Strategies in Writing
(for the medical literature)
What this presentation is not about:
How to have good ideas
How to find good questions
How to obtain good data that address the ideas/questions
How to enjoy a rich and fulfilling life...
Its about how to most easily put together the best possible
presentation of your ideas, questions, data and findings.
And the process can improve your
Disclaimer
Don't ask me about:
parts of speech,
past participles,
or split infinitives.
I have no idea what these
words mean.
Pop Quiz
How do you start writing?
a. make a cup of coffee
b. make two cups of coffee
c. straighten up your desk
d. see if the basement doesn’t need
cleaning...
I wonder if anything good is on TV?|¶
Strategies in Writing
#1 - Write smart
make use of efficient frameworks
 Get feedback
ABSTRACT
Context:
Motivate the reader
Why should the I care about your findings
and conclusions?
Objective:
Simple, directly related to finding
Methods:
Must explain how result below was
obtained, not other analyses in the paper.
Results:
Primary finding
What is the one piece of data you
want people to walk away with?
Conclusion: Must be supported by result above
ABSTRACT
Context:
Most professional
US professional
medical
medical
societies
societies
and and
the national
the national
health
health
sysms
systems
of
all other
of all
industrialed
other industrialized
nations now
nations
recognize
now recognize
that most women
that most
need
women
not need
not undergo Pap
underghkjhko
Papsmear
smearscreening
screeningannually.
annually.There
Therearearenonodata,
data,however,
however, kk
regarding
the
frequency
the frequency
at which women
at which
actually
womenundergo
actuallyscreening
undergo screening
in the Unjlkjljited
in the
United States.
States.
Objective:
To consider
describe the
determine
thefrequency
amount
prevalence
of of
cervical
cancer
of
cervical
cancer
screening
cancer
cancer
screening
screening
of
screening
theofcervix
the
in in
thein
the
cervix
United
the
United
in
States.
the
States.
United States.
Methods:
We obtained
Women
aged the1998
18 and older
Behavioral
living in
Risk
households
Factor Surveillance
with telephones
System of
(86,715
respondents).
the Centers for
OurDisease
main outcome
Control measures
and Prevention
were: time
(CDC)which
since lastisPap
a cross
sectional
smear;
thesurvey
estimated
of a number
random of
sample
American
of American
women women.
receivingSample
Pap smear
Frame
at various
Women aged
screening
intervals.
18 andWe
older
obtained
living the1998
in households
Behavioral
with telephones
Risk Factor(86,715
Surveillance
respondents).
System
of the Centers
Our main
theoutcome
frequency
measures
of cervic
were:
for Disease
time since
Control
last Pap
andsmear;
Prevention
the
estimated number
(CDC)which
is a cross
of American
sectionalwomen
surveyreceiving
of a random
Papsample
smear at
of various
American
screening
women.
intervals.Frame
Sample
what you are really doing is figuring out the basic structure
(as well as the basic point) of the paper
Results:
The vast
Based
onmajority
these data,
(YY%)
we estimate
of American
that 45women
millionreport
American
having had
at least one
women
undergo
Pap smear
Pap smear
in their
screening
lifetime.annually
Among and
women
onlywho
6 million
have not
are had
screened
a
hysterectomy
using
a 3-yearand
interval.
who have
The vast
beenmajority
screened(YY%)
at leastofonce,
American
ZZ% report
womenhaving
reporthad
a Pap smear
having
had atwithin
least one
the past
Pap smear
three years,
in their
XX%
lifetime.
within
Among
the past
women
two years
who and
have
73%had
not
within
a hysterectomy
the past year.
andBased
who have
on these
beendata,
screened
we estimate
at leastthat
once,
45ZZ%
million
report
American
having
hadwomen
a Pap smear
undergo
within
Pap the
smear
pastscreening
three years,
annually
XX% and
within
onlythe
6 million
past twoare
screened
years
andusing
73% within
a 3-yeartheinterval.
past year.
women are being screened
are beingfor
screened
Conclusion: The majority of American cytotechnologists
cervical
for
cervical
cancer
cancer
too too
frequently.
frequently.
Lengthening
Lengthening
the the
screening
screening
interval
interval
would
would
not not
only reduce the proportion
number of pelvic
of pelvic
exams,
exams,
butbut
would
would
alsoalso
reduce
reduce
follow-up
follow-up
testing
for abnormal
testing
for abnormal
smears smears
and theand
volume
the volume
of specimens
of specimens
that cytotechnologists
that cytotechnologists
are
required
are
required
to read.
to read.
 Get feedback
It is a lot easier to get good feedback on 1 page
than on an entire paper
ABSTRACT
Context:
Most professional
US professional
medical
medical
societies
societies
and and
the national
the national
health
health
sysms
systems
of
all other
of all
industrialed
other industrialized
nations now
nations
recognize
now recognize
that most women
that most
need
women
not need
not undergo Pap
underghkjhko
Papsmear
smearscreening
screeningannually.
annually.There
Therearearenonodata,
data,however,
however, kk
regarding
the
frequency
the frequency
at which women
at which
actually
womenundergo
actuallyscreening
undergo screening
in the Unjlkjljited
in the
United States.
States.
Objective:
To describe
determinethe
consider
thefrequency
amount
prevalence
of of
cervical
cancer
of
cervical
cancer
screening
cancer
cancer
screening
screening
of
screening
theofcervix
the
in in
thein
the
cervix
the
United
United
in
States.
the
States.
United States.
Methods:
We obtained
Women
aged the1998
18 and older
Behavioral
living in
Risk
households
Factor Surveillance
with telephones
System of
(86,715
respondents).
the Centers for
OurDisease
main outcome
Control measures
and Prevention
were: time
(CDC)which
since lastisPap
a cross
sectional
smear;
thesurvey
estimated
of a number
random of
sample
American
of American
women women.
receivingSample
Pap smear
Frame
at various
Women aged
screening
intervals.
18 andWe
older
obtained
living the1998
in households
Behavioral
with telephones
Risk Factor(86,715
Surveillance
respondents).
System
of the Centers
Our main
theoutcome
frequency
measures
of cervic
were:
for Disease
time since
Control
last Pap
andsmear;
Prevention
the
estimated number
(CDC)which
is a cross
of American
sectionalwomen
surveyreceiving
of a random
Papsample
smear at
of various
American
screening
women.
intervals.Frame
Sample
Results:
The vast
Based
onmajority
these data,
(YY%)
we estimate
of American
that 45women
millionreport
American
having had
at least one
women
undergo
Pap smear
Pap smear
in their
screening
lifetime.annually
Among and
women
onlywho
6 million
have not
are had
screened
a
hysterectomy
using
a 3-yearand
interval.
who have
The vast
beenmajority
screened(YY%)
at leastofonce,
American
ZZ% report
womenhaving
reporthad
a Pap smear
having
had atwithin
least one
the past
Pap smear
three years,
in their
XX%
lifetime.
within
Among
the past
women
two years
who and
have
73%had
not
within
a hysterectomy
the past year.
andBased
who have
on these
beendata,
screened
we estimate
at leastthat
once,
45ZZ%
million
report
American
having
hadwomen
a Pap smear
undergo
within
Pap the
smear
pastscreening
three years,
annually
XX% and
within
onlythe
6 million
past twoare
screened
years
andusing
73% within
a 3-yeartheinterval.
past year.
women are being screened
are beingfor
screened
Conclusion: The majority of American cytotechnologists
cervical
for
cervical
cancer
cancer
too too
frequently.
frequently.
Lengthening
Lengthening
the the
screening
screening
interval
interval
would
would
not not
only reduce the proportion
number of pelvic
of pelvic
exams,
exams,
butbut
would
would
alsoalso
reduce
reduce
follow-up
follow-up
testing
for abnormal
testing
for abnormal
smears smears
and theand
volume
the volume
of specimens
of specimens
that cytotechnologists
that cytotechnologists
are
required
are
required
to read.
to read.
Special topic: Abstract numbers
1. Be clear about the comparison
“The risk of prostate cancer in men with a higher
BMI was lower than that in men with a lower BMI
BMI,
but only if they were younger (RR = 0.52)”
2. Be clear about denominators
So the reader doesn’t struggle with the question
“% of what?”
3. Provide data on the magnitude of the effect, not just ratios.
“ 2.4% of men who were current smokers developed prostate
cancer compared to 1.2% of those never smoked (RR 2.0,
95% CI 1.4-2.8)”
Efficient framework for the rest of the text
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Efficient framework for the rest of the text
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
¶
Question
1.
What’s the current situation?
2.
What's the the problem (or gap)?
3.
How will this study help?
Efficient framework for the rest of the text
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
• make sure there is a method for every result
• use subheads to force structure
Overview
Setting
Exclusions
Exposure/Intervention
Outcome
Secondary Outcomes
Analysis
Special topic: Labels- names for things (or ideas) that
appear repeatedly in text.
Assertion: a specific thing (or idea) should
always have the same name.
control
usual care
The
routine
careprovf of phoek soboh flod increased
expenditure
returnindex
intervalhas bodforden implications for
grondening
mawqork.
revisit
interval Boferman etal findgrom of
visit interval
exceddernon
elevated resource use is potermanford
per norm. High intensity
patientbodterformes
questionnaire koster mauk be
questionnaire
sdlamon and forwoz interim
bedforn.
6-month questionnaire
non-randomized trials
observational studies
before-after studies
Clear ≠ Dull
Make sure labels are consistent across abstract, text,
tables and figures.
Efficient framework for the rest of the text
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
• short and to the point
• driven by your figures and tables
Efficient framework for the rest of the text
Introduction
Methods
Results
Three Questions
Discussion
1.
What’s the central finding?
2.
Could it be wrong?
3.
What does it mean?
Strategies in Writing
#1 - Write smart
make use of efficient frameworks
 Get feedback
#2 - Write less
focus on high-visibility components
 Get feedback
Pop Quiz
How do you read?
a. in bed, for about half hour before I go
to sleep
b. in bed, for about 5 minutes before I
go to sleep
c. in bed, naked
d. I don't read, I look at the pictures
instead...
Think like your target audience;
write for them, not for yourself.
Write less - focus on high-visibility components
Focus on what readers look
at:
Abstract and Title
the first (and often, the only) part
of your paper that will be read.
Figures and Tables
probably the second most examined
part of a paper.
Write less - focus on high-visibility components
Figures: The most efficient way to
quickly communicate a “feel” for
your findings
Tables: The most efficient way to
provide the relevant details
Communicate your
major finding(s)
using figures
Figure Basics
1. Simple axes
2. Simple keys
100
Maryland
Indiana
Rate per 100,000
90
80
75
70
60
50
40
30
25
20
10
0
Lung
Colon
Breast
Prostate
Melanoma
Column graphs for categories
Figure Basics
1. Simple axes
2. Simple keys
(or none at all)
Incidence
100
Rate per 100,000
Early-stage incidence
75
50
25
Late-stage incidence
Mortality
0
198619871988198919901991
1986
199119921993199419951996
199619971998199920002001
2001
Year
Line graphs for continuous data
Figure Basics
1. Simple axes
2. Simple keys
(or none at all)
Figure 1: Melanoma incidence and mortality in the
population age 65 and older for 9 SEER areas (1986-2001).
Early-stage refers to in-situ and local disease; late-stage refers to
regional and distant disease.
3. Legend in text
Incidence
100
Rate per 100,000
Early-stage incidence
75
50
25
Late-stage incidence
Mortality
0
1986
1991
1996
Year
Line graphs for continuous data
2001
Special settings: As a vehicle to communicate
individual data points
Rate of follow-up mammography and biopsy for 186 radiologists
(in the 8 months following screening mammography).
Special settings: As a vehicle to communicate
individual data points
Site Mean
25
Staff Physician
(all internists )
Mean Revisit Interval (weeks)
Other Provider
20
15
10
5
0
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Mean revisit intervals for the 30 providers enrolling patients in the VA
Cooperative Study of Telephone Care..
Special settings: As a vehicle to communicate sample
selection
Sample Frame
HIV+, CD4 ≤ 200
male veterans
(n=123)
Exclusions
djflssjjf
(n=51)
djflkjdfljflk (n=12)
bvcmxz sd (n=4)
Eligible patients
(n=42)
Did not consent
(n=20)
Final sample
(n=22)
And it doesn’t have to be a randomized trial
Control
(n=11)
Intervention
(n=11)
Special settings: As a vehicle to communicate sample
selection
NHANES Target Population
Non-institutionalized,
civilian Americans
Random sample of
men 40 and older
(n=1,601)
Not eligible for PSA test*
114
History of prostate cancer
Prostate biopsy (past month)
Rectal exam (past week)
Current prostate infection/inflammation
Cystoscopy (past month)
63
8
26
20
8
Missing data
179
Any of eligibility criteria missing**
PSA missing
139
40
Eligible for PSA test
(n=1,487)
Eligible with complete data
(n=1,308)
* 11 people answered yes to more than 1 criteria
** Generally men who did not attend the physician examination
where the 5 eligibility items were collected
Special settings: As a vehicle to communicate methods
Overview of the task presented to a woman completing the survey and our
measures of her ability to accurately apply risk reduction information
 Get feedback
A good figure (and legend) should
be understandable on its own
Table
Basics
Exhibit 4
Characteristics of sample *
Demogra phi cs
Mean age (range )
Row headers
n=203*
1. organize into logical groups
52 yea rs (30-91)
2. make groups visually distinct
Age distribut ion
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Female
• subheads
• indents
• spacing
25%
20%
26%
29%
65%
Educa tion
Less than high schoo l
High schoo l gradu ate
Some colle ge
Coll ege gradua te
Some gradua te school or degree
15%
25%
14%
25%
22%
Total hous ehold inco me
<$25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
>$100,000
37%
19%
26%
18%
Medication use
Do you take any medicine to...**
preven t heart attack or stroke
treat any arthritis /joint pain
36%
34%
Attention to drug ads
Paid attention to any adve rtisements for prescription d rugs in
past 3 mon ths
50%
Table
Basics
Exhibit 4
Characteristics of sample *
n=203*
Demogra phi cs
Mean age (range )
52 yea rs (30-91)
Age distribut ion
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
25%
20%
26%
29%
Female
65%
Educa tion
Less than high schoo l
High schoo l gradu ate
Some colle ge
Coll ege gradua te
Some gradua te school or degree
15%
25%
14%
25%
22%
Total hous ehold inco me
<$25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
>$100,000
Give exact survey question
37%
whenever
possible
19%
Medication use
Do you take any medicine to...**
preven t heart attack or stroke
treat any arthritis /joint pain
Attention to drug ads
Paid attention to any adve rtisements for prescription d rugs in
past 3 mon ths
26%
18%
36%
34%
50%
Table Basics
Disease-specific
mortality
All-cause mo rtality
Row
headers
(per 10,000 p erson -years)
(per 10,000 p erson -years)
1. organize Screeni
intonglogical groups Screeni ng
Screened
Cont rol
benefit
Screened
Cont rol
benefit
2.(a) make(b ) groups
distinct
(b-a ) visually
(c)
(d )
(d-c)
Mammograph y
• subheads
6.5
1.4
3.8
1.2
• indents
3.0
0.0
• spacing
2.4
1.1
HIP (17)
5.1
Swed is hT wo-coun ty (18)
2.6
Malm o (19)
3.0
Go thenbu rg (20)
1.3
Edinburgh (21)
2.9
3.5
Canad ia nN BS S1 (22)
1.4
Canadian NBS S2 (23)
Incons istency
73.7
75.4
1.7
-
120 .4
120 .3
-0 .1
Direction
95.4
96.7
1.3
Direction
29.6
30.1
0.6
-
0.6
102 .9
123 .2
20.3
Mag ni tude
0.8
-0 .5
7.4
7.3
-0 .1
-
3.4
3.5
0.1
28.6
27.0
-1 .7
Direction
Minne sota (24)
5.4
6.6
1.2
183 .6
183 .6
0.0
Direction
No ttingha m (25)
6.0
7.0
1.0
211 .0
210 .0
-1 .0
Direction
Funen (26)
6.5
8.2
1.7
221 .0
224 .0
3.0
-
Czecho s lovak ian t rial (27)
33.6
24.7
-9 .0
179 .2
153 .9
-25 .4
Mag ni tude
Mayo Lung Pro je ct (28)
43.9
39.5
-4 .4
324 .8
318 .5
-6 .3
-
Fecal O ccul t B lood
Ch es t X-ray
Table Basics
Disease-specific mortality
(per 10,000 p erson -years)
Screened
(a)
Mammograph y
Cont rol
(b )
Screeni ng
benefit
(b-a )
HIP(17)
Column
headers
5.1
6.5
1.4
Swed is hT wo-coun ty (18)
2.6
Malm o (19)
3.0
Go thenbu rg (20)
1.3
Edinburgh (21)
2.9
Canadian NBS S1 (22)
1.4
Canadian NBS S2 (23)
3.4
Fecal O ccul t B lood
3.8
1.2
All-cause mo rtality
(per 10,000 p erson -years)
Screeni ng
benefit
(d-c)
Screened
(c)
Cont rol
(d )
73.7
75.4
1.7
-
120 .4
120 .3
-0 .1
Direction
1. organize
into logical
groups
3.0
0.0
95.4
96.7
1.3
and 2.4make 1.1
groups visually
distinct0.6
29.6
30.1
3.5
0.6
102 .9
123 .2
20.3
• subheads
0.8
-0 .5
7.4
7.3
-0 .1
3.5
0.1
28.6
27.0
-1 .7
• spacing
2. make
algebra
explicit
6.6
1.2
183 .6
183 .6
0.0
Incons istency
Direction
Mag ni tude
Direction
Minne sota (24)
5.4
Direction
No ttingha m (25)
6.0
7.0
1.0
211 .0
210 .0
-1 .0
Direction
Funen (26)
6.5
8.2
1.7
221 .0
224 .0
3.0
-
Czecho s lovak ian t rial (27)
33.6
24.7
-9 .0
179 .2
153 .9
-25 .4
Mag ni tude
Mayo Lung Pro je ct (28)
43.9
39.5
-4 .4
324 .8
318 .5
-6 .3
-
Ch es t X-ray
Table
Basics
Exhibit 4
Characteristicsof sample *
n=203*
Demographics
Mean age (range)
Age distribution
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
52 years (30-91)
25.4%
20.1%
26.9%
29.3%
Female
Male
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
Some graduate school or degree
15.5%
25.8%
14.7%
25.2%
22.3%
Total household income
<$25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
>$100,000
37.2%
19.9%
26.7%
18.5%
Medication use
Do you take any medicine to...**
prevent heart attack or stroke
treat any arthritis/joint pain
36.4%
34.5%
Table body
1. right align data
(i.e. on decimal point)
2. avoid excessive precision
Attention to drug ads
Paid attention to any advertisements for prescription drugs in
past 3 months
65.2%
34.8%
50.1%
Table
Basics
Exhibit 4
Characteristicsof sample *
n=203*
Demographics
Mean age (range)
52 years (30-91)
Age distribution
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
25%
20%
26%
29%
Female
Male
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
Some graduate school or degree
15%
25%
14%
25%
22%
Total household income
<$25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
>$100,000
37%
19%
26%
18%
Medication use
Do you take any medicine to...**
prevent heart attack or stroke
treat any arthritis/joint pain
36%
34%
Table body
1. right align data
(i.e. on decimal point)
2. avoid excessive precision
3. remove redundant data
Attention to drug ads
Paid attention to any advertisements for prescription drugs in
past 3 months
65%
35%
50%
Table Basics
Disease-specific mortality
(per 10,000 p erson -years)
Screened
(a)
Cont rol
(b )
Screeni ng
benefit
(b-a )
…consider helping
the reader with a
All-cause mo rtality
(per 10,000 p erson -years)
summary column
Screened
(c)
Cont rol
(d )
Screeni ng
benefit
(d-c)
Incons istency
Mammograph y
HIP(17)
5.1
Swed is hT wo-coun ty (18)
2.6
Malm o (19)
3.0
When1.4the table73.7body 75.4
3.8
1.2
120 .4
120 .3
is
complex…
3.0
0.0
95.4
96.7
Go thenbu rg (20)
1.3
2.4
1.1
29.6
Edinburgh (21)
2.9
3.5
0.6
Canadian NBS S1 (22)
1.4
0.8
Canadian NBS S2 (23)
3.4
Minne sota (24)
6.5
1.7
-
-0 .1
Direction
1.3
Direction
30.1
0.6
-
102 .9
123 .2
20.3
Mag ni tude
-0 .5
7.4
7.3
-0 .1
-
3.5
0.1
28.6
27.0
-1 .7
Direction
5.4
6.6
1.2
183 .6
183 .6
0.0
Direction
No ttingha m (25)
6.0
7.0
1.0
211 .0
210 .0
-1 .0
Direction
Funen (26)
6.5
8.2
1.7
221 .0
224 .0
3.0
-
Czecho s lovak ian t rial (27)
33.6
24.7
-9 .0
179 .2
153 .9
-25 .4
Mag ni tude
Mayo Lung Pro je ct (28)
43.9
39.5
-4 .4
324 .8
318 .5
-6 .3
-
Fecal O ccul t B lood
Ch es t X-ray
Special settings: As a vehicle to present prior work
Special settings: As a vehicle to highlight
major points or suggested actions
Table 2: Guidance for reporting the result s of multi variate ana lyses wh ich assume a continuous
relationsh ip between exposu re and ou tcome
Step
Purpose
Expression of
exposure
1. Provide crude rates for dis crete
catego ries
Comm unicate the rela tionship
that is actuall y ob served in the
data
Categor ical
2. Provide fully adjusted rates for discrete
catego ries
Comm unicate observed
relationsh ip adjusted for all
relevan t confound ers
Categor ical
3. Provide summary measure (e.g. slop e)
or ill ustration (e.g. graph ) of con tinuous
relationsh ip
Comm unicate hypo thesized
relationsh ip between exposu re
and outcome
Continuou s
4. Supe rimpo se continuous on ca tego rical
results
Comm unicate both catego rical
and continuous rela tionships
Both
Special settings: As a vehicle to summarize the
effect of a change on multiple outcomes
Table 3: Expec ted change in 5 -yea r surv ival, mortalit y and incidenc e unde r various cond iti ons .
Condi tion
Expected change in:
5-year survival
Mortality
Incidence


no change
early treatment is effective



early treatment is not effective

no change*

no change


More effective treatment of existing
disease
More cases found ea rly and
Incr ease in the true oc currenc e of dis ease
(assumi ng no change in tumo r aggressiveness)
Table/Figure combinations
Base rates
RRs and CIs
Table/Figure combinations
Base rates
RRs and CIs
Strategies in Writing
#1 - Write smart
make use of efficient frameworks
 Get feedback
#2 - Write less
focus on high-visibility components
 Get feedback
#3 - Write again
in response to feedback from others
 Get feedback
Good papers are made, not born.
They are the product of multiple revisions,
revisions made in response to the criticisms of others.
Write again - in response to feedback from others
Get help:
1. General reviewer - whose primary job is to determine whether
your writing can be understood.
2. Expert reviewer - whose primary job is to help prepare you for
external review.
A “content" expert to scrutinize specific technical or theoretical issues.
A "hostile friend" who will look hard for flaws.
Tactics to get useful help
Author
Tactics for eliciting feedback
Tactics for receiving feedback Use these tactics
1. Have a conversation
to get feedback for 1. Get an explicit commitment
2. Don't be defensive
the “guts” of your paper:2. Clarify the review purpose
3. Focus on understanding problems
3. Simple courtesies
ABSTRACT
4. Judge suggestions critically
TABLES
FIGURES
Internal
Reviewer
• General
• Expert
Strategies in Writing
#1 - Write smart
make use of efficient frameworks
 Get feedback
#2 - Write less
focus on high-visibility components
 Get feedback
#3 - Write again
in response to feedback from others
#4 - Write now
don't wait until you think you're done
 Get feedback
Write now
It's easier to revise than write from scratch
The earlier you start the easier it is to find time to
allow yourself to step back, digest, and read your
work with a fresh perspective
Write now - don't wait until you think you're done
Bite size
task
Introduction
Methods
Dummy
Figures & Tables
Abstract
Helps:
Clarify the motivation; helps you
identify a context in which to place
your work
Avoid having to reconstruct subtle
details of the analysis long after they
occurred.
Focus the analytic effort
Organize the entire package
Write now
Even if it's a work of fiction
 Get feedback
Strategies in Writing
#1 - Write smart
make use of efficient frameworks
 Get feedback
#2 - Write less
focus on high-visibility components
 Get feedback
#3 - Write again
in response to feedback from others
#4 - Write now
don't wait until you think you're done
 Get feedback
Strategies in Writing
#1 - Write smart
make use of efficient frameworks
 Get feedback
#2 - Write less
focus on high-visibility components
 Get feedback
#3 - Write again
in response to feedback from others
 Get feedback
#4 - Write now
don't wait until you think you're done
 Get feedback