• Avoid waste words like "Studies on", or "Investigations on".
• Use specific terms rather than general.
• Use the same key terms in the title as the paper.
• Watch your word order and syntax.
• Avoid abbreviations, jargon, and special characters.
The abstract is a miniature version of your paper. It should present the main story and a few essential details of the paper for readers who only look at the abstract and should serve as a clear preview for readers who read your whole paper. They are usually short (250 words or less). The goal is to communicate:
| A good abstract is specific and selective. Try summarizing each of the sections of your paper in a sentence two. Do the abstract last, so you know exactly what you want to write.
|
The introduction tells the reader why you are writing your paper (ie, identifies a gap in the literature) and supplies sufficient background information that the reader can understand and evaluate your project without referring to previous publications on the topic. The goal is to communicate:
| A good introduction is not the same as an abstract. Where the abstract summarizes your paper, the introduction justifies your project and lets readers know what to expect.
• Keep it brief. You conducted an extensive literature review, so that you can give readers just the relevant information. |
Generally a methods section tells the reader how you conducted your project. It is also called "Materials and Methods". The goal is to make your project reproducible.
| A good methods section gives enough detail that another scientist could reproduce or replicate your results. • Use very specific language, similar to a recipe in a cookbook.
|
The results objectively present the data or information that you gathered through your project. The narrative that you write here will point readers to your figures and tables that present your relevant data. Keep in mind that you may be able to include more of your data in an online journal supplement or research data repository.
| A good results section is not the same as the discussion. Present the facts in the results, saving the interpretation for the discussion section. The results section should be written in past tense.
|
section? | |
The discussion section is the answer to the question(s) you posed in the introduction section. It is where you interpret your results. You have a lot of flexibility in this section. In addition to your main findings or conclusions, consider:
| A good discussion section should read very differently than the results section. The discussion is where you interpret the project as a whole.
|
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Barbara j. hoogenboom.
1 Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
2 University of Wichita, Wichita, KS, USA
Successful production of a written product for submission to a peer‐reviewed scientific journal requires substantial effort. Such an effort can be maximized by following a few simple suggestions when composing/creating the product for submission. By following some suggested guidelines and avoiding common errors, the process can be streamlined and success realized for even beginning/novice authors as they negotiate the publication process. The purpose of this invited commentary is to offer practical suggestions for achieving success when writing and submitting manuscripts to The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy and other professional journals.
“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking” Albert Einstein
Conducting scientific and clinical research is only the beginning of the scholarship of discovery. In order for the results of research to be accessible to other professionals and have a potential effect on the greater scientific community, it must be written and published. Most clinical and scientific discovery is published in peer‐reviewed journals, which are those that utilize a process by which an author's peers, or experts in the content area, evaluate the manuscript. Following this review the manuscript is recommended for publication, revision or rejection. It is the rigor of this review process that makes scientific journals the primary source of new information that impacts clinical decision‐making and practice. 1 , 2
The task of writing a scientific paper and submitting it to a journal for publication is a time‐consuming and often daunting task. 3 , 4 Barriers to effective writing include lack of experience, poor writing habits, writing anxiety, unfamiliarity with the requirements of scholarly writing, lack of confidence in writing ability, fear of failure, and resistance to feedback. 5 However, the very process of writing can be a helpful tool for promoting the process of scientific thinking, 6 , 7 and effective writing skills allow professionals to participate in broader scientific conversations. Furthermore, peer review manuscript publication systems requiring these technical writing skills can be developed and improved with practice. 8 Having an understanding of the process and structure used to produce a peer‐reviewed publication will surely improve the likelihood that a submitted manuscript will result in a successful publication.
Clear communication of the findings of research is essential to the growth and development of science 3 and professional practice. The culmination of the publication process provides not only satisfaction for the researcher and protection of intellectual property, but also the important function of dissemination of research results, new ideas, and alternate thought; which ultimately facilitates scholarly discourse. In short, publication of scientific papers is one way to advance evidence‐based practice in many disciplines, including sports physical therapy. Failure to publish important findings significantly diminishes the potential impact that those findings may have on clinical practice. 9
To begin it might be interesting to learn why reviewers accept manuscripts! Reviewers consider the following five criteria to be the most important in decisions about whether to accept manuscripts for publication: 1) the importance, timeliness, relevance, and prevalence of the problem addressed; 2) the quality of the writing style (i.e., that it is well‐written, clear, straightforward, easy to follow, and logical); 3) the study design applied (i.e., that the design was appropriate, rigorous, and comprehensive); 4) the degree to which the literature review was thoughtful, focused, and up‐to‐date; and 5) the use of a sufficiently large sample. 10 For these statements to be true there are also reasons that reviewers reject manuscripts. The following are the top five reasons for rejecting papers: 1) inappropriate, incomplete, or insufficiently described statistics; 2) over‐interpretation of results; 3) use of inappropriate, suboptimal, or insufficiently described populations or instruments; 4) small or biased samples; and 5) text that is poorly written or difficult to follow. 10 , 11 With these reasons for acceptance or rejection in mind, it is time to review basics and general writing tips to be used when performing manuscript preparation.
“Begin with the end in mind” . When you begin writing about your research, begin with a specific target journal in mind. 12 Every scientific journal should have specific lists of manuscript categories that are preferred for their readership. The IJSPT seeks to provide readership with current information to enhance the practice of sports physical therapy. Therefore the manuscript categories accepted by IJSPT include: Original research; Systematic reviews of literature; Clinical commentary and Current concept reviews; Case reports; Clinical suggestions and unique practice techniques; and Technical notes. Once a decision has been made to write a manuscript, compose an outline that complies with the requirements of the target submission journal and has each of the suggested sections. This means carefully checking the submission criteria and preparing your paper in the exact format of the journal to which you intend to submit. Be thoughtful about the distinction between content (what you are reporting) and structure (where it goes in the manuscript). Poor placement of content confuses the reader (reviewer) and may cause misinterpretation of content. 3 , 5
It may be helpful to follow the IMRaD format for writing scientific manuscripts. This acronym stands for the sections contained within the article: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Each of these areas of the manuscript will be addressed in this commentary.
Many accomplished authors write their results first, followed by an introduction and discussion, in an attempt to “stay true” to their results and not stray into additional areas. Typically the last two portions to be written are the conclusion and the abstract.
The ability to accurately describe ideas, protocols/procedures, and outcomes are the pillars of scientific writing . Accurate and clear expression of your thoughts and research information should be the primary goal of scientific writing. 12 Remember that accuracy and clarity are even more important when trying to get complicated ideas across. Contain your literature review, ideas, and discussions to your topic, theme, model, review, commentary, or case. Avoid vague terminology and too much prose. Use short rather than long sentences. If jargon has to be utilized keep it to a minimum and explain the terms you do use clearly. 13
Write with a measure of formality, using scientific language and avoiding conjunctions, slang, and discipline or regionally specific nomenclature or terms (e.g. exercise nicknames). For example, replace the term “Monster walks” with “closed‐chain hip abduction with elastic resistance around the thighs”. You may later refer to the exercise as “also known as Monster walks” if you desire.
Avoid first person language and instead write using third person language. Some journals do not ascribe to this requirement, and allow first person references, however, IJSPT prefers use of third person. For example, replace “We determined that…” with “The authors determined that….”.
For novice writers, it is really helpful to seek a reading mentor that will help you pre‐read your submission. Problems such as improper use of grammar, tense, and spelling are often a cause of rejection by reviewers. Despite the content of the study these easily fixed errors suggest that the authors created the manuscript with less thought leading reviewers to think that the manuscript may also potentially have erroneous findings as well. A review from a second set of trained eyes will often catch these errors missed by the original authors. If English is not your first language, the editorial staff at IJSPT suggests that you consult with someone with the relevant expertise to give you guidance on English writing conventions, verb tense, and grammar. Excellent writing in English is hard, even for those of us for whom it is our first language!
Use figures and graphics to your advantage . ‐ Consider the use of graphic/figure representation of data and important procedures or exercises. Tables should be able to stand alone and be completely understandable at a quick glance. Understanding a table should not require careful review of the manuscript! Figures dramatically enhance the graphic appeal of a scientific paper. Many formats for graphic presentation are acceptable, including graphs, charts, tables, and pictures or videos. Photographs should be clear, free of clutter or extraneous background distractions and be taken with models wearing simple clothing. Color photographs are preferred. Digital figures (Scans or existing files as well as new photographs) must be at least 300dpi. All photographs should be provided as separate files (jpeg or tif preferred) and not be embedded in the paper. Quality and clarity of figures are essential for reproduction purposes and should be considered before taking images for the manuscript.
A video of an exercise or procedure speaks a thousand words. Please consider using short video clips as descriptive additions to your paper. They will be placed on the IJSPT website and accompany your paper. The video clips must be submitted in MPEG‐1, MPEG‐2, Quicktime (.mov), or Audio/Video Interface (.avi) formats. Maximum cumulative length of videos is 5 minutes. Each video segment may not exceed 50 MB, and each video clip must be saved as a separate file and clearly identified. Formulate descriptive figure/video and Table/chart/graph titles and place them on a figure legend document. Carefully consider placement of, naming of, and location of figures. It makes the job of the editors much easier!
Avoid Plagiarism and inadvertent lack of citations. Finally, use citations to your benefit. Cite frequently in order to avoid any plagiarism. The bottom line: If it is not your original idea, give credit where credit is due . When using direct quotations, provide not only the number of the citation, but the page where the quote was found. All citations should appear in text as a superscripted number followed by punctuation. It is the authors' responsibility to fully ensure all references are cited in completed form, in an accurate location. Please carefully follow the instructions for citations and check that all references in your reference list are cited in the paper and that all citations in the paper appear correctly in the reference list. Please go to IJSPT submission guidelines for full information on the format for citations.
Sometimes written as an afterthought, the abstract is of extreme importance as in many instances this section is what is initially previewed by readership to determine if the remainder of the article is worth reading. This is the authors opportunity to draw the reader into the study and entice them to read the rest of the article. The abstract is a summary of the article or study written in 3 rd person allowing the readers to get a quick glance of what the contents of the article include. Writing an abstract is rather challenging as being brief, accurate and concise are requisite. The headings and structure for an abstract are usually provided in the instructions for authors. In some instances, the abstract may change slightly pending content revisions required during the peer review process. Therefore it often works well to complete this portion of the manuscript last. Remember the abstract should be able to stand alone and should be as succinct as possible. 14
The introduction is one of the more difficult portions of the manuscript to write. Past studies are used to set the stage or provide the reader with information regarding the necessity of the represented project. For an introduction to work properly, the reader must feel that the research question is clear, concise, and worthy of study.
A competent introduction should include at least four key concepts: 1) significance of the topic, 2) the information gap in the available literature associated with the topic, 3) a literature review in support of the key questions, 4) subsequently developed purposes/objectives and hypotheses. 9
When constructing a review of the literature, be attentive to “sticking” or “staying true” to your topic at hand. Don't reach or include too broad of a literature review. For example, do not include extraneous information about performance or prevention if your research does not actually address those things. The literature review of a scientific paper is not an exhaustive review of all available knowledge in a given field of study. That type of thorough review should be left to review articles or textbook chapters. Throughout the introduction (and later in the discussion!) remind yourself that a paper, existing evidence, or results of a paper cannot draw conclusions, demonstrate, describe, or make judgments, only PEOPLE (authors) can. “The evidence demonstrates that” should be stated, “Smith and Jones, demonstrated that….”
Conclude your introduction with a solid statement of your purpose(s) and your hypothesis(es), as appropriate. The purpose and objectives should clearly relate to the information gap associated with the given manuscript topic discussed earlier in the introduction section. This may seem repetitive, but it actually is helpful to ensure the reader clearly sees the evolution, importance, and critical aspects of the study at hand See Table 1 for examples of well‐stated purposes.
Examples of well-stated purposes by submission type.
Type of Submission | Example purpose |
---|---|
Original Research | Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the volume of pitching for pitchers from multiple college teams at the Division I level. |
Systematic Review of the Literature | Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the association between training characteristics and running related injuries. |
Clinical Commentary/Current Concepts Report | The purpose of this clinical commentary is to examine the risk factors contributing to the high recurrence rate of hamstring injuries, and propose a unique rehabilitation strategy addressing these factors in order to decrease the rate of reinjury. |
Case Report | The purpose of this case report is to describe the non-surgical management of a professional athlete with the characteristic signs and symptoms of a sports hernia. |
Clinical Suggestion | The purpose of this clinical commentary is to review types of integumentary wounds that may occur in sport, and their acute management. |
The methods section should clearly describe the specific design of the study and provide clear and concise description of the procedures that were performed. The purpose of sufficient detail in the methods section is so that an appropriately trained person would be able to replicate your experiments. 15 There should be complete transparency when describing the study. To assist in writing and manuscript preparation there are several checklists or guidelines that are available on the IJSPT website. The CONSORT guidelines can be used when developing and reporting a randomized controlled trial. 16 The STARD checklist was developed for designing a diagnostic accuracy study. 17 The PRISMA checklist was developed for use when performing a meta‐analyses or systematic review. 18 A clear methods section should contain the following information: 1) the population and equipment used in the study, 2) how the population and equipment were prepared and what was done during the study, 3) the protocol used, 4) the outcomes and how they were measured, 5) the methods used for data analysis. Initially a brief paragraph should explain the overall procedures and study design. Within this first paragraph there is generally a description of inclusion and exclusion criteria which help the reader understand the population used. Paragraphs that follow should describe in more detail the procedures followed for the study. A clear description of how data was gathered is also helpful. For example were data gathered prospectively or retrospectively? Who if anyone was blinded, and where and when was the actual data collected?
Although it is a good idea for the authors to have justification and a rationale for their procedures, these should be saved for inclusion into the discussion section, not to be discussed in the methods section. However, occasionally studies supporting components of the methods section such as reliability of tests, or validation of outcome measures may be included in the methods section.
The final portion of the methods section will include the statistical methods used to analyze the data. 19 This does not mean that the actual results should be discussed in the methods section, as they have an entire section of their own!
Most scientific journals support the need for all projects involving humans or animals to have up‐to‐date documentation of ethical approval. 20 The methods section should include a clear statement that the researchers have obtained approval from an appropriate institutional review board.
In most journals the results section is separate from the discussion section. It is important that you clearly distinguish your results from your discussion. The results section should describe the results only. The discussion section should put those results into a broader context. Report your results neutrally, as you “found them”. Again, be thoughtful about content and structure. Think carefully about where content is placed in the overall structure of your paper. It is not appropriate to bring up additional results, not discussed in the results section, in the discussion. All results must first be described/presented and then discussed. Thus, the discussion should not simply be a repeat of the results section. Carefully discuss where your information is similar or different from other published evidence and why this might be so. What was different in methods or analysis, what was similar?
As previously stated, stick to your topic at hand, and do not overstretch your discussion! One of the major pitfalls in writing the discussion section is overstating the significance of your findings 4 or making very strong statements. For example, it is better to say: “Findings of the current study support….” or “these findings suggest…” than, “Findings of the current study prove that…” or “this means that….”. Maintain a sense of humbleness, as nothing is without question in the outcomes of any type of research, in any discipline! Use words like “possibly”, “likely” or “suggests” to soften findings. 12
Do not discuss extraneous ideas, concepts, or information not covered by your topic/paper/commentary. Be sure to carefully address all relevant results, not just the statistically significant ones or the ones that support your hypotheses. When you must resort to speculation or opinion, be certain to state that up front using phrases such as “we therefore speculate” or “in the authors' opinion”.
Remember, just as in the introduction and literature review, evidence or results cannot draw conclusions, just as previously stated, only people, scientists, researchers, and authors can!
Finish with a concise, 3‐5 sentence conclusion paragraph. This is not just a restatement of your results, rather is comprised of some final, summative statements that reflect the flow and outcomes of the entire paper. Do not include speculative statements or additional material; however, based upon your findings a statement about potential changes in clinical practice or future research opportunities can be provided here.
Writing for publication can be a challenging yet satisfying endeavor. The ability to examine, relate, and interlink evidence, as well as to provide a peer‐reviewed, disseminated product of your research labors can be rewarding. A few suggestions have been offered in this commentary that may assist the novice or the developing writer to attempt, polish, and perfect their approach to scholarly writing.
Writing a scientific paper.
"discussion and conclusions checklist" from: how to write a good scientific paper. chris a. mack. spie. 2018., peer review.
This is is usually the hardest section to write. You are trying to bring out the true meaning of your data without being too long. Do not use words to conceal your facts or reasoning. Also do not repeat your results, this is a discussion.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER I COMPLETE MY PAPER?
The peer review process is the quality control step in the publication of ideas. Papers that are submitted to a journal for publication are sent out to several scientists (peers) who look carefully at the paper to see if it is "good science". These reviewers then recommend to the editor of a journal whether or not a paper should be published. Most journals have publication guidelines. Ask for them and follow them exactly. Peer reviewers examine the soundness of the materials and methods section. Are the materials and methods used written clearly enough for another scientist to reproduce the experiment? Other areas they look at are: originality of research, significance of research question studied, soundness of the discussion and interpretation, correct spelling and use of technical terms, and length of the article.
Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here
Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.
Computer science and engineering.
The basic parts of a scientific or technical paper are:
Title and Author Information Abstract Introduction Literature Review Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References and Appendices
Title and Author Information:
The title of your paper and any needed information about yourself (usually your name and institution).
A short (usually around 250-400 words) description of the paper. Should include what the purpose of the paper is (including the basic research question/problem), the basic design of your project, and the major findings.
Introduction:
A general introduction to your topic and what you expect to learn from your project or experiment. Your research question should be found here.
Literature Review:
An analysis of what has already been published about your chosen topic. Should be able to show how your research question fits into the context of your field.
A description of everything you did in your experiment or project, step-by-step. Needs to be detailed enough so that any reader would be able to repeat each step exactly on their own.
What actually happened during your project or what you found at the end of your experiment. This is usually the best part to include the majority of your graphs, photos, tables, and other visual aids, as long as they help explain the results of your work.
Discussion:
An analysis of the results that integrates what you found into the wider body of research in your field. Can also include future hypotheses to be tested or future projects to build from your own.
Conclusion:
Can be included in the discussion if necessary. A final summary of the paper, including whether or not you were able to answer your original research question.
References and Appendices:
The reference page(s) is a list of all the sources you used to research and create your project/experiment, including everything cited in the literature review and methods sections. Remember to use the same citation style throughout the paper. An appendix would include any additional information about your work that you were not able to include within the body of your paper (like large datasets and figures) that would help readers better understand your results.
An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Vaudo will study the pollination ecology of early blooming fruits and berries and culturally important native forbs.
The interconnectedness of nature teaches us that the tugging of a single thread can alter a landscape. Once that occurs, how can we reweave the tapestries of our landscapes? When everything depends on everything else, where does one even begin?
Anthony Vaudo approaches his research from a “bee’s-eye” perspective with a focus on the impacts of pollen nutrition in bee and plant community interactions. He and a team of researchers, resource specialists, and land managers are working to develop seed mixes and revegetation methods that benefit pollinators and old growth forests in key watersheds in the Oregon Coast Range. The team uses a holistic approach that recognizes plant-pollinator interdependence and builds on these relationships in a changing climate environment.
A biological scientist with the USDA Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station, Vaudo’s recent publication describes bee species’ host plant preferences, and how patterns in pollen proteins and lipids might predict which types of bees plant communities will attract. “This has exciting implications for future restoration research,” Vaudo said. “We can design a project with nutritionally diverse plants that attract more bees and a greater diversity of bees.” Diverse pollinator communities are more resilient and stable, and Vaudo sees this as a sustainable way to support landscapes. The work builds on the Suislaw National Forest’s Pollinators Across Landscapes effort to restore pollinator-friendly understory plants after commercial thinning. Vaudo and the team will collaborate with the Suislaw National Forest and the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde nursery to study the pollination ecology of early blooming fruits and berries that are culturally and ecologically important, and to build the nursery’s capacity to produce native seeds and seedlings for use in restoration.
Vaudo explained that the team will consider plant quality from the perspective of pollinators the plant will depend on, and reciprocal ways the plants will benefit. “In the past we’ve thought of plant pollen nutrition as static,” he said. “We haven’t studied the things that might change the quality of pollen nutrition rewards.”
Plant health impacts the quality of pollen and nectar, and plant health depends on soil quality, growing conditions, and environmental stressors. In another recent publication , Vaudo investigated these factors to determine which environmental changes may impact pollen quality in a way that would also affect bee performance. Rising temperatures and drought may affect plant biochemistry. Understanding how native plants respond to climate change and understanding how pollinators respond to these changes will be paramount to the success of the project, Vaudo said.
In what he calls a “soil-to-plant-to-bee-and-back circle,” Vaudo and the team will test biochar to improve soil and plant health, improve plant health to improve bee nutrition, improve pollination services to increase resilience, and so on. He believes this holistic approach will lead to more innovative research. “To be able to connect with this entire national Forest Service network and see this work in use is exciting,” he said.
Publications.
Advertisement
Supported by
Federal regulators spent billions of dollars to avoid a spike in costs for older Americans that could have been politically damaging to the presidential campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris.
By Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson
The Biden administration on Friday announced that next year older Americans would face lower average monthly premiums for their prescription drugs, a feat achieved by pouring billions of dollars into subsidies for insurers. The move avoided a potential minefield of higher costs affecting the nation’s most stalwart voters weeks before the presidential election.
In a savvy response to the specter of huge spikes in costs, administration officials decided months ago to funnel money from a Medicare trust fund to offset rate increases that could have cost millions of people hundreds of dollars more a year.
Premiums would have gone up largely because of a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket spending, and other changes to Medicare under President Biden’s signature legislative accomplishment, the Inflation Reduction Act.
Higher premiums could have been politically damaging to the presidential campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris, and threatened one of the Biden-Harris administration’s most important talking points — its success in lowering patients’ drug costs. The reality is that when patients pay less at the pharmacy counter, somebody has to foot the bill.
Republicans have sharply criticized the administration’s offset plan, known as a demonstration, since it was announced in July, calling it a nakedly political ploy meant to sway votes and saying it would offer only temporary relief to older people.
“ The administration came up with this Part D demo in order to shovel billions of dollars more into the program to mask the huge premium increases that would be coming next year without it,” Joe Grogan, a senior White House official under former President Donald J. Trump, said in an interview.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Parts of a Scientific & Scholarly Paper. Different sections are needed in different types of scientific papers (lab reports, literature reviews, systematic reviews, methods papers, research papers, etc.). Projects that overlap with the social sciences or humanities may have different requirements. Generally, however, you'll need to include:
Step 2: Explain the results. The core aspect of your research paper is not actually the results; it is the explanation of their meaning. In the second LEAP step, you will do some heavy lifting by guiding the readers through the results using logic backed by previous scientific research.
Academic papers are like hourglasses. The paper opens at its widest point; the introduction makes broad connections to the reader's interests, hoping they will be persuaded to follow along, then gradually narrows to a tight, focused, thesis statement. The argument stays relatively narrow and focused on the thesis throughout the body, or the middle
The introduction section of a paper provides the background information necessary to understand why the described experiment was conducted. The introduction should describe previous research on the topic that has led to the unanswered questions being addressed by the experiment and should cite important previous papers that form the background for the experiment.
Definition: Research Paper is a written document that presents the author's original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue. It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new ...
The present article, essentially based on TA Lang's guide for writing a scientific paper [1], will summarize the steps involved in the process of writing a scientific report and in increasing the likelihood of its acceptance. Annual publication load in the field of obesity and diabetes over 20 years.
Scientific papers are often structured chronologically, thus reflecting the progression of the research project. ... less important parts of the body to the end of the paper in one or more ...
Introduction. The introduction of a scientific paper discusses the problem being studied and other theory that is relevant to understanding the findings. The hypothesis of the experiment and the motivation for the research are stated in this section. Write the introduction in your own words. Try not to copy from a lab manual or other guidelines.
Abstract: "Structured abstract" has become the standard for research papers (introduction, objective, methods, results and conclusions), while reviews, case reports and other articles have non-structured abstracts. The abstract should be a summary/synopsis of the paper. III. Introduction: The "why did you do the study"; setting the ...
The main audience for scientific papers is extremely specialized. The purpose of these papers is twofold: to present information so that it is easy to retrieve, and to present enough information that the reader can duplicate the scientific study. A standard format with six main part helps readers to find expected information and analysis:
For more information, see How to Read a Scientific Paper. Scientific Article Infographic. Structure of a Scientific Article << Previous: Resume/Cover letter ; Next: AMA Citation Style >> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Van Way, C.W. (2007) Writing a Scientific Paper. Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 22: 663-40. PubMed ID: 1804295. Methods: Briefly explain the type of study, sample/population size and description, the design, and any particular techniques for data collection and analysis. Results: Essential data, including statistically significant data (use ...
Writing Your Paper. Parts of the Research Paper. Papers should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Your introductory paragraph should grab the reader's attention, state your main idea, and indicate how you will support it. The body of the paper should expand on what you have stated in the introduction. Finally, the conclusion restates the ...
Abstract. Organization is essential for a well-written scientific document. The readers must know where to quickly find the information they seek, from the cover page to the reference list. This chapter explains the parts of a typical scientific document, how to structure these parts into a well-organized document, and how to write each part to ...
Table of contents. Step 1: Introduce your topic. Step 2: Describe the background. Step 3: Establish your research problem. Step 4: Specify your objective (s) Step 5: Map out your paper. Research paper introduction examples. Frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.
Scientific paper structure: Key parts. 1. Title and Abstract: Attract the reader's attention. A scientific paper usually starts with two key parts that help attract a reader's attention to your work: the title and abstract. These parts are designed to essentially be the advertisement for your paper.
Parts of a Scientific & Scholarly Paper. Different sections are needed in different types of scientific papers (lab reports, literature reviews, systematic reviews, methods papers, research papers, etc.). Projects that overlap with the social sciences or humanities may have different requirements. Generally, however, you'll need to include:
The introduction supplies sufficient background information for the reader to understand and evaluate the experiment you did. It also supplies a rationale for the study. Goals: Present the problem and the proposed solution. Presents nature and scope of the problem investigated. Reviews the pertinent literature to orient the reader.
The task of writing a scientific paper and submitting it to a journal for publication is a time‐consuming and often daunting task. 3,4 Barriers to effective writing include lack of experience, poor writing habits, writing anxiety, unfamiliarity with the requirements of scholarly writing, lack of confidence in writing ability, fear of failure ...
Chris A. Mack. SPIE. 2018. Present the results of the paper, in logical order, using tables and graphs as necessary. Explain the results and show how they help to answer the research questions posed in the Introduction. Evidence does not explain itself; the results must be presented and then explained. Avoid: presenting results that are never ...
Papers that are submitted to a journal for publication are sent out to several scientists (peers) who look carefully at the paper to see if it is "good science". These reviewers then recommend to the editor of a journal whether or not a paper should be published. Most journals have publication guidelines. Ask for them and follow them exactly.
The Computer Science and Engineering guide provides links to information on all topics related to computer science and computer engineering in relevant databases, journals, conference proceedings, technical reports, websites, professional societies, etc. ... The basic parts of a scientific or technical paper are: Title and Author Information ...
Periodicals as Topic / standards. Professional Competence. Publishing / standards*. Writing. The basic structure of a scientific paper is summarised by the acronym IMRAD. Many types of papers are published in medical journals. These include original articles, case reports, technical notes, pictorial essays, reviews, commentaries and editorials.
In the latest study, published on arXiv, the team analysed 213 million scientific papers, published between 1800 and 2020, as well as 7.6 million patents filed between 1976 and 2020. Using the data, they built annual snapshots of citation networks, which they then scrutinised with the KQI to observe changes in knowledge over time.
After Science brought initial concerns about Masliah's work to their attention, a neuroscientist and forensic analysts specializing in scientific work who had previously worked with Science produced a 300-page dossier revealing a steady stream of suspect images between 1997 and 2023 in 132 of his published research papers. (Science did not ...
A biological scientist with the USDA Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station, Vaudo's recent publication describes bee species' host plant preferences, and how patterns in pollen proteins and lipids might predict which types of bees plant communities will attract. "This has exciting implications for future restoration research," Vaudo said.
Prepare for your exams with the help of AQA Past Papers as revision aids and teachings resources. ... Combined Science: Trilogy (8464) English Language (8700) English Literature (8702) Geography (8035) History (8145) Mathematics (8300) See all GCSEs. AS and A-levels. Biology (7401)
The northern English city of Manchester on Friday opened the first phase of a 1.7 billion pound ($2.3 billion) hub for science and technology companies, part of a large-scale project driven by ...
Medicare officials estimated that the subsidies would cost about $5 billion in 2025, about 3 percent of projected spending for next year in Medicare's Part D program covering medications taken ...
Berlin, September 26, 2024 - Bayer announced today the inauguration of its new life science incubator, Bayer Co.Lab Shanghai, in the Shanghai Innovation (SH-INNO) Park at the heart of China´s largest biopharma cluster, Zhangjiang, Shanghai.Bayer Co.Lab is part of the global network of life science incubators situated in key innovation hubs, including Cambridge (USA), Kobe (Japan), and ...