# Presentation: 145081

## SISB RetreatResearch Agenda & Professional Growth 

- 5 September 2008

## Overview

- Professional Growth
- Core Activities
- Focus on one activity: Publishing
- Questions/suggestions
- Branch Research Agenda
- Process of developing Agenda
- Questions/brainstorming

## Professional Growth: GID Training and Experience Guidelines

- Instead of “core” activities, menu of activities; to be used as a basis for developing individual training plans with TL
- Categories of activities
- General (STOP training, attend ACIP meeting...)
- Surveillance (analyze data, attend review)
- Data analysis (course, conduct as part of project)
- Planning/Evaluation (EPI review, PIEs)
- SIA implementation (monitoring, eval)
- Training (lead, organize a course)
- _Reporting writing/presentation_
- Beneficial to have core activities for the Branch?

## Professional Growth: Publishing as a core activity

- Priority activity for Branch and Division: Publishing
- BR encourages publishing a paper per year
- Many reasons:
- Dissemination of knowledge
- Good for career to have publications/recognized documentation and often demonstrate the success of your work
- Strengthens our scientific/technical expertise and visibility.
- May not be applicable/possible for all Branch members; discuss with TL

## Focus on Publishing – How did you do last year?*

- 2007
- 13 publications in peer reviewed journals
- 43% of SISB technical staff authored papers
- 13% of these are 1st authors
- 2008 (so far)
- 14 publications in peer reviewed journals
- 43% of SISB technical staff authored papers
- 24% of these are 1st authors
- * 	Not counting work done as employee of other division
- 	Rough estimate–ie, should only count those in GID for at least 2 years, re-org, counting papers from those no longer with GID

## Focus on Publishing - Options

- Variety of types of manuscripts
- Review articles
- Editorials
- Field experience
- _Research/Project findings_ – most common
- Types of journals:
- Quality journals (submit to highest quality journal first, as appropriate)
- Journals that publish VPD work (library request)
- Web-based or Open access (library request)
- Right now division policy is to submit work in traditional journals before web-based.
- Pros: possible increased accessibility, many peer-review options that are not as hard to publish in.
- Cons: It costs, Paying is often associated with decreased credibility

## Focus on Publishing – Process

**Project Start to Completion:**
- Protocol development: in-put from colleagues, WIP, sample protocols
- Project Determination for all activities involving human information/specimens; if research submit for IRB review.
- Start project – don’t need to wait for final complete data to start writing manuscript.
**Pre-clearance:**
- Circulate draft to co-authors and CDC colleagues
- SPRC can provide scientific input, ideas for presentation of findings, sounding board for conclusions and recommendations...
- CDC provides editing services (copywrite and substantial)
- 5-10 working day turn around.
- http://intra-apps.cdc.gov/createit/default.asp#service
**Clearance:**
- Manuscript should be completely finalized with co-authors’ approval.
- Who needs to be on your clearance sheet? – next slide

## Clearance Chain: Not Finalized

| 
Clearance Item | 
TL | 
SPRC | 
BC | 
ADS | Div
Dir | OD
ADS | OD
Dir |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MS for major journal, MMWR1
 | R
 | R | R | R | R | R |  |
| MS with potentially influential results | R
 | R | R | R | R | R | I |
| Other MS, abstracts, chapters | R
 | R | R | R | I2 |  |  |
| EIS abstracts, EPI-1, EPI-2 | R
 | R | R | R | I3 | I |  |
| Posters | R
 | R | I |  |  |  |  |
| Cross clear DEEB, other divisions | I
 | R | R/I | R |  |  |  |
| Communication/Ed materials with new/controversial findings | R
 | R | R | R | R | R |  |

- 1 Including but not limited to: Science, Nature, NEJM, JAMA, Lancet
- 2 Provide a copy of pre-publication final draft once MS has been accepted
- 3 Abstracts only

- R= Required Clearance; I = Information Copy

## Tracking projects to publication

- Division effort; branches will coordinate tracking
- Purpose is to see if we are meeting branch and division research goals; not meant to micromanage but to help motivate and stay in tune.
- For now, track in spreadsheet; projects can have multiple entries - one for each research product (papers, abstracts, presentations)
- For future, could track in GTS
- For now, it’s completed by me – based on periodic meetings with project leads

## Project Tracking Elements (not finalized)

| Project or Paper Title | Region | Topic | Lead  Person | Estimate Clearance Date | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Impact of 2nd dose of measles on elimination | PAHO | Measles | Adrienne | 3/1/09 | Manuscript in process |
| Integrating EPI and Measles in Tanzania | AFRO | Integration | Jim G | 6/1/10 | Protocol approved |
| RED implementation in Sudan | AFRO | Routine immunization | Tove | 12/1/08 | Manuscript in clearance |
| ITN Distribution using RI platform, Malawi | AFRO | Integration | Beth | 12/1/08 | Manuscript in clearance |

## Publishing – How to get it done

- Branch supports writing off-site, if needed
- Can work off-site for up to 1 day a week; otherwise considered an exception
- When working off-site, you should be in phone and email contact and be available to come in the office within 1 hour notice, if needed.
- Proposed work and time working off-site to be discussed with TL
- Writing courses, if needed
- Team up with each other to read papers from ‘outsiders’ perspective before clearance for clarity and editing,
- WIP - for early concept developing stage & later stages for input on results and discussion points.
- ADS/SPRC share drive/maybe website: resources, forms, sample protocols?
- Other ideas?  Barriers/solutions for meeting publishing goal?

## Research Agenda 

- Research Agenda

- Team RAs

- Branch RA

- External Review

## External Review –process

- Timeline
- 		        RI:    Spring 2009
- 		        SVI:  Winter 2009, probably later
- 		        DM:   To be incorporated in above reviews
- Pick panel members
- _Prepare background docs including RA_
- Review itself: Presentation, discussion, rating of research questions
- Outcome to help with branch prioritization of research

## Research Agenda

- Questions/Brainstorming
- Global vs. vs CDC vs GID Research Agenda?  (ie, polio started with global RA; then had a GID-specific RA for external review.
- Process provides enough opportunity for input?
- Ways to synergize with GTS?
- Research ideas that came from Team presentations given earlier today?