How to write a scientific manuscript for publication

Essential Guide to Manuscript Writing for Academic Dummies: An Editor’s Perspective

Writing an effective manuscript is one of the pivotal steps in the successful closure of the research project, and getting it published in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal adds to the academic profile of a researcher. Writing and publishing a scientific paper is a tough task that researchers and academicians must endure in staying relevant in the field. Success in translating the benchworks into the scientific content, which is effectively communicated within the scientific field, is used in evaluating the researcher in the current academic world. Writing is a highly time-consuming and skill-oriented process that requires familiarity with the numerous publishing steps, formatting rules, and ethical guidelines currently in vogue in the publishing industry. In this review, we have attempted to include the essential information that novice authors in their early careers need to possess, to be able to write a decent first scientific manuscript ready for submission in the journal of choice. This review is unique in providing essential guidance in a simple point-wise manner in conjunction with easy-to-understand illustrations to familiarize novice researchers with the anatomy of a basic scientific manuscript.

SciPub-019-Getting Your Article Published in Scientific Journals- an Event Report

Introduction

The quantity and quality of published research from Nepal, though improving, are low. Among other factors, lack of knowledge about scientific writing is an important contributor. Thus, with the objective of improving knowledge about scientific writing, a one-day workshop was conducted, entitled, “SciPub-019-Getting your article published in scientific journals”.

Methods

The knowledge and attitude of participants were evaluated both before and immediately after the workshop.

Results

Thirty-three individuals participated with most (48.5%) being pharmacists, followed closely by doctors. 66.7% of the participants were males and 72.7% of participants had published one article as of the workshop date while the rest had published two. On specific questions, there was a significant difference between the responses regarding the abstract being the first part of the paper to be written, before and after the workshop. There was also a significant difference between the overall responses of the participants.

Conclusion

Improvement in the knowledge of the participants about scientific writing and publication was noted. Workshops of similar nature should be regularly conducted to improve the knowledge of new researchers about scientific writing.

The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion

The discussion section of a scientific paper is supposed to interpret and elucidate the significance of the study findings, highlight current knowledge available on the research problem being investigated, and explain the novel aspects emerging from the findings of the study in moving the field forward. A well-written discussion should provide clear "statements of the main findings", "possible explanations and implications", "strengths and weaknesses of the study and other studies", "unanswered questions", and "suggestions for future research". The authors also need to clarify the external validity of the findings and show how the findings can be generalized. In this review, we focus on the function, content, and organization of the "discussion section" of a hypothesis-testing paper. Beyond providing the most important principles and common strategies for organizing the discussion section, we also discuss metadiscourse, scientific explanation (reasoning and contextualization), and models of scientific explanation.

The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Materials and Methods

The materials and methods (M&M) section is the heart of a scientific paper and is subject to initial screening of the editor to decide whether the manuscript should be sent for external review. If the M&M section of a scientific paper be considered as a recipe, its ingredients would be who, what, when, where, how, and why. M&M should effectively respond to the study question/hypothesis using the following basic elements including materials, study design, study population/subjects or animals, methods of measurements/assessments, and statistical analysis. A well-organized M&M permits other scientists to evaluate the study findings and repeat the experiments. Although there are several disciplinary differences in the M&M, similar dos and don'ts may be considered to organize a well-written M&M. Briefly, authors need to provide clear-cut, adequate, and detailed information in the M&M section. In this review, the structure, the principles, and the most common recommendations for writing the M&M section are provided, both in general and study-specific; these could help authors effectively prepare the M&M section of a scientific biomedical manuscript.

A narrative literature review of depression following traumatic brain injury: prevalence, impact, and management challenges

Depression is one of the most common conditions to emerge after traumatic brain injury (TBI), and despite its potentially serious consequences it remains undertreated. Treatment for post-traumatic depression (PTD) is complicated due to the multifactorial etiology of PTD, ranging from biological pathways to psychosocial adjustment. Identifying the unique, personalized factors contributing to the development of PTD could improve long-term treatment and management for individuals with TBI. The purpose of this narrative literature review was to summarize the prevalence and impact of PTD among those with moderate to severe TBI and to discuss current challenges in its management. Overall, PTD has an estimated point prevalence of 30%, with 50% of individuals with moderate to severe TBI experiencing an episode of PTD in the first year after injury alone. PTD has significant implications for health, leading to more hospitalizations and greater caregiver burden, for participation, reducing rates of return to work and affecting social relationships, and for quality of life. PTD may develop directly or indirectly as a result of biological changes after injury, most notably post-injury inflammation, or through psychological and psychosocial factors, including pre injury personal characteristics and post-injury adjustment to disability. Current evidence for effective treatments is limited, although the strongest evidence supports antidepressants and cognitive behavioral interventions. More personalized approaches to treatment and further research into unique therapy combinations may improve the management of PTD and improve the health, functioning, and quality of life for individuals with TBI.

Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript

Publishing original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is an important milestone for a scientist or a clinician. It is an important parameter to assess academic achievements. However, technical and language barriers may prevent many enthusiasts from ever publishing. This review highlights the important preparatory steps for creating a good manuscript and the most widely used IMRaD (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion) method for writing a good manuscript. It also provides a brief overview of the submission and review process of a manuscript for publishing in a biomedical journal.

Improving the reliability of peer-reviewed publications: We are all in it together

The current, and welcome, focus on standardization of techniques and transparency of reporting in the biomedical, peer-reviewed literature is commendable. However, that focus has been intermittent as well as lacklustre and so failed to tackle the alarming lack of reliability and reproducibly of biomedical research. Authors have access to numerous recommendations, ranging from simple standards dealing with technical issues to those regulating clinical trials, suggesting that improved reporting guidelines are not the solution. The elemental solution is for editors to require meticulous implementation of their journals' instructions for authors and reviewers and stipulate that no paper is published without a transparent, complete and accurate materials and methods section.

The relationship between manuscript title structure and success: editorial decisions and citation performance for an ecological journal

A poorly chosen article title may make a paper difficult to discover or discourage readership when discovered, reducing an article's impact. Yet, it is unclear how the structure of a manuscript's title influences readership and impact. We used manuscript tracking data for all manuscripts submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from 2004 to 2013 and citation data for papers published in this journal from 1987 to 2011 to examine how title features changed and whether a manuscript's title structure was predictive of success during the manuscript review process and/or impact (citation) after publication. Titles of manuscripts submitted to Functional Ecology became marginally longer (after controlling for other variables), broader in focus (less frequent inclusion of genus and species names), and included more humor and subtitles over the period of the study. Papers with subtitles were less likely to be rejected by editors both pre- and post-peer review, although both effects were small and the presence of subtitles in published papers was not predictive of citations. Papers with specific names of study organisms in their titles fared poorly during editorial (but not peer) review and, if published, were less well cited than papers whose titles did not include specific names. Papers with intermediate length titles were more successful during editorial review, although the effect was small and title word count was not predictive of citations. No features of titles were predictive of reviewer willingness to review papers or the length of time a paper was in peer review. We conclude that titles have changed in structure over time, but features of title structure have only small or no relationship with success during editorial review and post-publication impact. The title feature that was most predictive of manuscript success: papers whose titles emphasize broader conceptual or comparative issues fare better both pre- and post-publication than do papers with organism-specific titles.

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.