacted the authors who have since promised to rectify the mistake.

Something similar has also happened to us.  Occasionally I reread one of our articles in a good journal and wonder about some of the unclear sentences or poorly expressed grammar or style.  Neither the editor nor the peer-reviewers spotted it nor did my co-authors and I noticed these mistakes in the paper proofs.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)

 

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Shanker, S. (2022) Selecting an Appropriate Journal and Submitting your Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 20-31.
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Thapa, D., Marahatta, S.B., Sapkota, J.L., Regmi, P. Sathian, B. (2022) Editors and Reviewers: Roles and Responsibilities, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 32-37.
  3. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers. Health Prospect, 21(2):19-22.

 

British Academy Writing Workshop in Nepal in 2022

conferences, international, Publishing, writing

Two days ago one of the participants of our British Academy funded Academic Writing Workshops announced on Facebook that the paper, we had helped her put together, had been published in a peer-reviewed journal.  It is satisfying to see the fruits of our labours in print following two sets of three-day workshops in Kathmandu and Pokhara.  The team running the 2022 workshop comprised three Faculty of Health & Social Sciences’ (FHSS) staff: Dr. Shovita Dhakal Adhikari, Dr. Pramod Regmi, and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, and our colleague Dr. Rashmee Rajkarnikar at Nepal’s oldest and largest university (Tribhuvan University) and BU’s Visiting Faculty Dr. Emma Pitchforth, who is Senior Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow in Primary Care at the University of Exeter.  Dr. Shovita Adhikari has since left Bournemouth University to become Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Sociology at London Metropolitan University.

Over the years our team has published a wide range of papers on many aspects of academic writing [1-38].  The authors include: Prof. Vanora Hundley [3-5,8-9,14,16-19,21,23,28-33,36], Dr. Orlanda Harvey [2,22, ], Dr. Pramod Regmi [2,7,13-14,17,22,24-25 ], Dr. Rachel Arnold [20], Dr. Alison Taylor, Dr. Nirmal Aryal [14,24], Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, PhD student Mrs. Sulochana Dhakal-Rai [8] all in FHSS, Prof. Ann Luce in the Media School [5] and Dr. Shanti Shanker in the Department of Psychology [6] as well as several BU Visiting Faculty: Dr. Brijesh Sathian [1,7-8,21,31,34], Dr. Shovita Dhakal Adhiikari [24-25 ], Dr. Preeti Mahato [11,20, ], Prof. Padam Simkhada [3-4,6,8-9,13,16-19,21,23,25-31,34 ], Dr. Emma Pitchforth [11-12,37], Prof. Bhimsen Devkota [12,16 ], Prof. Sujan Marahatta [7], Dr. Bibha Simkhada [9,14,25,27,29] and Ms. Jillian Ireland [8,20,22,27,31].
has build up capacity in academic writing and publishing in Nepal on many occasions and at many different institutions.  This grant allow us to offer a more systematic approach to capacity building in academic writing, and it build a growing number of paper published by FHSS staff on various aspects of academic writing and publishing.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

References:

  1. Sathian B, van Teijlingen E, Banerjee I, Kabir R. (2022) Guidance to applying for health research grants in the UK. Nepal J Epidemiol 12(4):1231-1234.
  2. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers. Health Prospect, 21(2):19-22.
  3. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P.P., Wasti, S.P. (2022) Introduction, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 1-4.
  4. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Swoveet, P. (2022) Writing an Academic Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 6-14.
  5. Hundley, V., Luce, A., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Collaborative Writing for Publication, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 15-19.
  6. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Shanker, S. (2022) Selecting an Appropriate Journal and Submitting your Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 20-31.
  7. van Teijlingen, E., Thapa, D., Marahatta, S.B., Sapkota, J.L., Regmi, P. Sathian, B. (2022) Editors and Reviewers: Roles and Responsibilities, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 32-37.
  8. van Teijlingen, E., Ireland, J., Hundley, V, Dhakal Rai, S., Simkhada, P., Sathian, B. (2022) Identifying an appropriate Title, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 39-47.
  9. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, B, Acharya D.R. (2022) Writing an Abstract for a Scientific Conference, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 48-56.
  10. Subedi, M., van Teijlingen, E., Baniya J., Sijapati, B. (2022) Writing the Introduction and Background, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 57-67.
  11. van Teijlingen, E., Pitchforth, E., Keenan Forrest, K., Mahato, P. (2022) Writing a Qualitative Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 88-97.
  12. Wasti, S.P, Devkota, B., Bhatta, D.N., Pitchforth, E., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Writing the Introduction and Background, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 112-120.
  13. Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2022) Writing up the Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 121-129
  14. Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., Simkhada, B., Subedi, M., van Teijlingen, E., Wasti, S.P., Hundley, V, Khatri, R. (2022) Being Ethical in Writing and Publishing, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 153-161.
  15. van Teijlingen, E., Venter, K. (2022) Writing a Book Review, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 162-167.
  16. Devkota, B., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V, Wasti, S.P. (2022) Writing a Research Proposal, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 168-175.
  17. Wasti, S.P. Regmi, P.R., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2022) Writing a PhD Proposal, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 176-183.
  18. Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Converting your Master’s or Doctoral Thesis into an Academic Paper for Publication, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 184-189.
  19. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Acharya, J., Silwal, R.C., Wasti, S.P. (2022) Academic Writing: Final Thoughts, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 201-20
  20. Arnold, R., Ireland, J., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Writing and publishing a reflective paper: Three case studies, Welhams Acad J 1(1): 4-11.
  21. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V, Sathian, B., Simkhada, P., Robinson, J., Banerjee, I. (2022) The Art of the Editorial Nepal J Epidemiol, 12(1): 1135–38.
  22. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, A., Regmi, P.R., Ireland, J., Rijal, A., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2022) Co-authors, colleagues, and contributors: Complexities in collaboration and sharing lessons on academic writing Health Prospect 21(1):1-3.
  23. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V. with Shreesh, K. (2022) Writing and Publishing Academic Work, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books
  24. van Teijlingen, E.R., Dhakal Adhikari, S., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, A., Aryal, N., Panday, S. (2021). Publishing, identifiers & metrics: Playing the numbers game. Health Prospect, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.3126/hprospect.v20i1.37391
  25. Adhikari, S. D., van Teijlingen, E. R., Regmi, P. R., Mahato, P., Simkhada, B., & Simkhada, P. P. (2020). The Presentation of Academic Self in The Digital Age: The Role of Electronic Databases. Int J Soc Sci Management, 7(1), 38-41. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijssm.v7i1.27405
  26. van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada, PP, Rizyal A (2012) Submitting a paper to an academic peer-reviewed journal, where to start? (Guest Editorial) Health Renaissance 10(1): 1-4.
  27. van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada. PP, Simkhada, B, Ireland J. (2012) The long & winding road to publication, Nepal J Epidemiol 2(4): 213-215 http://nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/7093/6388
  28. Hundley, V, van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada, P (2013) Academic authorship: who, why and in what order? Health Renaissance 11(2):98-101 www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Download/vol-11-2/Page_99_101_Editorial.pdf
  29. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, BD. (2013) Writing an Abstract for a Scientific Conference, Kathmandu Univ Med J 11(3): 262-65. http://www.kumj.com.np/issue/43/262-265.pdf
  30. Simkhada P, van Teijlingen E, Hundley V. (2013) Writing an academic paper for publication, Health Renaissance 11(1):1-5. www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Pp_1_5_Guest_Editorial.pdf
  31. van Teijlingen, E., Ireland, J., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Sathian, B. (2014) Finding the right title for your article: Advice for academic authors, Nepal J Epidemiol 4(1): 344-347.
  32. van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Bick, D. (2014) Who should be an author on your academic paper? Midwifery 30: 385-386.
  33. Hall, J., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) The journal editor: friend or foe? Women & Birth 28(2): e26-e29.
  34. Sathian, B., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Roy, B, Banerjee, I. (2016) Grant writing for innovative medical research: Time to rethink. Med Sci 4(3):332-33.
  35. Pradhan, AK, van Teijlingen, ER. (2017) Predatory publishing: a great concern for authors, Med Sci 5(4): 43.
  36. van Teijlingen, E, Hundley, V. (2002) Getting your paper to the right journal: a case study of an academic paper, J Advanced Nurs 37(6): 506-11.
  37. Pitchforth, E, Porter M, Teijlingen van E, Keenan Forrest, K. (2005) Writing up & presenting qualitative research in family planning & reproductive health care, J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 31(2): 132-135.
  38. van Teijlingen, E (2004), Why I can’t get any academic writing done, Medical Sociol News 30(3): 62-63. britsoc.co.uk/media/26334/MSN_Nov_2004.pdf