Health Promotion International Advance Access published July 31, 2016

Health Promotion International, 2016, 1–10

doi: 10.1093/heapro/daw059
Perspectives

Perspectives

Writing peer-reviewed articles with diverse

teams: considerations for novice scholars
conducting community-engaged research

Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016

Sarah Flicker1,* and Stephanie A. Nixon1
1
Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, ON Canada
*Corresponding author: flicker@yorku.ca

Summary
Given the growth of interdisciplinary and community-engaged health promotion research, it has be-
come increasingly common to conduct studies in diverse teams. While there is literature to guide
collaborative research proposal development, data collection and analysis, little has been written
about writing peer-reviewed publications collaboratively in teams. This gap is particularly important
for junior researchers who lead articles involving diverse and community-engaged co-authors. The
purpose of this article is to present a series of considerations to guide novice researchers in writing
for peer-reviewed publication with diverse teams. The following considerations are addressed: justify-
ing the value of peer-reviewed publication with non-academic partners; establishing co-author roles
that respect expertise and interest; clarifying the message and audience; using the article outline as a
form of engagement; knowledge translation within and beyond the academy; and multiple strategies
for generating and reviewing drafts. Community-engaged research often involves collaboration with
communities that have long suffered a history of colonial and extractive research practices. Authentic
engagement of these partners can be supported through research practices, including manuscript de-
velopment, that are transparent and that honour the voices of all team members. Ensuring meaningful
participation and diverse perspectives is key to transforming research relationships and sharing new
insights into seemingly intractable health problems.

Key words: community-based participatory research, collaboration, knowledge transfer, action research,
methodology

INTRODUCTION
Raphael has argued that community participation and
inclusion are fundamental principles of health promo-
tion and social change movements (Raphael, 2000).
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) prac-
tices have come a long way towards democratizing
research (Minkler and Wallerstein, 2003; Viswanathan
et al., 2004; Israel et al., 2006). CBPR often involves col-
laboration with communities that have long suffered a
history of colonial and extractive research practices
(Smith 1999; Simpson 2001; Casale et al., 2011).

C The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
V
2 S. Flicker and S. A. Nixon
Health promotion research teams engaged in health
equity work often include multiple non-academic part-
ners (Flicker et al., 2008). Team members outside the
academy can include policy makers, staff at community-
based organizations and/or community representatives.
“Peer researchers” is a term that has been coined to de-
scribe members of the community under-study that are
trained and supported to become research team mem-
bers (Logie et al., 2012; Guta et al., 2013). For some of
these folks, particularly those who may have had limited
access to formal secondary education, publishing for
peer reviewed journals may feel like an overwhelming
and alienating task.
Authentic engagement of these partners can be sup-
ported through research practices, including manuscript
development, that honour the voices of all team mem-
bers. Making time and space for meaningful participa-
tion and diverse perspectives is key to transforming
research relationships and developing new insights into
seemingly intractable health problems (Minkler, 2005).
However, few explicit guidelines exist for how to suc-
cinctly write about this work in peer-reviewed journals
using approaches that honour the principles of collabo-
ration (Bordeaux et al., 2007; McNiff and Whitehead,
2009; Flicker, 2014; Herr and Anderson, 2014).
The purpose of this article is to present a series of
considerations related to collaboratively developing
health promotion manuscripts for peer-reviewed publi-
cation with diverse stakeholders. Our intended audience
includes junior scholars, graduate students and their
community partners who may be new to preparing man-
uscripts. The insights in this article were generated and
refined through workshops that we have lead on this
topic with research teams and new scholars in Canada
and South Africa. What sets this article apart from other
excellent resources on the topic of manuscript prepara-
tion is an explicit focus on how to write for publication
collaboratively in teams.
This article is a companion to an earlier publication
introducing a participatory approach to qualitative anal-
ysis (Flicker and Nixon, 2014). Whereas the collabora-
tive DEPICT method was developed to explicate
practical steps for engaging diverse team members in
qualitative analysis, this article offers guidance for writ-
ing collaboratively for academic journals. In published
manuscripts, the sophisticated work of collaboration is
usually invisible. This article transparently shares
approaches to collaborative manuscript development in
an effort to catalyze deeper reflection on strategies of in-
clusion during the writing process and why it matters
for health promotion. In particular, the following con-
siderations are addressed: justifying the value of peer-
reviewed publication with non-academic partners;
establishing co-author roles that respect expertise and
interest; clarifying the message and audience; using the
article outline as a form of engagement; knowledge
translation within and beyond the academy; and multi-
ple strategies for generating and reviewing drafts.
JUSTIFYING THE VALUE OF
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATION WITH
NON-ACADEMIC CO-AUTHORS
Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016
Diverse health promotion research teams will frequently
include community-based partners whose input will
strengthen an article, yet who may not initially view this
form of knowledge translation as worthy of their limited
time. As such, a first consideration is to ensure that all
research team members, including non-academics, ap-
preciate the value and purpose of peer-reviewed publica-
tion for meeting a study’s goals.
Some partners, particularly those from marginalized
communities, may struggle to see the utility of the
endeavour and even resent the process. Community
partners have told us that they believe that peer-
reviewed publications are largely inaccessible documents
that serve dominant, colonial interests. They have ar-
gued that working on this form of writing usurps valu-
able time and resources that could be more meaningfully
spent doing frontline support, advocacy work or more
accessible forms of knowledge translation. Tuck et al.
(Tuck et al., 2008) add another consideration: for those
who have been systematically silenced and taught that
their own voice in unworthy, writing can be painful.
These valid critiques need to be carefully considered.
In one particular case, a community-based partner
shared that she had experienced backlash from her past
participation in publication efforts. She explained that
she had lost considerable trust from fellow community
members and that her (and her organization’s) reputa-
tion suffered because others publicly attacked her for
‘selling out’ and participating in ‘the academic industrial
complex.’ This example reminds us that there are real
and diverse risks to participation in publishing efforts.
Some academics, particularly those who are tenured,
may be relatively insulated from on-the-ground implica-
tions that may be most seriously experienced by commu-
nity partner authors when research findings are
controversial.
Facilitating an open and honest dialogue about the
value and potential impacts of manuscript development
early in a team project can build trust and help ensure
that the needs of all partners are acknowledged and met.
Writing peer-reviewed articles with diverse teams 3

It may be useful to discuss the potential risks alongside
the value of sharing stories in peer-reviewed publica-
tions, such as advancing advocacy efforts, lending credi-
bility to critical ideas, introducing innovative
approaches to research, and moving a field forward
(Bordeaux et al., 2007). Figure 1 presents a list of poten-
tial reasons why teams might choose to publish in peer-
review journals.
For those based in academic environments (i.e. stu-
dents and professors), Van der Meulen (Van der
Meulen, 2011) argues that publication in peer-reviewed
journals is often a career imperative. Publications may
teams can commit to publishing only in open-access
journals in order to make articles equally available to
those within and outside of universities. Alternatively,
teams can also commit to using accessible language and/
or to writing community-friendly summaries of all man-
uscripts that are publicly available. In other cases, teams
may agree to the sequence of always writing
community-friendly products before moving on to aca-
demic outputs. Alternatively, academics might take the
lead on journal articles while community members con-
currently lead other, more accessible outputs.
Increasingly journals are also expanding their visions of

Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016

also have instrumental value to the team in pursuing fu-
ture grants to continue a larger programme of research
or fund further intervention work. It is important for
teams to surface and openly discuss what individual
team members might need to do to achieve their per-
sonal and professional goals.
Situating peer reviewed journals as part of larger
comprehensive knowledge translation and exchange
plan can be a useful starting place (Armstrong et al.,
2006; Graham et al., 2006; Nixon et al., 2013). CBPR
teams often develop an array of dissemination products
to share research results (e.g. videos, websites, social
and traditional media campaigns; see, for example the
work of Flicker et al., 2010).
In some cases, legitimate concerns about the limited
accessibility of peer-reviewed publications for non-
academic audiences can be mitigated. For instance,
acceptable formats; for instance some now welcome
arts-based submissions. At the same time, new peer-
reviewed venues for publication, such as http://
ces4health.info/ are available for disseminating health
research-related outputs that are not in traditional jour-
nal formats.
Once consensus is established around the purpose,
value and place manuscripts can play in a knowledge
translation strategy, spending some time mapping possi-
ble articles can be useful for clarifying key arguments
and ensuring that no single manuscript tries to take on
too much. This approach also helps limit overlap be-
tween articles. Forchuk and Meier (Forchuk and Meier
2014) suggest that creating an “article idea chart” can
help research teams keep track of different potential pa-
pers. Ideally, the chart tracks manuscript topics, author-
ing teams (since not all team members need to be co-

• Improve health equity by inspiring change in evidenced-based policy or practice

• Validate community knowledge and experience
• Help legitimize critical ideas
• Contribute to a collective body of knowledge that can move a field forward
• Share new methods and innovative approaches
• Archive writing in indexed, standardized, searchable databases
• Obtain greater credibility among certain audiences through peer review
• Improve the work based on reviewer feedback
• Opportunity for group reflection on successes and challenges before moving forward
• Provide examples for other researchers, communities and students
• Demonstrate evidence of a successful model or partnership to leverage for further funding
(i.e., to help get the next research or programming grant)
• Gather academic currency in “publish or perish” academic environments
• Assist community-based organizations in demonstrating the reach, legitimacy and profile of
their work, which can sometimes help secure future organizational funding

Fig. 1: Reasons why research teams may wish to share their work in peer-reviewed journals.
4 S. Flicker and S. A. Nixon
authors on each manuscript), target, key deadlines for
submission or presentation at conferences, and progress
status. The chart can become a living document that is
shared and regularly revisited by the team to help ensure
progress and accountability. New technological innova-
tions that allow for synchronous (and asynchronous)
sharing and editing documents (e.g. google docs or drop-
box) can facilitate the process of having a larger team
share ownership of the planning (and later writing).
ESTABLISHING CO-AUTHOR ROLES THAT
RESPECT UNIQUE EXPERTISE,
AVAILABILITY AND INTEREST
On large team projects, it may not be possible (or desir-
able) for all team members to participate on every paper.
As a group, team members may wish to choose which
writing teams they prefer to join. Each team needs a lead
or co-leads responsible for ushering a paper towards
publication. Each writing team should clarify roles and
responsibilities of various contributors that take into ac-
count people’s strengths, experience, availability and in-
terest. Then, they can make a plan for who, will do
what, by when, and how each member will be credited.
As others have argued, the scope of individual contribu-
tions should be established and order of authorship ne-
gotiated before major work begins (Albert and Wager,
2004; Kalpakjian and Meade, 2008). Order of author-
ship often means much more to some team members
than to others (e.g. those in the early stages of their aca-
demic career). Authorship order may also need to be re-
visited as the work progresses to ensure it reflects
shifting contributions.
According to the International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors, authorship is based on the fol-
lowing four criteria: “(1) Substantial contributions to
the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition,
analysis or interpretation of data for the work; (2)
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important
intellectual content; (3) Final approval of the version to
be published; and (4) Agreement to be accountable for
all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related
to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are
appropriately investigated and resolved” (International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2015). They ar-
gue that all four criteria must be met to qualify for au-
thorship. In an effort to increase transparency about
relative involvement, some journals now request de-
tailed information about each author’s contribution.
Another consideration is that authorship is not al-
ways just about putting pen to paper; it should
acknowledge the depth and quality of ideas contributed.
It may be important for research projects that have tried
to maintain equitable community–university partner-
ships throughout, to find a way to maintain that balance
during manuscript development. For example, Flicker
once partnered with a program that served HIV-positive
youth on a research project. The coordinator, who at
the time had little interest in, or time to devote to, aca-
demic publications, was nevertheless a key intellectual
contributor to overall project design and implementa-
tion. While he did not contribute to drafting the manu-
scripts, his ideas, actions and work were so central to
Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016
the project that he was encouraged to join authorship
teams. As the process unfolded, he provided valuable
oral feedback and direction. Indeed, manuscripts were
deeply enriched by his contributions. The collaborative
process allowed him to see the potential value and im-
pact of academic publication, and he later returned to
school to pursue an undergraduate degree. A decade
later, he is now pursuing a PhD.
Castleden et al. (Castleden et al., 2010) have noted
that one persistent challenge with community-based re-
search is that standardized publication guidelines do not
regularly “account for cultural differences as to what
constitutes an intellectual contribution, particularly
when contributions are oral, not written.” One strategy
that they have adopted is crediting an entire community
as authors to honour community-level investment and
contributions. This is particularly salient in Indigenous
communities that have community-wide decision-mak-
ing structures in place (e.g. a research committee, see for
example, Castleden et al., 2008). Similarly, others have
credited community-based agencies, advisory boards or
research teams. In work with communities with a his-
tory of research violence (i.e. where past research has vi-
olated human rights or been used as a rationale to
uphold oppressive colonial practices) extra caution is
merited. As Van der Meulen (Van der Meulen, 2011) ar-
gues, “issues of intellectual property and copyright legis-
lation as well as questions of authority and ownership
over the research results are particularly important and
should be resolved well in advance of the study.”
A different strategy is to consciously create capacity-
building opportunities, as well as human and financial
resources, for supporting community members and
trainees to actively participate in manuscript develop-
ment in order to meet conventional guidelines. Many of
our students come from the communities with whom we
partner. This presents a unique opportunity to closely
mentor them in collaborative writing to become ‘first
authors.’ In fact, the University of Toronto, where
Nixon is based, actively rewards its faculty for this form
Writing peer-reviewed articles with diverse teams
of mentorship by equating the contribution of “senior
responsible author” with being a “principal author” on
publications.
CLARIFYING THE MESSAGE AND THE
AUDIENCE
Before the manuscript writing begins in earnest, there is
value in achieving consensus within a diverse team on
three strategic questions: (1) What is the main message
of this article? (2) What was found that is significant,
worth sharing and may advance the field? And (3) Who
is the intended audience?
Various authors recommend that a strategy for
achieving clarity is distilling the essence of results into
one or more tables, figures, diagrams or sketches
(Harley et al., 2004; Bordeaux et al., 2007; Marshall
and Brennan, 2008). In quantitative research, this ap-
proach often means generating tables, models or figures.
In qualitative and mixed-method work, this approach
may involve the creation of schematics to illustrate re-
sults. Other approaches include making tables of quotes
by theme, or identifying metaphors to convey complex
ideas in the research results. While these graphic depic-
tions of results may not be included in the final article,
this process can facilitate writing teams to crystallize
their thoughts regarding the core message in their find-
ings. This is also an opportunity to draw on diverse tal-
ents in the team, noting that some members might be
more visually inclined and have novel ideas for how to
(re)present information.
Equally important at this phase is consensus on the
audience that the study team wishes to target with this
main message. For example, Nixon’s research falls at
the intersection of the fields of health equity, rehabilita-
tion science, and HIV. She and her teams regularly make
strategic choices about the aspects of study findings that
they will intentionally target for certain disciplinary
journals in order to reach health equity, rehabilitation
or HIV audiences. Clarifying the audience supports not
• Mandate of the journal
• Audience targeted by the journal
• Accessibility (e.g., open access)
• Impact factor
• Turn-around time for peer-review
• Cost to publish
• Word limit
• Format flexibility
• Acceptance rate
• Where are conversations about our topic already happening?
Fig. 2: Considerations in choosing a journal.
5
only the approach to argumentation in the manuscript,
but also the selection of a journal for submission
(Marshall and Brennan, 2008). Authorship teams may
wish to identify a first and second choice journal for
submission, ensuring they share a similar audience and
word limit in order to promote efficient resubmission if
not initially successful (Harley et al., 2004). In choosing
target journals, it is useful to consider a variety of fac-
tors (see Figure 2). One may also investigate the extent
to which preferred journals have published in the topic
area in order to proactively engage in this thread of the
academic conversation when developing the manuscript.
Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016
Furthermore, writing teams may find value in identify-
ing articles published in the target journal that are simi-
lar in methodological style to the approach in their
manuscript. Reviewing the structure and argumentation
of these concrete samples as a team can support diverse
members to better appreciate the end-product.
Finally, a pragmatic technique well known to experi-
enced writers is to comprehensively review the journal’s
instructions for authors at this early stage. Marshall and
Brennan (Marshall and Brennan, 2008) highlight how
reviewing and writing according to these guidelines can
save teams editing time later in the process.
Furthermore, Kurmis (Kurmis, 2003) argues that this
approach also ensures that key messages are properly
tailored to their intended audience. Sharing and discuss-
ing these strategies with the entire authorship team helps
to demystify the process and offers everyone a chance to
feedback into the process.
CREATING AN ARTICLE OUTLINE AS A
FORM OF ENGAGEMENT
A key challenge of writing manuscripts with diverse
teams is ensuring the ongoing meaningful and appropri-
ate engagement of all team members in the process. One
strategy for addressing this challenge is to use the pro-
cess of creating the article outline as a form of collective
engagement.
6 S. Flicker and S. A. Nixon
Creating a point-form outline, before drafting an en-
tire paper, can help ensure that all team members sup-
port and are afforded an opportunity to contribute to
the arguments put forward. An article outline can also
help to make sure that the paper is focused, the argu-
ment is cohesive and ideas are organized (Kalpakjian
and Meade, 2008). During this process, all the necessary
points are included, but extraneous ideas are ruthlessly
excluded. The aim is to arrive at an outline comprising
only the ideas that are essential to the core argument
(Marshall and Brennan, 2008).
When working with youth, Flicker has used the idea
of ‘story boarding’ to create an outline with a group.
Using index cards and sticky notes with drawings or key
themes and ideas, she has worked with teams to literally
move around, collate and distill ideas until a coherent
narrative outline emerges.
According to Kalpakjian and Meade (Kalpakjian and
Meade, 2008), attending to this conceptual work and
paying close attention to detail has the potential to save
time down the road. Another added bonus of circulating
and discussing an outline is the time commitment neces-
sary to review and provide feedback, which is relatively
small compared to reviewing a full draft.
Reviewing the outline may be an opportune time to
facilitate dialogue about the discussion section of a pa-
per. Whereas there may be limited room for creativity in
presenting empirical data, the discussion section requires
substantial innovative and applied thinking. This is the
section where community-engaged authors often excel
because they sometimes see the implications for policy
and practice first.
A colleague, Sarah Switzer, takes this innovation a
step further with her youth collaborators. Using plastic
microphones and boas as props, youth peer researchers
“interview” each other about the meaning and implica-
tions of project results. The summary graphics that are
collectively created to stimulate discussion are used to
stimulate innovative interpretations of their data.
Transcripts of these “interviews” are then workshopped
to build the foundation of the results and discussion sec-
tions. In this way, she is able to draw on youth voices
and language to add authenticity to their collective writ-
ing and crystalize her outline.
KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION WITHIN AND
BEYOND THE ACADEMY TO STRENGTHEN
ARGUMENTATION
While the goal may be to share and legitimize results
through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, diverse
teams have unique opportunities to strengthen the arti-
cle’s argumentation because of their access to multiple
audiences. That is, the conceptual clarity and rigour of
the article’s core argument can be matured, strengthened
and evolved by attempting to convey this message to dif-
ferent audiences and by different team members.
Specifically, teams may wish to have various members
pilot test the article’s emerging arguments at confer-
ences, and other knowledge translation fora.
Actively presenting preliminary work serves multiple
purposes. First, these commitments can generate move-
ment and momentum and nurture enthusiasm within a
Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016
team to propel it to the finish line (i.e. submission of a
polished manuscript for publication). Second, presenting
in multiple fora to different types of audiences enhances
the reach of the dissemination process. Third, it is also
an opportunity to fine-tune arguments and seek valuable
feedback from those in attendance. In addition, having
different team members present the paper means that
they will each have an opportunity to think through and
articulate ideas about the manuscript in their own
words, which can help inform the written discussion
and other sections. Finally, for those team members who
may be gifted at oral communication (rather than writ-
ing), public presentations offer the opportunity to gather
their wisdom in ways that work to their strengths. In
our experience, “gems” often emerge from team mem-
bers when they are speaking off the cuff to audiences.
These interpretations can later be incorporated into the
writing phase. One further tactic is to audio-record pre-
sentations and use the transcripts as the backbone for a
first draft.
Nixon has used this strategy in her research on the
experiences of people living long-term with HIV in
Zambia. Specifically, her team organized separate work-
shops with Zambian study participants and healthcare
workers to discuss the team’s findings. The community-
based Zambian fieldworker led the discussion with par-
ticipants who asked many nuanced questions and identi-
fied gaps in the analysis. Because of the trust
built between the fieldworker and the community, the
ensuing conversation was so informative that it helped
the team revise its analysis and craft a stronger final
paper.
MULTIPLE STRATEGIES FOR GENERATING
AND REVIEWING DRAFTS
It is noteworthy that the preceding considerations take
place before a full draft of an article is written. This se-
quence may be counterintuitive to scholars whose expe-
rience is working independently. We argue that the
Writing peer-reviewed articles with diverse teams
process of collaboratively writing a manuscript for pub-
lication with a diverse and community-engaged team
necessarily involves considerations that are different
from writing alone. This does not imply, however, that
there is only one right way to develop a full manuscript
as a team. On the contrary, there are multiple
approaches that can promote inclusion and participation
of team members.
Often, a paper’s lead author(s) takes the collective
wisdom generated by the group away and those most
skilled at the task at hand write a first draft. In an ideal
scenario, they will have ample material generated by the
group in the form of graphics, summary tables, a solid
outline, notes from team meetings and/or recordings
from conference presentations. Feedback is then so-
licited and incorporated over multiple cycles.
Another common model when working with gradu-
ate students or other academic colleagues is to delegate
sections for different team members to write, and then
uniting them to generate a first draft. This only works if
team members have the motivation and time to achieve
these tasks. Ritchie and Rigano (Ritchie and Rigano,
2007) propose an alternative model of having two or
more people literally sit together at a keyboard and writ-
ing the paper together. This approach may be an excel-
lent capacity building strategy, but can be very time-
consuming. Alternatively, another colleague, Dr. Robb
Travers, has experimented with setting up a table with
multiple laptops, each featuring different sections of a
manuscript. Each member of the writing team rotates
through the different sections until a manuscript
emerges from collating all the sections.
Sitting down to write can sometimes be an uncom-
fortable moment for lead authors who have been deeply
committed to collaborative practices up until this point.
Finding the right tone and balance that honours diverse
viewpoints and styles of communication with profes-
sional expectations dictated by journal editors can be
challenging. Tuck et al. (Tuck et al., 2008) have argued
that it can sometimes be particularly tricky to attribute
key ideas to one or more authors when a paper is written
in a collective voice. Using non-traditional processes for
capturing the thoughts of community partners (e.g. tape
recording or journal entries) and displaying diverse
insights within the manuscript (e.g. oscillating between
I/we, a rebuttal to comments made by academic part-
ners, or an epilogue describing the action steps emerging
from a project) are useful strategies for working through
some of these tensions (Bordeaux et al., 2007).
Once a first draft is compiled, it needs to get circu-
lated to the larger writing team for feedback and discus-
sion. At this stage, some teams prefer to only see drafts
7
that are near completion. Other teams will want to see a
rougher version that leaves lots of room for feedback.
Teams will need to figure out the right balance that
works for them.
Often, several drafts will be shared before a final ver-
sion is deemed ready for submission. On some teams,
authors can go through the manuscript on their own to
track changes/suggestions and then return their com-
ments to the paper’s lead, whose job will be to incorpo-
rate all the feedback. On other teams, it may be useful
to schedule meetings or conference calls to facilitate con-
versations that fine-tune the manuscript. On projects
Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016
where co-authors may experience literacy challenges, it
can be useful to read drafts out loud and invite conversa-
tion. In some cases, drafts may also need to be submitted
to organizational or community structures for review
prior to submission for peer-review. All listed co-
authors should have an opportunity to review the final
draft and agree that is represents their viewpoints before
it is submitted.
One or more team members may wish to re-review
journal guidelines and ensure the manuscript adheres to
specifications. Careful attention to grammar (Kurmis,
2003), spelling, brevity and concision are important fac-
tors to consider when writing for publication (Kurmis,
2003; Marshall and Brennan, 2008).
Subsequent revisions and responses to reviewers will
also need to be recirculated. As Wang et al. (Wang et al.,
1998) have argued, full participation of every member
of the authorship team in all aspects of each stage is nei-
ther necessary nor desirable. Rather, welcoming partici-
pation (in the ways that each partner feels good about),
but not forcing it, can be a more successful tactic.
CHALLENGES AND CELEBRATIONS:
FURTHER THOUGHTS ON MANUSCRIPT
DEVELOPMENT
Whereas the steps above focus on unique aspects of writ-
ing in a team, lessons for collectives can also be drawn
from experiences of writing alone. Finding the right
amount and type of time to write for publication is a
common challenge. Some writers find that blocks of
uninterrupted time (within a day or, ideally, over a pe-
riod of days) are best for the work of writing. Others ad-
vise writing at least a small portion every day to stay
close to a writing project. Some find writing retreats
(Kiewra, 1994; Murray and Newton, 2009) or writing
groups (Haas, 2011) to be motivating and useful sites of
social and technical support. These groups can also be
spaces to model and support various strategies for
8 S. Flicker and S. A. Nixon
collaboration. Most importantly, recognize that writing
takes time and explore strategies to find the best fit per-
sonal circumstances and style.
Reading both within and beyond one’s field, exposes
writers to a range of writing styles from which to take
inspiration (or caution). One strategy to becoming a bet-
ter writer is to subscribe to an open-access journal and
to read at least one article in each issue. Another is to be-
come a reviewer. Reviews can be formal for peer-
reviewed journals. For more junior team members, re-
views can be conducted as part of a journal club or in-
formally for colleagues. Tremendous insight can be
developed through scrutinizing the writing of another.
The process of developing a manuscript for publica-
tion is typically long and frequently thankless. It can be
particularly demoralizing when a paper is rejected or re-
viewer comments are cruel, biting or off the mark. The
process can sometimes drain rather than energize teams.
Celebrating successes at each stage of the writing pro-
cess can help to build morale (Kalpakjian and Meade,
2008). The form of celebration can shift according to
the nature of the team (e.g. from a celebrationary team
email to gathering for a meal), but the symbolic value of
marking each stage of achievement should not be
missed. The obvious points for celebration are upon for-
mal submission to a journal, and upon eventual publica-
tion, but teams may wish to identify other relevant
moments or “firsts” in which to honour the good work
of their collectives.
CONCLUSION
Minkler and Wallerstein (Minkler and Wallerstein,
2003) and Flicker et al. (Flicker et al., 2008) have argued
that inclusion and participation are central philosophi-
cal tenets of a CBPR approach. Writing is fundamentally
a social and political act. The kinds of questions we ask
and answer, as health promotion researchers, have the
power to shape the ways in which the world is seen, un-
derstood and reproduced. Writing can reify, reinforce
and/or challenge power inequalities. It can also be a cat-
alyst for change. Stoecker (Stoecker, 2009) has elo-
quently written about how in community-based
research, writing ought to be a means to an action end,
and the paths we take to get there ought to follow our
emancipatory intentions.
Writing together is neither easy nor without its chal-
lenges. Power imbalances often come to the fore and
sometimes important voices are silenced in the rush to
the finish (Savan et al., 2009). Nevertheless, writing col-
laboratively has the potential to honour the participa-
tion and intellectual contributions of diverse team
members (Castleden et al., 2010), increase productivity
(Mayrath 2008) and enrich the quality of our scholar-
ship (Flicker and Nixon, 2014). Some find it enjoyable;
others may feel that being held accountable to a group
can be motivating.
The aim of this article is to inspire teams conducting
community-engaged research to reflect on their practices
for publishing their work, and to promote dialogue on
how we might train a new generation of health promo-
tion scholars to write together and with others. Taking
the time and energy to “do it right” and ensure that di-
verse voices get heard, can also be conceived of as a
Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016
form of activism. By meaningfully engaging diverse (of-
ten community-based) team members in this act typi-
cally reserved for academics, we bolster the argument
that these voices, and these forms of expertise, matter
and need to be heard.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank: all the anonymous reviewers, Sarah
Switzer, and Drs. Zack Marshall, Adrian Guta and Ciann
Wilson for their invaluable feedback on earlier drafts of this
manuscript, Renée Monchalin for her research assistance and
David Flicker for his copy editing help.
FUNDING
Dr. Stephanie Nixon is funded by a Canadian Institutes of
Health Research New Investigator Award (#494142).
REFERENCES
Albert, T. and Wager, E. (2004) How to handle authorship dis-
putes: a guide for new researchers. The Committee on
Publication of Ethics (COPE) Report 2003 White C. and
Journalist F.. London, UK. BMJ Books 2004, 32–34.
Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Roberts, H., Oliver, S., and Popay, J.
(2006) The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge
translation and exchange in public health. Journal of Public
Health, 28, 384–389.
Bordeaux, B. C., Wiley, C., Tandon, S. D., Horowitz, C. R.,
Brown, P. B., and Bass, E. B. (2007) Guidelines for writing
manuscripts about community-based participatory research
for peer-reviewed journals. Progress in Community Health
Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 1, 281–288.
Casale, M. A., Flicker, S. and Nixon, S. A. (2011) Fieldwork
challenges lessons learned from a North–South Public
Health Research Partnership. Health Promotion Practice,
12, 734–743.
Castleden, H., Garvin, T. and First Nation H.-a.-a. (2008).
Modifying photovoice for community-based participatory
indigenous research. Social Science & Medicine, 66,
1393–1405.
Writing peer-reviewed articles with diverse teams
Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S. and Neimanis, A. (2010)
Researchers’ perspectives on collective/community co-
authorship in community-based participatory indigenous re-
search. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research
Ethics: An International Journal, 5, 23–32.
Flicker, S. (2014) Disseminating Action Research. The SAGE
Encyclopedia of Action Research, vol. 1, Coghlan D. and
Brydon-Miller M.. SAGE, London pp. 276–280.
Flicker, S. and Nixon, S. (2014) The DEPICT model for partici-
patory qualitative health promotion research analysis pi-
loted in Canada, Zambia and South Africa. Health
Promotion International 30, 616–624.
Flicker, S., Savan, B., Mildenberger, M. and Kolenda, B. (2008)
A snapshot of community based research in Canada: who?
what? why? how? Health Education Research, 23, 106–114
Flicker, S., Travers, R., Flynn, S., Larkin, J., Guta, A., Salehi, R.,
Pole, J. D. and Layne, C. (2010) Sexual health research for
and with urban youth: the Toronto Teen Survey story. The
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 19, 133–144.
Forchuk, C. and Meier, A. (2014) The article idea chart: a par-
ticipatory action research tool to aid involvement in dissemi-
nation. Gateways: International Journal of Community
Research and Engagement, 7, 157–163.
Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe,
J., Caswell, W. and Robinson, N. (2006). Lost in knowledge
translation: time for a map? Journal of Continuing
Education in the Health Professions, 26, 13–24.
Guta, A., Flicker, S. and Roche, B. (2013). Governing through
community allegiance: a qualitative examination of peer re-
search in community-based participatory research. Critical
Public Health, 23, 432–451.
Haas, S. (2011). A writer development group for master’s stu-
dents: procedures and benefits. Journal of Academic writing,
1, 88–99.
Harley, C. D., Hixon, M. A. and Levin, L. A. (2004) Scientific
writing and publishing—a guide for students. Bulletin of the
Ecological Society of America, 85, 74–78.
Herr, K. and Anderson, G. L. (2014) The Action Research
Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty, Sage
Publications, London.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2015)
Defining the role of authors and contributors. http://www.
icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibil
ities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
(last checked 8/11/2015).
Israel, B., Eng, E., Schultz, A. and Parker, E. (2006) Methods in
Community-Based Participatory Research for Health.
Jossey-Bass, Berkeley, CA
Kalpakjian, C. Z. and Meade, M. (2008) Writing manuscripts
for peer review: your guide to not annoying reviewers and
increasing your chances of success. Sexuality and Disability,
26, 229–240.
Kiewra, K. A. (1994) A slice of advice. Educational Researcher,:
31–33.
Kurmis, A. (2003) Contributing to research: the basic elements
of a scientific manuscript. Radiography, 9, 277–282.
9
Logie, C., James, L., Tharao, W. and Loutfy, M. R. (2012)
Opportunities, ethical challenges, and lessons learned from
working with peer research assistants in a multi-method
HIV community-based research study in Ontario, Canada.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics,
7, 10–19.
Marshall, G. and Brennan, P. (2008) From MSc dissertations to
quantitative research papers in leading journals: a practical
guide. Radiography, 14, 73–77.
Mayrath, M. C. (2008) Attributions of productive authors in ed-
ucational psychology journals. Educational Psychology
Review, 20, 41–56.
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2009) Doing and Writing Action
Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016
Research, Sage Publications, London.
Minkler, M. (2005) Community-based research partnerships:
challenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health, 82,
ii3–ii12.
Minkler, M. and Wallerstein, N. (2003) Community-Based
Participatory Research for Health., Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Murray, R. and Newton, M. (2009) Writing retreat as struc-
tured intervention: margin or mainstream? Higher
Education Research & Development, 28, 541–553.
Nixon, S. A., Casale, M., Flicker, S. and Rogan, M. (2013)
Applying the principles of knowledge translation and ex-
change to inform dissemination of HIV survey results to ad-
olescent participants in South Africa. Health Promotion
International, 28, 233–243.
Raphael, D. (2000) The question of evidence in health promo-
tion. Health Promotion International, 15, 355–367.
Ritchie, S. M. and Rigano, D. L. (2007) Writing together
metaphorically and bodily side-by-side: an inquiry into col-
laborative academic writing. Reflective Practice, 8,
123–135.
Savan, B., Flicker, S., Kolenda, B. and Mildenberger, M. (2009)
How to facilitate (or discourage) community-based re-
search: recommendations based on a Canadian survey.
Local Environment, 14, 783–796.
Simpson, L. (2001) Aboriginal peoples and knowledge: decolo-
nizing our processes. The Canadian Journal of Native
Studies, 21, 137–148.
Smith, L. T. (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and
Indigenous Peoples. , St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Stoecker, R. (2009). Are we talking the walk of community-
based research? Action Research, 7, 385–404.
Tuck, E., Allen, J., Bacha, M., Morales, A., Quinter, S.,
Thompson, J., Tuck, M. (2008) PAR praxes for now and
future change: the collective of researchers on educational
disappointment and desire. In Cammarota, J. and Fine, M.
(Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory
action research in motion. Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 49–83.
Van der Meulen, E. (2011) Participatory and action-oriented
dissertations: the challenges and importance of community-
engaged graduate research. The Qualitative Report, 16,
1291–1303.
10
Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E., Gartlehner, G., Lohr,
K., Griffith, D., Rhodes, S., Samuel-Hodege, C., Maty, S.,
Lux, L. et al. (2004) Community-based participatory re-
search: assessing the evidence. Summary, evidence report/
technology assessment, No 99. Rockville, MD, RTI-
S. Flicker and S. A. Nixon
University of North Carolina Evidence Based Practice Center
& Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
Wang, C., Yi, W., Tao, Z. and Carovano, K. (1998) Photovoice
as a participatory health promotion strategy. Health
Promotion International, 13, 75–86.
Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Washington on August 6, 2016