Publications are vital for the exchange of information and professional progress. Drafting a research paper is always challenging. Most medical graduate programs do not provide hands-on experience writing and publishing scientific publications. The art and science of scientific writing might be overwhelming to beginners. Frequently asked questions include ‘How to prepare a scientific paper?’ and ‘Is there a guaranteed method to successful publication?’ At the end of the discussion, you will get all the answers for such issues and educate a newbie through planning, producing, and editing manuscripts that appeal to readers and satisfy all peer reviewers.
Every researcher’s primary responsibility is to write and publish scientific publications. The scientific output of medical researchers is vital for society to enhance health via knowledge growth and the researcher’s career.
A scientific article must follow a specific format and style. On the other hand, a research paper is not simply technically strict documentation but also a qualitative intellectual result. As a result, structurally solid and phrasing abilities are required. These abilities are learned by experience, but they may also be imparted.
What makes a paper worthy of publication?
There are no simple solutions. A good paper, according to some, is a clear, cohesive, concise, well-argued document that employs unambiguous language. Manuscripts that are simple to read and modify are valued by editors and reviewers. However, there are no guaranteed standards for reporting work. A paper’s high scientific substance does not ensure acceptance in a great journal.
Get Started with Writing and Publishing a Scientific Paper
As an initial step, determine your article precisely. Choose the appropriate journal, and choose the type of article. Follow the rules for writers who have been published in the chosen journal. Rewrite, revise, and revise some more. Remember that much of the significant effort in creating a manuscript happens during the research design, which is critical for selecting the final paper. As a result, thorough planning is required for research design and methodology; they serve as the yardstick against which findings are measured.
Composing a Manuscript
The style of the article is determined by the scope of work. The field a publication covers, the area of study, the time window for publishing, and the journal’s impact factor—a proxy for the journal’s relative relevance within its field—all influence the choice of journal. The rules for preparing papers for any journal are in ‘Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication.’ The content of observational and experimental publications is typically separated into parts with headers such as introduction, methods, results, and discussion, a structure known as the ‘IMRAD.’ Other sorts of articles are structured differently. As a result, it is critical to become acquainted with and closely adhere to the directions of the target journal’s authors.
To begin, read a paper authored in the format you intend to use. Make a skeleton for your paper. Make a list of the essential points in each segment. Writing the article sections in chronological sequence is neither desired nor practicable. The introduction and debate may be postponed until the conclusion. The abstract can be written last.
Adopt basic, concise, and easy-to-understand language. Follow the journal’s choice for UK or US English. Remove any superfluous words. Use active rather than passive voice. The sentences should start with the keyword and conclude with the message. When using abbreviations for the first time, expand them. Examine your grammar and spelling.
A word processing program might be useful. Many biological terms, however, should not exist in the language of word-processing technologies. Textbooks or a medical lexicon may be useful in this situation.
The following material explains the elements of the different sections of a scientific report in order. Peer review and the reasons for rejection are covered later.
Headline: A better title should engage and enlighten readers while being true. It should set it apart from other researchers in the area. Titles can be expressed in several ways. The following are a few examples of informative titles:
– Relationship between tear fluorescein clearance and Schirmer test scores and symptoms of ocular irritation (a descriptive title)
– What Are Glaucoma Biomarkers?
– Dry eyes: Are fresh thoughts withering away?
As a general guideline, the title should include all the keywords readers use to look for related content. The authors may examine many titles before settling on the best one. Co-authors and peers may have valuable recommendations.
Some journals additionally want brief running titles of no more than 50 characters to be placed at the top or bottom of the journal pages. When requested, provide a brief running title.
The abstract summarizes the main point of the scientific work. The majority of readers just read the abstracts of publications. As a result, the abstract should entice readers to read on. An abstract can be either organized or unstructured. Most publications need organized abstracts with a word restriction. A structured abstract is broken into the following sections:
1. Background: What is known, and why is this research necessary?
2. Methods: What steps did you take?
3. Findings: What did you discover?
4. Interpretation: What does it all mean?
Compose the abstract in the past perfect tense, in the active person, and without citations.
If requested, provide a word count and key terms for indexing, ideally according to medical subject heading (MeSH) terminology. MeSH vocabulary may be found at www.PubMed.com.
Introduction: A strong introduction is a vital component of every successful paper. A strong beginning will “sell” the research to editors, reviewers, readers, and, in certain cases, the media [11]. It should explain what is known, what is unknown, and the reasoning for the investigation. The introduction should begin with a history of past research, followed by the purpose, research question, and study design. Include the strictly relevant sources in the introduction and leave out any data or conclusions from the study being presented.
Procedures: The methods describe how the investigation was carried out, and the findings reached. An original research’s procedures consist of four main components: study design, setting and subjects, data collecting, statistical methodologies, and ethical approval. Describe the study’s design (prospective/retrospective/experimental/observational), the subjects or study population (human/animal), the sample size and sample size calculation, study population recruitment, methodologies of random assignment, blinding, inclusion and exclusion criteria, measurement tools, outcome measures, and statistical analysis. The approaches give the readers insight into the correctness or incorrectness of the design. Furthermore, technique details enable readers to reproduce the intervention or experiment, allowing them to attempt and evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention and the accuracy of conclusions.
Provide appropriate details when explaining a new procedure or experiment. Provide references when you followed conventional processes mentioned elsewhere.
Results: The results provide a direct answer to the study question. Structure the outcomes similar to the materials and procedures. Use the past tense and be objective. Remove all unnecessary details that are not a part of the study question, outcome measure, or a factor influencing it. Begin the findings with a summary of the population’s recruiting procedure and demographic characteristics. Discuss the experimental group first, then the control group in controlled trials. Include the percentage and the exact numerical values in decimals, for example, 90% (54/60).
Where relevant, include the values’ mean, standard deviation (SD), and 95% confidence range. Describe the major and secondary outcomes, as well as any unexpected discoveries. Give p-values with 95% confidence intervals to state the positive/negative impacts established by a statistical significance test. Include effect sizes, such as odds ratios or relative risk, with 95% confidence intervals.
Do not overthink the outcomes. Overinterpretation of results may diminish the conclusion’s effect and lead to your work’s rejection.
Tables, charts, graphs, and figures help to decrease text and increase visual impact for easier reading. Serially number the figures, tables, charts, graphs, and photos. Mention these in the text where applicable.
Suitably prepare clinical pictures and diagrams on separate pages (e.g., JPEG, TIFF, or PNG of desired file size and resolution). Explain figures, charts, and clinical photos in a separate file. After the references, add the legends. Additional media, such as video, in the proper file type and size, may be uploaded for online journals.
Discussion: The results are interpreted through discussion. Keep it brief. Begin the discussion by summarizing the primary findings (the response to the study question) without duplicating the results. It is usual to repeat outcomes in a conversation. Keep discoveries to a minimum. Compare your findings to similar research by the other writers and explain the differences. Highlight the discoveries. The unexpected must be interpreted. Highlight the significance of your results. Also, outline your study’s merits and flaws. Finally, offer a summary – the main point.
References: The scientific findings and assertions are validated by references. Include only the necessary references. Rather than reviews, cite the most accessible reference and the main source. Remove obsolete and irrelevant references, as well as allusions to known facts. Verify the references for correctness. Use the reference style recommended by the targeted journal. Today, most biomedical journals use Vancouver or APA (American Psychological Association) style. The number of citations for a certain type of article may be limited. Some journals include online tools for verifying the authenticity of the references supplied.
A limited number of citations can be manually set. Specially built referencing software can help you keep track of and manage a huge number of references. Reference annotation – phrase case or superscript – also differs. Follow the criteria for the specific journal.
Before submitting your work, thoroughly revise it. Read it as critically as you would a paper by another author. Check that you have followed the author’s instructions. Follow the requirements to ensure your article is accepted summarily. Check for mistakes in the language and grammar. Separate files should be created for the cover letter, abstract, blinded article file (without author details), figures, charts, tables, photos, legends, permission from the copyright holder to utilize published materials, and so on. Also include the cover letter’s title, important points, and contact information.
Ensure that the author’s information (name, surname, degree, etc.), authorship (first author, co-author, guarantor, corresponding author), postal address, and institutional affiliation are valid. Provide any information requested by the editor, including individual author contributions. Some journals need information on each author’s contributions, such as idea and design, data collecting, statistical analysis, article preparation, and revision. Declare any conflicts of interest. Unless you consecutively submit all needed portions and the copyright transfer document signed by each author, your online submission will be incomplete. The matching author should be mentioned on the copyright transfer form. Save both the raw data and the finished submission for future use.
Rejection Reasons: Rejection is unpleasant, although it is common in scientific publishing. The first rejection happens at the editor level. During peer review, reviewers evaluate the quality of the work based on two key criteria: contributions to the field and study design appropriateness. According to a survey of editors and reviewers, the most often mentioned cause for outright manuscript rejection was a lack of research design. According to one research that looked at peer review ratings of a vast number of papers, the link between the experiment, the findings, and the conclusion was the key driver of the suggestion for approval or rejection of a specific manuscript. The inadequate experimental design was linked to rejection once more.
Another key cause for rejection is failure to follow the ‘instructions to the writers.’ Another cause for summary rejection is plagiarism in any form. The contribution is easily checked for plagiarism using available technologies. Articles deemed unfit for publication due to their content, language, grammar, or format are also summarily rejected. Some outstanding publications have discovered the principles to increase the chance of publishing a scientific paper and the reasons why submissions are not accepted for publication. The cause of rejection is a lack of what increases the chance of acceptance.
Other than the reasons indicated above, common causes for rejection include inadequate research design, insufficient issue description, incomplete, erroneous, or outdated examination of literature, suboptimal reporting of results, getting carried away in the debate, and bad writing. Language is a challenge for non-English-speaking researchers. Some publishers provide manuscript translation services for a fee.
Responding to Reviewers, Peer Review, and Resubmission: Peer review is a virtue in scientific communication. Peer review is an important method that journals use to ensure that the articles published in their journals are of high quality and standard. After your manuscript has passed editorial review, the procedure begins. It enriches the author’s work by making it more accessible to a larger audience.
Some journals request ideas for possible reviewers and those reviewers you want to avoid reviewing your manuscript. Reviewers can accept, reject, or suggest minor/major adjustments. Respond to the reviewer’s remarks point by point, and resubmit the updated paper with the suggested changes on time. Highlight the revisions in the document. Remember that modification does not ensure approval. However, failing to answer and resubmit effectively closes the door. Writing and publishing are essential components of research. The form and style of a scientific publication are essential; the current literature gives suitable recommendations. Online abstracts, full-text references, translation services, and referencing software have made document preparation easier. Read the directions carefully and follow them exactly.
A newbie must handle writing, peer review, and publishing learning curves. Content originality, a solid research design, and a decent manuscript that adheres to language, style, and format are all required for successful publishing. Attention to detail at all stages and tenacity through the laborious process of research, article preparation, peer review, and publishing are required for success.