11.
Biomedical Communication
|
Steps
in Writing and Publishing a Research Paper |
STEPS
IN WRITING AND PUBLISHING A RESEARCH PAPER
Writing of a scientific paper signifies the logical culmination of
research endeavour- the first step towards communicating the new knowledge
generated to the formal domain for eventual application for public good. Unless
the research' carried out appears in the scholarly communication system, it does
not serve its intended purpose of application of new information for the
advancement of frontiers of science. Traditionally, publication in a learned
journal is considered the most appropriate and acceptable means of informing the
peer community of the new information generated. Scientific paper publication is
thus an intrinsic and inevitable facet of doing science.
Publication in a scientific
journal envisages writing or putting on paper new information/data generated in
a formal and structured format. The purpose of a clear-cut style for
presentation of papers is to help scientific community understand the underlying
messages fast. In addition, a properly prepared paper gives an indication of a
clear thinking in concept and execution of a research topic and therefore,
raises the image of the author besides helping the reader. A well-prepared paper
goes through the various stages prior to publication much faster than a badly
prepared one. The referee(s) who scrutinize the paper for its scientific
validity are also likely to help the editor expedite the peer review process. A
badly written paper, on the other hand, often puts off the referee from
immediate scrutiny, as the key messages of the paper are not clear. No one likes
to read a poorly drafted paper. In addition, due to its easy comprehensibility,
a well-prepared paper gets assimilated into the common pool of knowledge more
rapidly and widely enhancing chances of its capability. In an extreme case, a
poorly prepared paper may even get rejected just for this reason even though the
intrinsic values of the data are good. It is not very uncommon for a reviewer to
send a very badly written paper back to the editorial office requesting for
resubmission after the message being conveyed is made clear. This is more, so
for papers submitted to widely circulated prestigious international journals.
The
quality of a scientific paper and its eventual publication often depends on the
planning that goes before the actual
paper is written. The following are some of the key elements that should be kept
in mind, according to Edward Huth, who edited the successful journal Annals
of Internal Medicine.
First
and foremost is the message itself. Decide on the crucial points being conveyed
through the paper. What is the key message(s) that you are trying to
communicate? Is the content important enough to warrant writing of a research
paper? If so, what kind of paper would justify communication of new information?
A full paper, short communication, a case report? If there is enough
justification for the writing of a paper, the next issue that needs to be
ascertained is the 'newness' or 'original' information being reported. Are you
the first to report these findings? Or it is the first report from North India?
If a similar work has been reported earlier, are your data more convincing,
credible? Or at least is it 'new' to the journal being sent. A good literature
search at this stage would be in order. It is possible that no literature search
has been done and what is considered 'new' by the authors has just been
reported. An a chance discovery, as it happens in case reports that needs to be
checked for tile case being unique and uncommon. In addition, even a literature
search has been done earlier, with the explosion in publication, a new search
could save the embarrassment of the referee pointing out that similar findings
have just been reported. Such a paper would obviously be considered a repetitive
study would not certainly enhance the reputation of the authors. It would be
difficult to justify non- inclusion of references, even if these were
'inadvertently' left out. One of the cardinal sins committed by Indian authors
is sending papers for publication without the mandatory last minute updating
literature search. Many papers gets turned down by journals abroad merely
because the authors are not well informed about their own area. It is clear from
our experience that current awareness is among the weakest links in Indian
medical writing. What is more, the new paper(s) you fish out may well answer a
critical question that has been a loose end in your arguments in the paper. With
the current wide availability of MEDLARS searches and the internet - based
literature searches, this should not be a problem.
The
other crucial issue that should be thought over by the authors is the importance
of the work being reported vis-a-vis the journal being considered. Editors
advocate application of what is called the 'so what' principle. When confronted
with too many papers - editors the world over always have more papers than they can possibly publish; the
rejection rates of good journals average 75 per cent or more. Decisions about
acceptance thus are taken by editors on the simple question of its adding value
to the journal. What happens if this paper is not published? Will my journal and
readers lose any critical information? A positive answer would enhance the
confidence of the authors white writing the paper in approaching the editorial
office.
Having decided that there
is enough new information/data that warrants writing of a paper, the next issue
to be resolved relates to the audience to which your paper is being addressed
who would be looking forward reading this paper. Is it meant for a small group
of super specialists (say,
paediatric gastroenterologists),
a larger group
of specialists (gastroenterologists) or all practicing physicians? This
would decide the journal to which this paper will be sent. Often, choice of a
wrong journal would mean avoidable delay, as the referees/editor would return
the paper with a polite note that your paper being of not of sufficient interest
to their readership despite containing useful data. It would therefore help
greatly if some thinking goes into choosing the appropriate journal. Merely
because a journal is widely circulated and prestigious does not mean it would
accept all 'good' papers sent. One useful way to do is to scan some recent
issues of a short list of proposed journals especially the kind of articles the
journal has been publishing recently. These can be further arranged according to
their international coverage, impact factor and other indices. In addition,
going through the journal's editorial policy would help understand the scope,
kind of papers entertained and other similar details necessary for the
preparation of a manuscript. One should try and find out the best match of the
audience with that topic.
Another
crucial issue that needs to be addressed at the time of writing a research paper
relates to the authorship. It is strongly advised that names of all the possible
authors, if not the order, be decided before the paper is written. As a general guideline, editors
recommend that all the people who have contributed to the 'intellectual content'
of the paper should be included as authors. In other words those should be
people who have significantly participated in the study, helped writing parts of
the paper, or in the revision of the intellectual content of the paper. In
addition, all the authors should agree on who will be corresponding with the
editor and would be responsible for settling disputes, if any, on authorship.
Many journals insist on some form of ‘undertaking' on
this issue before the paper is
considered for publication. Now some international journals like Journal of American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, etc., have
started asking the authors to spell out their relative contribution in the
research work being reported.
Once
these issues are sorted out, it is time to start the actual process of reporting
the research and the odyssey from the laboratory bench to a learned journal
starts in right earnest. It is always recommended that before starting writing a
paper, all the relevant evidence is collected, analyzed and arranged in the form
of tables and/or figures/charts, etc. Simultaneously, if any permissions have to
be obtained relating to material used for research, any unpublished information
being used, etc. It always helps to
write the salient findings in the form of point-wise write-up in a logical
sequence with all the important findings listed in the order of importance. This
can be the results section of the paper.
Basically, all scientific
papers try to report something new and attempt presenting arguments as to how
these data are new and novel and what way they differ from the earlier
published reports. And if these data differ for published findings, the
reasons for the difference, and attempt convincing readers of the credibility of
their research. A scientific paper is thus a write-up with arrangement of a set
of ideas and critical arguments arranged in
a logical sequence.
What the authors try to do
this exercise it in a set format as prescribed by the journal. First, the
problem studied is described either posing a question or proposing a hypothesis.
Evidence is then presented on the
main points and then the subsidiary points, keeping the same sequence
throughout. The credibility of data (evidence) gathered through the meticulously
planned experiments is explained in the
light of similar findings, if any, reported. The implications are discussed in
the light of available knowledge, especially if there is any conflicting
evidence. Arguments are presented defending and/or justifying the new points
made in the paper. Finally a verdict is made in. terms of conclusions, implications are outlined and
recommendations, if any, for further
work.
Until
the early part of this century, scientific papers were written mostly in the
first person singular form describing the findings in an informal, loosely
structured way. When there were not many papers to be read, as the scientific
enterprise itself was small, it was easy for scientists to read nearly all the
papers published, as long as they were of interest. When the publication of
papers boomed especially during the 1950s and early 60s, it became increasingly
difficult for researchers to cope with the literature explosion. Several
innovations were attempted and serious steps to streamline and standardize the
scholarly communication system were initiated. It was felt that if the
scientific paper is written in a form that would help the reader help quickly
assimilate its contents it would be great advantage. In addition, having a
standard structure would help library and
information science professionals to index and computerize the papers to
help fast and easy retrieval.
A
British statistician Sir A. Bradford Hill in 1965 Proposed a structure that
addressed these issues. He proposed the following structure with clear-cut
demarcations on the information to be presented in a research paper:
Why did you start the work?
Clear
statement of the hypothesis stated or clearly implied. Where did the question
come from would form the Introduction.
What
did you do to get these data?
How
was the hypothesis/research question tested /verified with subject and methods
will form the Material and Methods section.
What
are the answers obtained?
The
salient findings and supporting evidence would form the Results section
What
does it mean or the implications of your study?
The
main answers to the question, supporting and counter-evidence and assessment of
evidence would form the Discussions and
conclusions section.
To
sum up this narrative sequence would form the structure of the scientific paper,
as we know now.
The IMRAD format.
Introduction
Materials
& Methods
Results
and
Discussion
The
IMRAD format is now accepted in all scientific journals, especially the
biomedical journals all over the world. The International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors also recommends it as the standard format of writing and
publishing original research papers (see Annexure).
Title
The
title of a research paper is an important component of a paper as any one who
scans primary journals or indexing sources like the Current Contents would read the title before deciding whether the
paper is of interest. What is more, the emergence of computer-based information
retrieval services, title of a scientific paper has assumed a special
significance. Unless the title sufficiently describes the main content of the
paper, it is likely that user-scientist would not be able to retrieve the paper.
Thus the very purpose of writing the paper viz., reaching the intended audience,
is lost. The title is expected to give a broad idea of the contents of the
paper, even when read independently. For this purpose, the title must carry a
sufficient number of keywords that include all key concepts studied. A title
also must be specific and riot general. A nonspecific title does not convey the
key content of the paper but may not attract reader's attention.
Title
of a paper thus neither should be too long which would result in loosing message
due to verbiage nor too short to miss the key content. There are no rules about
the number of words to be used in a title but about 100 to 150 characters (about
15-20 words ) are ideal. Use of specific word, the familiar word and the short
word would make the title more effective and meaningful. Inclusion of waste and
/or empty words like "Studies on...”,
“Investigations on…” could be avoided. The use of uncommon
abbreviations, special notations and reference numbers in the title should be
avoided. It is however advisable to consult the journal's information to author
before the title is finalized.
One
of the common mistakes that occurs in the title relates to faulty syntax
(arrangement of words). Titles like "Glutathione and its redox system in obese
polymorphonuclear leucokytes" or "Changing profile of aspartate
and alanine aminotransferases in normal and pregnant
sera" are some titles that result when the authors try to condense the
title without adequate attention to the syntax.
To
sum up, the title should be specific and interesting to attract and retain the
interest of the reader at the same time including all the crucial points
addressed in the paper. Title in some ways is a condensed
version of the abstract. So while a tentative title can be given in the
beginning itself, it is a good practice to write the final title only after the
entire paper has been written and finalized.
Name(s) and Address(s) of the Author(s)
The
names of all the authors' should be spelt out clearly and in the same way as
done in all the earlier publications. If the names are given in different way
each time it could result in chaos for readers and indexers at the time of
citation and retrieval of papers, especially computerized retrieval systems. If
different authors of the same paper are located in several different Institutes,
the respective names and addresses should be given separately. In the case of
multi-author papers, an asterisk and a footnote should indicate the author to
whom correspondence is to be addressed. The corresponding author should be
identified with complete address.
Abstract
Abstract
is a crucial part of the scientific paper as the essence of the paper is
summarized for the benefit of a busy reader. A well-written abstract would
induce the reader to seek more details. Abstract is a mini version of the paper
and should provide a brief summary of all the sections of paper: Introduction,
Material & Methods & Results and Discussion. An abstract is thus
expected to give all this information in a maximum length of about 250 words,
information about the purpose of the study, newly observed facts, conclusions of
experiment or argument, and if possible, the essential parts of any new theory,
treatment, apparatus, technique, etc. It
should contain names of new compounds, species, etc., and new numerical data, such as physical or biological
constants. If this is not possible, it should draw attention to them. It should
state the main objectives and scope of the investigation, indicate the
methodology employed giving, if needed, new methods employed, summarize the
important results, discuss tile implications of the study and finally give main
conclusion(s).
In the current context of the information age, where
about a million papers appear every year, abstract has come to acquire a special
significance, as it is an important means of presenting crucial contents in a
brief form. Thus the main functions of an abstract are
(i) To meet
the requirements of the journals.
(ii) To
enable a busy research worker to decide whether to go through tile full paper
or riot,
especially when retrieved from a database.
(iii) Induce
even a reader with 'fringe' interest in the subject covered in the paper.
The
following should be avoided in the abstract: i) repetition of the title; ii)
references; iii) uncommon abbreviations; iv) structural formulae and figures; v)
trivial results and experimental details; and vi) excessive speculation.
The
abstract ideally should be written after, paper has been finalized. It should be
ensured that the numerical data quoted in the text and tables match those given
in the abstract and not contain any information and conclusions not stated in
the paper.
Many
journals now insist on the structured abstract, which would take care of some of
common mistakes that occur. The structured abstract consists of headings as
Background, Objectives, Design, Setting, Participants, Measurements, Results and
Conclusions. Each heading can have one to two sentences. They should briefly
describe the problem being addressed in the study, how the study was performed,
the salient results, and what the authors conclude from the results. The overall
length should not normally exceed 250 words.
Introduction
Introduction
is the first part of the paper that forms the main text. As mentioned earlier,
Introduction essentially justifies why this study has been undertaken.
Introduction also outlines the main objectives of the
study. It is thus essential to put the research
work into perspective by quoting earlier studies. While citing literature, only
the most essential ones should be referred to in strict relevance to the study
being reported. Historical survey of the earlier work should be avoided. Quite
often it is possible to cite a recent review article instead of giving a long
list of references; most of the important references would possibly be available
there. Some suggested 'rules' for an effective Introduction are the following:
One should tell the reader why the research was started in very clear terms. Was
it because the gap in knowledge the primary reason for the study and this paper
aims to bridge this gap? Or the issue(s) being addressed are yet unclear
with contrasting views not settled by earlier studies and this one attempts to
clear the air? Minimizing trivial and already known information should minimize
the length and also help keep the readers interest. There is no point in
explaining the study in too much detail with information that has already found
its way into textbooks. The referee as also the reader are specialists in that
area and would have enough, if not more knowledge than the authors, to grasp the
content without such historical detail. Citing the most recent references would
give a positive impression of the knowledge-base of the authors. It might help
if a statement or two are given about the study sample/population included,
study design, especially if there have been earlier studies with different
methodologies and how you have addressed the question. To sum up, Introduction
should be a clear statement of the question. Some journals expect that the
introduction conclude with a brief statement of what has been achieved
Material & Methods
This
section should describe how the study was carried out. Details about the study
methodology, subject/materials used have to be defined. Any interventions
(treatments, etc.) also need to be given along with rneasurements/parameters
used with their units. If the methodology used is a standard and accepted
procedure, necessary reference could be given, as details are not required. If
any standard method has been modified details of the modifications may be given.
If the method/design is (unusual or) new every step may have to be given. If
unpublished, details should be provided with evidence that have been
sufficiently validated. In case of clinical trials, inclusion/exclusion
criteria, allocation of groups needs to be indicated. The primary purpose is to
give sufficient details to enable anyone interested should be able to repeat the
study. In addition, the statistical methodology adapted with supportive
references need to be provided.
A
clear decision has to be made about how much material to be given in the body of
the paper. In respect of methodology, details need be given only what is new, be
it an experimental technique, equipment or a theoretical derivation. Description
of whatever is easily available in literature should be dispensed with through
the relevant literature citation.
For
materials, relevant specifications must he given. Experiments performed, the
ranges covered, the new equip-ment used must be given in sufficient detail to
enable other workers to repeat the
work, if considered necessary.
For
material used, exact technical specifications and quantities with source (manifacturers)
need to be mentioned. Trade names could be avoided and generic and chemical names
would Suffice most of the times. Experimental animals, microorganisms and
other live forms used should be clearly identified accurately usually be genus,
species and strain designations. Equipment used for analysis, especially used
for cell separation, isolation of sub- cellular components should be spelt out
with manufacturers name model number etc.
The handling of laboratory animals should be clearly stated in terms of
the prevalent ethical practices in the care of laboratory animals (Committee,
for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of experiments on Animals-CPSCEA,1998
Guidelines revised from time to
time). In case of trials involving
human subjects, clear details should be provided about the ethical guidelines
followed during the study (ICMR’S
Ethical Guidelines
for Biomedical Research on Human Subjects, 2000). Details about the approval
of the Institutional Ethical Committee, Informed consent etc. should be clearly
stated.
Results
Results
section forms the core of the paper as the entire paper depends on the data
obtained. There are three crucial elements in the presentation of Results:
Evidence, Efficiency and Emphasis. Evidence should be presented with credible
data that support conclusions. The presentation should be efficiently to
convince the reader either as Tables or Figures depending upon the evidence
being presented.. Finally emphasis should be on the core data and issues. Mere
supportive material could well be excluded. The results section has two
essential components. First the overall picture in terms of main results
obtained in the study should be described sequentially. This should be followed
by the data obtained under each of these main
components. It is not necessary to describe all the data obtained or the
trends. Only some representative ones can be described and the rest can be seen
by the reader in the Tables/Figures.
Data Presentation
There
are three main ways of presenting data: (i) in text; (ii) in tabular form; and
(iii) in illustration form. A particular set of data should be given only in one
of these forms. Duplication should be avoided as far as possible; Text is
normally used for simple descriptive data. When precise values are required for
data value (needed by the readers with a high degree of precision), tabular
presentation should be preferred as also when actual comparisons with other
similar studies in the paper are based on the values given. Figures/charts can
be given when trends are to be highlighted as the actual data sets are not
important -It-is always advisable to look at the journal’s policy in respect
of Tables/Figures Depending on the kind of article, many journals limit the
number of Tables/Figures, in view of the high cost involved in printing. Some
journals even charge the authors for pictures, especially if they are colored
photographs. So one needs to exercise restraint in the choice of
illustrative material. For
choosing data for inclusion in the paper, the ideal policy is to give only such
data as are essential for understanding the conclusions drawn. The rest of the
information (supporting data) should be allowed to stay in the laboratory
notebook.
Tabular Presentation of data
Tables should be preferred when data on two variables, one dependent and
one independent, are compared or when data on one or more variable that
changes with time are compared or data that varies with related but unknown
factors are compared. In short, Tables should be used when description in text
cannot fulfill the requirement in view of tile large number of data presenting
complex details. Tables should be self-sufficient capable of conveying the
desired message independently. Each Table should have a clear self-explanatory
title. Column headings should be brief and can be abbreviated, if needed. For
units of measurement, standard abbreviations should be used and these should be
placed below the column headings.
While
constructing Tables, dependent variables should be placed in the column
headings, while the independent variables should be placed in the column of the
extreme left hand side- (the stub). Tables should not be made complex by
including too many details in too many columns. Rather than making a cumbersome
Table, the material should be divided and presented in two or more tables. It is
quite often possible to simplify Tables by taking out-common data and putting
them as running matter below the title as head notes. Footnotes can also be made
use of judiciously to simplify Tables. This is especially relevant when
statistical data such as P values are given comparing the level of significance
between various groups.
Another important point that should in mine is the Table-text sequence in
the paper. The sequence of Table in the paper should form a logical order
through out tile paper. Sometimes some Tables are included initially but at the
final stage some are deleted / combined. In all cases it is better to delete /
combine the Table including only the most relevant data as otherwise editor is
going to just that.
Graphical
Presentation of Data
Iiiustrations
can be of various kinds such as continuous tone pictures like photomicrographs,
electron micrographs, simple graphs, flow charts, family pedigrees, computer
print outs, etc. Use of figures in a
journal adds to the cost of production. Therefore, only such figures as are
absolutely essential should be included.
Illustrative material should be used only where evidence bearing on
the conclusions of a paper cannot be adequately presented in the text or a
Table. Illustrations should not duplicate data already given in text. For
example, a figure showing a linear relationship can be safely dispensed with by
just making a statement to that effect in the text.
For presenting data, various types of illustrations can be made use of
like i) graphs; ii) Histograms (bar diagrams); iii) pie charts etc. When there
is continuity of- variation between two parameters (e.g., age vs. weight),
graphs should be used. When data are taken over periodic intervals (e.g., census
taken every 10 years), bar diagrams would be ideal. When the purpose in making
an illustration is to show relative proportions of components of an entity (e.g.,
percentages of different genetic disorders occurring in a country), it is
preferable to have a pie chart. While
preparing illustrations due attention should be paid to the reduction they are
going to suffer at the printing stage. The size of letters, numbers, dots, etc.
should be such that on reduction they neither become illegible nor are too
big. It is good to have the lettering done in such
a size that on reduction it matches closely the text size (10 points in
printer's language). Consulting a recent issue of the journal is essential to
help plan size and number of illustrations.
Considerable
economy in space and cost can-be achieved in a number of ways; (i) Combining
several simple graphs or photographs
(continuous tone illustrations) in to a composite illustration when the
parameters are common or related, and (ii) making judicious alterations in
scales to reduce the size of the illustrations.
Along
with the original drawings, one or two sets of good quality photocopies should
be supplied to the editor for use at the peer review stage and other operations
prior to final printing. Sufficient attention should be given to the figure
legends. Tile legends should be stand-alone and explanation all the
abbreviations used in the figures, all the statistical and other methods used in
the analysis, magnifications in photographs etc. Illustrations should always be
labeled on the back side with a soft pencil and minimal pressure.
Discussion
Discussion
section is perhaps the most important part of the paper and also the most
difficult section. In fact this section is hardest to write and most papers get
rejected or sent back for revision either because of the discussion section and
not because the data are not original or the methodology not sound. Most authors
have not been able to interpret their data properly and extract the true
meaning. Also, the real impact of their re'search vis-a-vis the existing
knowledge- base has not been brought out clearly and effectively. Most of the
times Discussion section is long and rambling without clearly giving the
answers for which the study has been planned and conducted and the message lost
in the verbiage.
What
are key components of a good Discussion? The Discussion essentially presents the
principles, relationships and generalizations that come out of the Results
section. Thus , there is no need to recapitulate the descriptions given already
in the Results section. The primary aim should be to show the relationships
among observed facts already given in the Results section. The significance of
the paper only should be discussed and the salient outcome of the study brought
out clearly. While discussing the interrelationships between key variables if
any unusual method(s) have been used, they should be spelt out. If any new
statistical methodology has been used or sample size is quite different from the
earlier studies it should be clearly stated with adequate explanations. While
the significant features are being highlighted, it is equally essential to
reasons for any exceptions to the data obtained. If there is disagreement with
the results of earlier studies, it should be pointed out rather than hiding such
studies and running the risk of referee pointing out the same. The main
functions of this section are to interpret data and to highlight the significant
features and the possible causes. Discussion should also mention the
limitations, if any, of the data collected and analyzed and point out any
possible sources of error.
While
discussing the results of the study, one fight shy of pointing out the theoretical
implications of the study and possible practical applications. The conclusions
should be stated as clearly as possible at the end of discussion. Speculations
could be made but they. should be convincing, and restricted strictly to the
evidence gathered in the study. The most essential component
is to keep the Discussion short. The skills of writing are truly tested
in Discussion section in trying to convey,tlie message with crisp writing.
References
The
section on References is crucial for all scientific papers as, through citing of
earlier work acknowledge our intellectual debt to our peers, It is however
essential to follow certain ground rules in the citation of literature consulted
while writing the paper. First and foremost, only the most relevant references
should be cited. Since most journals restrict the number of references also, the
ones quoted should be chosen carefully. It is always preferable to cite the most
recent ones and the most relevant ones. The choice of citing a paper should not
just be based on the journal where the paper has appeared (most Indian
authors tend not to cite their papers
published in less 'prestigious’ journals
) as long the journal is indexed. All references cited must have been
consulted in original and it is presumed that all cited papers have been
read and understood. One should avoid citing abstracts presented at
Conferences/Seminars, local textbooks/monographs, Ph.D. M.D. theses as these are
not likely to be available to the referee or editor who may like to cheek with
the original. And lot of serious referees and editors do that routinely. If
unpublished data are cited, it should be kept to the bare minimum. If the data
being cited are not from the same
laboratory, necessary permission-should be obtained from the authors. Also,
whether the unpublished data is from the same or different laboratory, the
information should be provided to the editor on demand.
It
is also essential to look at the Style sheet of the journal before finalizing
the References section. Many biomedical journals want the references to be
written in the so-called Vancouver Style or the Citation-order system. Some
journals may still use other systems like the name-and- year or the
Alphabet-number systems. It is also worthwhile to cheek the number of authors to
be given before et al. The Vancouver
system demands names of six authors before et al if the number of authors are seven or more.
Acknowledgement
This
is the last portion of the paper and has its own importance. In the current
scenario, it is impossible to do research without collaboration and help from
other scientists. Assistance sought includes material help in terms of strains,
chemicals, reagents etc. to use of laboratory facilities equipment, help in
running a few experiments, referring patients, providing clinical material, etc.
All such support should be clearly acknowledged in the paper. Often, senior
scientists are requested to go through the paper for comments. Such intellectual
help should be acknowledged, of course after informing them. Financial support
from all sources, Government, philanthropic and from
the industry must be mentioned. Many journals now insist on any
relationship / affiliation of the authors with the industry, directly or
indirectly. These should be clearly spelt out as conflict of interest is
emerging as a very serious ethical issue in medical research.
It is also not necessary to acknowledge trivial help such as secretarial
support, providing routine
facilities by the Head/Director of the Institute, etc .
(AUTHORS'
CHECKLIST, THE VANCOUVER
STYLE , INDEXMEDICUS,
, PROOFREADER'S
SYMBOLS AND MARKS)
General:
· Have you checked the Journal' s Instructions'?
· Statement about duplicate publication
· Permission of copyright material
· Discrepancy between the place of work and place of submission
· All the co-authors have seen the manuscript
· Sought permission before
acknowledging senior colleagues/scientist's
· Proper acknowledgment with accurate details of financial
aid/samples/cultures/drugs/cell lines, etc. received.
Manuscript:
·
3
Copies of manuscripts and Figures
·
pages
numbered throughout
·
Separate
pages for Tables, Legends and Footnotes (all double spaced)
·
Cover
page with (a) Title; (b) full postal address; (c) Abbreviated title; and (d) the
corresponding author
·
Keywords
need to be provided?
·
Abstract
on a separate page
·
Length
of the abstract conforms to the journal's requirement
·
Running
title provided
·
All
abbreviations have been spelt out
·
Units
of measurement in the SI system
·
Citation
of references in the Journal's format
·
Journals
abbreviated as per the format
·
References
in the text and list correspond
·
Reference
include:
The surnames and initials
of all
The titles of the
articles/chapters
The inclusive pagination
The Editor(s) where
necessary
The publishers for books
The place of publication
The year of publication
·
Have
you checked the references with the original articles?
·
Any
unpublished material cited; if so copies to be sent
Figures:
·
Figures
numbered properly
·
Have the figures been cited in text at tile right place
·
Size of the figures conform to the journal's specification
·
Magnification indicated in the Figures (by scale bars) and in legends
·
Authors' names and title on the back of Figures
·
Labeling on Figures in full
·
Legends for Figures on separate pages
·
Labeling of the quality suitable for reproduction
·
Have the abbreviations spelled out
Tables:
·
Data in text correspond to Tables
·
Tables are self explanatory
·
Tables numbered properly
·
Tables cited in text
AT THE REVISON STAGE
·
All the referees' comments attended to
·
Explanatory
note in duplicate provided
·
Revised paper checked with the original for
·
Errors of omission in text
·
Citation of references
·
Citation of Figures/Tables added/deleted
·
Co-authors
aware of tile changes made
AT THE PROOF STAGE
·
Proofs
checked with the manuscript
·
Check
for editorial changes made
·
Corrections
according to the journal's requirement
·
Corrections
marked clearly and without ambiguity
·
Address
for reprint requests Additional reprints needed
·
Check
for schedule/mode of payment.
Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to
biomedical journals International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.icmje.org)
A small group of editors of
general medical journals met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978
to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their
journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for
manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the
National Library of Medicine, were first published
in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually; gradually it
has broadened its concerns.
The committee has produced
multiple editions of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Biomedical Journals. Over the years, issues have arisen that go beyond
manuscript preparation. Some of these issues are now covered in the Uniform
Requirements; others are addressed in separate statements.
The entire Uniform
Requirements document was revised in 1997. Sections were updated in May 1999 and
May 2000. A major revision is scheduled for 2001. The total content of the
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals may be
reproduced for educational, not-for-profit purposes without regard for
copyright; the committee encourages distribution of the material.
Journals that agree to use
the Uniform Requirements (over 500 do so) are asked to cite a version published
in 1997 or later in their instructions to authors.
It is important to
emphasize what these requirements do and do not imply.
First, the Uniform
Requirements are instructions to authors on how to prepare manuscripts, not to
editors on publication style. (But many journals have drawn on them for elements
of their publication styles.)
Second, if authors prepare
their manuscripts in the style specified in these requirements, editors of the
participating journals will not return the manuscripts for changes in style
before considering them for publication. In the publishing process, however, the
journals may alter accepted manuscripts to conform with details of their
publication style.
Third, authors sending
manuscripts to a participating journal should not try
to prepare them in accordance with the publication style of that journal but
should follow the Uniform Requirements.
Authors must also follow
the instructions to authors in the journal as to what topics are suitable for
that journal and the types of papers that may be submitted-for example, original
articles, reviews, or case reports. In addition, the journal's instructions are
likely to contain other requirements unique to that journal, such as the number
of copies of a manuscript that are required, acceptable languages, length of
articles, and approved abbreviations.
Participating journals are
expected to state in their instructions to authors that their requirements are
in accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Biomedical Journals and to cite a published version.
The Uniform Requirements
has been published in several journals. Please cite a version that appeared in
the primary journal literature on or after 1 January 1997; for example:
International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts submitted to
Biomedical Journals. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:36-47.
INDIAN JOURNALS INDEXED IN INDEXMEDICUS
(2001)
27 Indian / 3559Total Journals
I.Hindustan hgjkllmjl ;iBulletin
2. Indian Heart Journal
3. Indian Journal of Biochemistry & Biophysics
4. Indian Journal of Cancer
5. The Indian Journal of Chest Diseases &
Allied Sciences
6 Indian Journal of Environmental Health
7. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology
8. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology
9. Indian Journal of Leprosy
10. Indian Journal of Malariology
H. The Indian Journal of Medical Research
12. The Indian Journal ofMedical Sciences
13. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
14.1ndian Journal of Pathology & Microbiology
15. Indian Journal of Pediatrics
16 Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology
17. Indian Journal of Public Health
18. Indian Pediatrics
19.Journal of Biosciences
20. The Journal of Communicable Diseases
21. Journal of Environmental Biology academy of
Environmental Biology, India
22.Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
23. The Journal of the Association of Physicians of
India
24.Journal of the Indian Medical Association
25. The National Medical Journal of India
26.Neurology India
27. Tropical Gastroenterology
Writing a paper is an art
of projecting one's own findings to the unseen scientist at a distance. Research
papers and reports are the means of scientific communication of the observations
one has made to the
entire scientific community. It is much easier to present a paper in the
conference or symposium, but it is very difficult to put the same ideas or
thoughts in the written form. The papers once published have a long lasting
impact and remain there for ever for the future generations. Whereas, the verbal
communications are short lived and may not have any impact. Hence, the written
communication should be clear, complete, accurate, convincing and acceptable to
the unknown critique. The papers in any standard journals are peer reviewed by
the experts in the field and the editors for their suitability.
By doing the experiments or
collecting the clinical data one may accumulate tons of data which will have no
significance unless published otherwise. Thus, writing a paper is as important
as doing the experiments. The real problem in writing is "how to
begin". This is known as "Writers block" (Huth, 1990). Even the
most experienced writers' find it difficult to begin but because of their
experience they have overcome the difficulties. They begin jotting down the
thoughts as they come to their mind without worrying about their accuracy,
grammar, expressions, etc. They are aware that they will be revising it many
times before it is being sent for the publication. The writers who want to write
accurately and clearly revise again and again (Booth, 1971). The personal
computers have revolutionized the paper writing because they make the editing
easy and friendly. The text, the graphs and the figures can be easily altered and edited once they are in
the computers. Further, searching of literature through internet using PCs
is complete and accurate.
BEFORE
WRITING
Maintenance of a good
protocol book is a necessity. When you have finished the experiment or a study
of a case, it may be useful to record the conclusions on the observations made
about the particular experiment. Make tables and draw graphs and stick them to
the book. Use appropriate spread sheet packages in your PC like EXCEL, Lotus
123, Dbase, etc, for storing the data. These softwares enable you to sort,
index, and analyse the observations at your will. Keep a separate book in which
the record summaries of results from many experiments and sort them by subject.
The well ordered notebooks will be useful when you write a paper but the prompt
recording of summaries compels you to give critical thought to each experiment
at the best time and make you to repeat the experiments / observations when you
still have the materials.
It will be beneficial to
present your observations at the informal gathering such as tea table or within
the group of like minded people. Speaking to others make you think out arguments
listener's criticism. This helps you to address the confusing points. Nothing
clarifies ideas so much as explaining them to others.
An another important
activity is "making reservoirs" as suggested by Booth (1971). In this,
take six large sheets of paper.
Boldly label them as Title, Summary, introduction, Materials and Methods,
Results and Discussion. Write your ideas for the paper, as notes, on the
appropriate sheets. Whenever the ideas come to you write them down in any order.
You will find that amazing facts accumulate as you proceed with this type of
exercise. Some writers construct a skeleton, an outline scheme, before they
start to write. A skeleton for the discussion may help you to avoid repetition
and to muster your ideas in the best order.
ARRANGEMENT
OF A PAPER
The arrangement of a paper
is in such a way as to answer the questions set by Bradford (1965). They are:
Why did I start? (Introduction); What did I do? (Methods); What did I find?
Results? What does it mean? (Discussion and conclusions). Thus, a scientific
paper has a definite order as mentioned above having Title, Abstract,
Introduction, Results, Discussion, References, Tables, Figures and their
legends. Most journals print methods before results but some print the
experimental part in small type (font) at the end (e.g., Neuron
or Nature) or as reference (Nature) or
as the figure legends (Science / Nature). Some
investigations are suitable for results and discussion to be written together in
narrative form. Many journals issue editorial directives that leave you no
choice. Examine the chosen journal and arrange your paper accordingly: Do not
give the Editor perhaps unpaid needless editing.
There are several
categories of papers such as, Original Research Article, Short Communications,
Clinical Reports, Rapid Communications, Review Articles, Letters to the Editors,
Trends and Perspectives, Commentary, etc. The formats vary in each of them.
AUTHORSHIP
Decide
about the authors in the beginning itself. This is an important issue. It is
presumed that all the authors have contributed equally in the making of a paper.
Usually, the person who has done the work will be the first author. The
corresponding author is the person under whose guidelines and ideas the work has
been carried out. There is no need to keep all persons in a group who might not
be knowing the contents of the paper.
WHERE
TO START
Even though you have the
material, you may postponed writing a paper despite the pressure from within
(self) and by your supervisor. Perhaps you find it difficult to start. I do. This is called as "Writers block" (Huth,
1990). To overcome it begin with the easiest section. This may be the methods,
because it is just writing about the procedures used. Use the reservoirs, and
cross out the notes as you consume them.
Next prepare to write
Results section. Make Table/s and Figure/s. Start describing them in order.
Write the first draft "in yourown words as though you were telling a friend
about your work. Don't worry- yet- about grammar and style. The important
objective is to get going". You can polish the style later.
TITLE AND KEYWORDS
Some searchers may read
only the Title and the Summary. So both are supremely important. Compose them
early; re-examine them later. The longer they rest greater your potential shock.
On your reservoir sheet make a list of keywords for the title. If you can
summarize your observations in one sentence, that precisely is the title. Let
the Title's first word be the keyword if you can. The title should be short and
should not be general. Many Journals require additionally a short "Running
title" an ingenious paraphrase of the Title can supplement the latter. For
example, I have seen the Latin name in the title, and common name in the running
title.
The keywords should not be
those present in the title. Therefore, select such words which are not present
in the title and give coverage to your observations. The words such as
"rats, cancer, human, clinical, etc" are not specific and may not
project your observations.
ABSTRACT OR SUMMARY
Abstracts should be short
and brief. In some journals the Summary is in a numbered paragraphs and in many
as a continuous text. Whatever may be the format, first sentence should define
the objectives of the study. Next sentence should describe methods used.
Subsequently, list the results highlighting the main points. Last sentence
should provide the conclusions of the observations. Usually the Abstracts are
restricted to 150-200 words depending upon the Journal and nature of the article
(Rapid communications, articles in Nature or Science, etc., have to be within
100 words). It is advisable to
restrict the abstract to
200 words or lesser as the abstracts at Pubmed search are truncated to 200 words.
Write the summary in the past tense except perhaps the last paragraph. Do not
give indigestible lists of values. Use words if you can, supplemented by few key
values. State your conclusions in the last paragraph. If you have no plain
conclusion, try to find the significance in any form. Remember that if a summary
is long then the readers may look only at the first and last paragraphs and may
not appreciate your observations.
INTRODUCTION
Introduction should state
the problem, referred to the published literature and perhaps ask a question
"Why did I do?" The objective must be clear. If you have modified your
objective after you began the experiments, give the current version. In the last
sentence it is good practice to state the lacunae which has lead you to
undertake this work
It is no longer good
practice to quote many papers. Refer to the papers that, taken together,
indicate that the problem exists. If another paper give many references, refer
to that, however, beware of lifting references-from that paper-together with
misquotations of information from the original papers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
If the description of the
materials is brief it may included in the text of methods at appropriate
locations. Avoid trade names if practicable not to avoid advertising, but
because they may not be understood abroad.
Write what you did in
operational order. "The spinal cord was removed after anaesthetizing the
animals". You should so describe the methods such that others can repeat
the experiments. You must be concise but must not omit the essential details. Be
precise. If a tube was heated, say to what temperature. If you have controlled,
or even measured, humidity and ventilation in an animal room, say so. They are
nearly as important as temperature. If you performed chromatography or other
process at a slower or faster rate than is usual, state the rate. If you used
controls, permit no doubt about their nature. The reader may not be able to
guess what you omitted for each control.
Follow the guidelines given
by the Institutional ethical committee for conducting human an animal
experiments.
RESULTS
Begin with the description
of the control observations. Provide a brief account of salient features in
normal or control conditions. Subsequently organize the results in such a way as
to support your hypothesis or discussion. It is advisable to present the results
as titled paragraphs. Each of these paragraphs should be able to provide the
data of your observations. Arrange the tables and Figures in the same sequence
so as to project your observations. Editors require tables and figures to be
clear without reference to the text. The converse has also been expressed; the
text should be clear without reference to the tables or figures.
In case of clinical data
and also histological data it is not always possible to present them in a
numerical form. Then, the qualitative description showing the Picture/plates is
required to show the differences before and after the experimental design. The
observations in numerical form can be presented as mean and a measure of the
variability (SD or SEM). The range is not satisfactory. Give the number of
observation or the degrees of freedom. It is even better if you can make a
pooled estimate of the variance from the whole experiment.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Discussion
is the vital part of the paper in which you have the greatest freedom. The
discussion must not be long as to deter a potential reader, yet it must contain
logical argument. Do not repeat descriptions of others people's findings if they
are in the Introduction: refer to that. Usually, the discussion begins with a
brief outline highlighting your results so as to facilitate the reader about the
findings of the experiments. Extensive repetition of the results is unnecessary
and unwanted. Enlarge upon the findings of your results and their significance.
Explain how your new results add to the existing knowledge. If in the
Introduction you had formulated your problem as question, discussion is
facilitated when you can give the answer.
Think critically. Not only
about other people's work, but about your own. For example, ask your self,
"Can my hypothesis be refuted? Can my results have another explanation? The
literature contains abundant examples of inconclusive thinking. Writers should
take care not add to them by publishing in haste.
If you are fortunate, your
message or a part of it may survive in text or books: although you may not be
given whole sentence! So the conclusion needs a meticulous wording. This may
appear: legitimately: two to three times: in the Discussion, Summary and
Introduction (some times). Don't repeat the wordings: paraphrase it. If the
reader has not understood, another version may help him.
REFERENCES,
BIBLIOGRAPHY OR LITERATURE CITED
Writing
the Bibliography with a computer is much easier. Follow the format of the
journal. An Endnote is software that handles the references and will be very
useful. Because you can format the references in the format prescribed by a
particular journal. Thus, there are no hardships as before. That is writing on a
card, arranging the cards in a order, and typing them with many inconsistencies
and errors. Check the typed list against the references in the text of a
original paper. Also check the spellings of the authors and Journals.
LITERARY STYLE
Written English at its best is virtually the same as
spoken English at its best. Grandiloquent writing or the use of flowery language
with too many adjectives in science is no longer required. What we have to do is
to convey ideas effectively, to make it easy to the reader, to make him
understand what we write, and not to impress him with our vocabulary. Indeed,
writer's who use pompous language may even be under suspicion of having nothing
important to say! Try to envisage your reader. Write especially for them, in a
manner not too technical and not to elementary. Write in clear English. Use
ordinary words and simple construction. Write short sentences but not all of
them so short as to keep to “one idea per sentence,” with only occasional
exceptions.
It will help you to develop
a good written style if you train your self to speck well. In conversation speck
slowly, chose word deliberately, finish each sentence. You should be able to
offer more information per unit time than can he who talk fast but interjects
“you know” or “Andrem” runs his phrases into almost interminable
sentence padded with empty words.
Undisputed knowledge
requires the present sentence. Author usually writes about his new work in the
past tense. Other people’s work is reported using different tenses but the
present tense is most suitable. Working directions for a method are sometimes
written in the imperative mood. This is done, not in the sense of getting
commands but because it is the most direct style. The passive voice, although
much used to describe the result, sometimes makes clumsy construction. Turn a
passive phrase to direct style whenever you can. For example
“pH 4 is needed for the enzyme” may be turned to the enzyme needs pH
4”. “distillation was involved in the method” should be the method
included distillation”.
Present days most of the
word processing packages have grammatical corrections. MS word always help to
correct your spelling, language and usage. Try to incorporate them.
FINAL PACKING
Write a simple covering letter to the Editor giving
details of the enclosures. The file names, computer used and software are also
to be mentioned. Most of the journals require no justification for the paper.
However, journals such as Nature, Science, BMJ, Lancet, etc., require a covering a letter justification the
suitability of the article for publication in their journal. In that case
highlight the finding mentioned the observations are befitting to the Journal's
regular coverage.
Many journals ask for the
potential reviewers. Usually you can very well know the person working in your
area and list them. Use Pubmed or Google
search for details. If you feel that there is a conflict of interest, then
clearly mention that it should not be sent
to Dr. YYYY as it contradicts his/her observations and has a bias.
Do not forget to
acknowledge the persons who have helped you to get the materials, equipments and
have read and improved your manuscript by critical reading. Acknowledge the
funding agencies.
Look for the cheek list.
Prepare the document in the standard word processing package save the text file
and Figures in a separate floppy diskettes. If the figures are occupying large
space save them as zipped or PDF files. It is some times very painful and
laborious to send the MS through the internet. If one has an option to send the
hard copy and a floppy diskette containing the MS then send them to the Editors
by registered mail. File all the papers including the final hard copy version of
the paper for your record along with the floppy or CD containing the files.
**********************