Transcript Slide 1
Preparing research manuscripts
Anis Karimpour-Fard
[email protected]
http://compbio.ucdenver.edu/Hunter
October 18,2011
Can I publish this?
• Have you done something new and interesting?
• Have you provided solutions to a problem?
• Have you checked the latest results in the field?
• Is the result interesting or useful for others in the field?
• Is the hypothesis straightforward?
• Did the experiments test the hypothesis?
• Can you describe the study in 1 or 2 minutes?
• Do your findings tell a nice story?
If all answers are “yes”, then start preparing your
manuscript.
Starting out
Give an informal ORAL presentation of the
work before you start to write the paper
This way you will clarify the story you want to
tell and can anticipate objections or
misunderstandings that must be addressed
in the text.
Types of scientific papers
•
Research articles
Full articles
Brief communications
Short communications
Letters
Application note
• Non-research articles
Book chapters
Review articles
Letter to editors
Self-evaluate your work: Is it sufficient for a full
article?
Which
conference/workshop/journal?
Choose journal
Look at your references –these will help you narrow
your choices
•
•
•
•
Is the journal peer-reviewed?
Who is this journal’s audience?
What is the average time to print?
What is the journal’s Impact Factor?
A measure of how frequently its articles are cited in other
journals
Choose journal: A Few Suggestions
• Study “instructions to authors”
• Think about possible reviewers
• Each journal has its own style; Review recent
publications in each candidate journal. Find out the
hot topics, the accepted types of articles, etc.
• Know the journal, and why you submitted the
paper there
Instructions to authors
Follow the Instructions!
• Every conference/journal provides “Instructions to Authors” or
“Submission instructions” which detail
Paper types
Paper length
Length of abstract
Paper format (LaTeX, Word template)
Paper sections
Reference format
Spelling/capitalization/formatting conventions
Deadlines
It is best to know the limits in advance than have to go back
and change the paper later
Authors
• Identify co-authors
Contributions to the work Often listed largely from
greatest contributions to least
• Discuss author order
• Make sure your co-authors agree about the message
• Discuss target publication venue
Writing the manuscript
The hardest part is getting started
Parts of a manuscript
Title
• Abstract
• Introduction: What was the question?
• Methods: How did you try to answer it?
• Results: What did you find?
• Discussion: What does it mean?
• Acknowledgements
• References
Write in what order?
Start by drafting whatever part of the paper you find easiest
to prepare
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgements
References
Figures
Tables
Title
• The TITLE is critical- it must be short and give the
big-picture
• Should be specific enough but not overly narrow
• The fewest possible words that adequately indicate the
contents of the paper
• Important in literature searching
Methods
• Purposes: to allow others to replicate and to evaluate
what you did
• Should describe the study design
• Begin writing when experiments still in progress
• Reference published methods where appropriate
• Should identify (if applicable)
Statistical methods
Methods previously described but not well known
Methods that you yourself devised
Cite and briefly describe the well-known methods
Results
•
•
•
•
The core of the paper
Briefly repeating method can be effective
Decide on the elements of the story you wish to tell
Choose the subset of text, figures, and tables that most
effectively and concisely coveys your message
• Do not speculate or over discuss results
• Rather than telling the reader that a result is interesting
or significant, show them how it is interesting or
significant
Introduction
• why the current study is of scientific interest
Build case for why study is important/necessary
Provide brief background to understand the paper and appreciate its
importance
to set the stage for the present research, indicating gaps in
knowledge and presenting the research question
to introduce present research, stating its purpose and outlining its
design
• State hypothesis / central question
• Give a one sentence summary of findings
• Emphasize your specific contribution to the topic
• Typically should be funnel-shaped, moving from general to
specific
Introduction: A Few Suggestions
• First
paragraph of introduction
Is crucial for catching the attention of the audience
why the current study is of scientific interest
• Last paragraph of the Introduction
Short summary of what you set out to do
What you have achieved
Discussion
• Often should begin with a brief summary of the main
findings
• Should answer the question stated in the introduction
• Some other items commonly addressed
Limitations of the study
Relationship to findings of other research (show how it
agrees or disagrees with previous models)
Include suggestions for improving your techniques or
design, or clarify areas of doubt for further research
• Discuss weaknesses and discrepancies Typically
should move from specific to general (opposite of
introduction)
References
• Functions
To give credit
To add credibility
To help readers find further information
Will help in choosing journal
Better insight into possible reviewers
• Importance of accuracy
• Existence of various reference formats
• Availability of citation management software
(examples: EndNote, Reference Manager)
References A Few Suggestions
•Make sure references are comprehensive,
accurate, relevant and recent
Seemingly relevant paper not cited
• Be highly selective
• Do not misquote
Abstract
• The quality of an abstract will strongly influence the
editor’s decision
• Use the abstract to “sell” your article
•The major goal in reading the abstract is to understand
the research question, how is done, what did the research
find, and what do the findings mean.
• A good abstract:
State main objective
How the study was done
Summarize most important results
State major conclusions and significance
Can stand alone
Is brief and specific (Follow word limitations (50‐300 words))
Tips and Tricks
• Write your abstract last: it is a summary
• Take phrases from each section and put them in a
sequence which summarizes the paper
• Then revise to make it cohesive and clear
• Include key words
• Conclusion: restate message
• No new information
Figures : A Few Suggestions
• Intelligible without reference to the text
• Avoid including too much information in one figure
• Make sure any lettering will be large enough once published
• Follow the journal’s instructions
Assemble draft figures
Decide what are the key points that you need to make,
and write them out (how and what). Focus on
hypotheses that you tested.
Tables: A Few Suggestions
• Design tables to be understandable without the text
• If a paper includes a series of tables, use the same
format for each
• If your table includes the results of a statistical
analysis, be sure to provide the information
necessary for the reader to properly evaluate the
analysis
• Be sure to follow the instructions to authors
Acknowledgments
• A place to thank people who helped with the
work but did not make contributions deserving
authorship
• Anyone who provided technical help
• Anyone who supplied data or computational
resources
• State why people have been acknowledged
• Sometimes the place where sources of financial
support are stated
Criteria for evaluation
• Relevance
• Content & Significance
Results adequately discussed?
Reasonable conclusion drawn from data?
Clear statement of implications of research?
• Content
• Writing
Journal Review Form
Recommendation: Accept as is /Accept with minor revisions /Accept with major
revisions /Reject but encourage re-submission after the work is more developed
/Reject
Reviewer Blind Comments to Author:
Reviewer Confidential Comments to Editor:
COMMENTS TO THE EDITOR:
Please rate the manuscript with respect to the following items:
(Place an X on the line in front of your rating.)
1. TECHNICAL CORRECTNESS
__ Excellent __ Good __ Acceptable __ Fair __ Very Poor
2. NOVELTY/ORIGINALITY
__ Excellent __ Good __ Acceptable __ Fair __ Very Poor
3. REFERENCE TO PRIOR WORK
x__ Excellent __ Good __ Acceptable __ Fair __ Very Poor
4. QUALITY OF ART
__ Excellent __ Good __ Acceptable __ Fair __ Very Poor
5. QUALITY OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
__ Excellent __ Good __ Acceptable __ Fair __ Very Poor
6. APPROPRIATENESS TO JOURNAL
__ Excellent __ Good __ Acceptable __ Fair __ Very Poor
7. IMPORTANCE TO THE FIELD
__ Excellent __ Good __ Acceptable __ Fair __ Very Poor
8. ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY
__ Excellent __ Good __ Acceptable __ Fair __ Very Poor
Reviewer Recommendation and Comments for Manuscript
Major reasons for rejection
• Not novel
• Serious flaws of design, methodology, analysis, or
interpretation
inadequate review of the literature
insufficient methodology
unclear statistical analysis
Inappropriate statistical techniques
Discussion that goes beyond the data
Hypothesis not adequately tested
• Inappropriate for journal
• Poorly written
Summary: Steps in preparing research
manuscripts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Read the Instructions to Authors of the journal chosen
Decide who the authors will be
Draft a working title and abstract
Decide what are the key points that you need to make, and
write them out (Focus on your hypotheses).
Make sure references are comprehensive and accurate
Check the illustrations and tables and make the final versions
Find someone to review your manuscript
Put the manuscript away for a few days
Write a cover letter to the editor
Create the list of poteinial reviewers
Sources of Further Guidance
• How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 6th
edition, by Robert A. Day and Barbara Gastel
(Greenwood Press, 2006)
• Fundamentals of Writing Biomedical Research
Papers, 2nd edition, by Mimi Zeiger (McGraw-Hill,
2000)
• Preparing Scientific Illustrations: A Guide to Better
Posters, Presentations, and Publications, 2nd
edition, by Mary Helen Briscoe (Springer, 1996)
• Huth EJ. How to Write and Publish Papers in the
Medical Sciences, 2nd Edition. Baltimore: Williams
& Wilkins, 1990.