how to write a research manuscript

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• About This Blog
• Official PLOS Blog
• EveryONE Blog
• Speaking of Medicine
• PLOS Biologue
• Absolutely Maybe
• DNA Science
• PLOS ECR Community
• All Models Are Wrong
• About PLOS Blogs

A Brief Guide To Writing Your First Scientific Manuscript

I’ve had the privilege of writing a few manuscripts in my research career to date, and helping trainees write them. It’s hard work, but planning and organization helps. Here’s some thoughts on how to approach writing manuscripts based on original biomedical research.

Getting ready to write

Involve your principal investigator (PI) early and throughout the process. It’s our job to help you write!

Write down your hypothesis/research question. Everything else will be spun around this.

Gather your proposed figures and tables in a sequence that tells a story. This will form the basis of your Results section. Write bulleted captions for the figures/tables, including a title that explains the key finding for each figure/table, an explanation of experimental groups and associated symbols/labels, and details on biological and technical replicates and statements (such as “one of four representative experiments are shown.”)

Generate a bulleted outline of the major points for each section of the manuscript. This depends on the journal, but typically, and with minor variations: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. Use Endnote, Reference Manager, Mendeley, or other citation software to start inserting references to go with bullets. Decide from the beginning what word processing software you’ll use (Word, Google Docs, etc.). Google Docs can be helpful for maintaining a single version of the manuscript, but citation software often doesn’t play well with Google Docs (whereas most software options can automatically update citation changes in Word). Here’s what should go in each of these sections:

Introduction: What did you study, and why is it important? What is your hypothesis/research question?

Methods: What techniques did you use? Each technique should be its own bullet, with sub-bullets for key details. If you used animal or human subjects, include a bullet on ethics approval. Important methodologies and materials, i.e., blinding for subjective analyses, full names of cell lines/strains/reagents and your commercial/academic sources for them.

Results: What were your findings? Each major finding should be its own bullet, with sub-bullets going into more detail for each major finding. These bullets should refer to your figures.

Discussion: Summarize your findings in the context of prior work. Discuss possible interpretations. It is important to include a bullet describing the limitations of the presented work. Mention possible future directions.

Now read the entire outline (including the figures). Is it a complete story? If so, you’re ready to prepare for submission. If not, you should have a good idea of what it will take to finish the manuscript.

Writing your manuscript

You first need to decide where you want to submit your manuscript. I like to consider my ideal target audience. I also like to vary which journals I publish in, both to broaden the potential readers of my papers and to avoid the appearance of having an unfair “inside connection” to a given journal. Your academic reputation is priceless.

Once you’ve chosen your journal, look at the journal’s article types. Decide which article type you would like to submit and reformat your outline according to the journal’s standards (including citation style).

Convert your outline (including the figure captions) to complete sentences. Don’t focus on writing perfect prose for the first draft. Write your abstract after the first draft is completed. Make sure the manuscript conforms to the target journal’s word and figure limits.

Discuss all possible authors with your PI. If the study involved many people, create a table of possible authors showing their specific contributions to the manuscript. (This is helpful to do in any case as many journals now require this information.) Assigning authorship is sometimes complicated, but keep in mind that the Acknowledgements can be used to recognize those who made minor contributions (including reading the manuscript to provide feedback). “Equal contribution” authorship positions for the first and last authors is a newer option for a number of journals. An alternative is to generate the initial outline or first draft with the help of co-authors. This can take a lot more work and coordination, but may make sense for highly collaborative and large manuscripts.

Decide with your PI who will be corresponding author. Usually you or the PI.

Circulate the manuscript draft to all possible authors. Thank them for their prior and ongoing support. Inform your co-authors where you would like to send the manuscript and why. Give them a reasonable deadline to provide feedback (minimum of a few weeks). If you use Microsoft Word, ask your co-authors to use track changes.

Collate comments from your co-authors. The Combine Documents function in Word can be very helpful. Consider reconciling all comments and tracked changes before circulating another manuscript draft so that co-authors can read a “clean” copy. Repeat this process until you and your PI (and co-authors) are satisfied that the manuscript is ready for submission.

Some prefer to avoid listing authors on manuscript drafts until the final version is generated because the relative contributions of authors can shift during manuscript preparation.

Submit your manuscript

Write a cover letter for your manuscript. Put it on institutional letterhead, if you are permitted by the journal’s submission system. This makes the cover letter, and by extension, the manuscript, more professional. Some journals have required language for cover letters regarding simultaneous submissions to other journals. It’s common for journals to require that cover letters include a rationale explaining the impact and findings of the manuscript. If you need to do this, include key references and a citation list at the end of the cover letter.

Most journals will require you to provide keywords, and/or to choose subject areas related to the manuscript. Be prepared to do so.

Conflicts of interest should be declared in the manuscript, even if the journal does not explicitly request this. Ask your co-authors about any such potential conflicts.

Gather names and official designations of any grants that supported the work described in your manuscript. Ask your co-authors and your PI. This is very important for funding agencies such as the NIH, which scrutinize the productivity of their funded investigators and take this into account when reviewing future grants.

It’s common for journals to allow you to suggest an editor to handle your manuscript. Editors with expertise in your area are more likely to be able to identify and recruit reviewers who are also well-versed in the subject matter of your manuscript. Discuss this with your PI and co-authors.

Likewise, journals often allow authors to suggest reviewers. Some meta-literature indicates that manuscripts with suggested reviewers have an overall higher acceptance rate. It also behooves you to have expert reviewers that can evaluate your manuscript fairly, but also provide feedback that can improve your paper if revisions are recommended. Avoid suggesting reviewers at your own institution or who have recently written papers or been awarded grants with you. Savvy editors look for these types of relationships between reviewers and authors, and will nix a suggested reviewer with any potential conflict of interest. Discuss suggested reviewers with your PI and co-authors.

On the flip side, many journals will allow you to list opposed reviewers. If you believe that someone specific will provide a negatively biased review for non-scientific reasons, that is grounds for opposing them as your manuscript’s reviewer. In small fields, it may not be possible to exclude reviewers and still undergo expert peer review. Definitely a must-discuss with your PI and co-authors.

Generate a final version of the manuscript. Most journals use online submission systems that mandate uploading individual files for the manuscript, cover letter, etc. You may have to use pdf converting software (i.e., Adobe Acrobat) to change Word documents to pdf’s, or to combine documents into a single pdf. Review the final version, including the resolution and appearance of figures. Make sure that no edges of text or graphics near page margins are cut off (Adobe Acrobat sometimes does this with Microsoft Word). Send the final version to your PI and co-authors. Revise any errors. Then submit! Good luck!

Edited by Bill Sullivan, PhD, Indiana University School of Medicine.

Michael Hsieh is the Stirewalt Scientific Director of the Biomedical Research Institute and an Associate Professor at the George Washington University, where he studies host-pathogen interactions in the urinary tract. Michael has published over 90 peer-reviewed scientific papers. His work has been featured on PBS and in the New York Times.

Your article is wonderful. just read it. you advise very correctly. I am an experienced writer. I write articles on various scientific topics. and even I took some information for myself, who I have not used before. Your article will help many novice writers. I’m sure of it. You very well described all the points of your article. I completely agree with them. most difficult to determine the target audience. Thanks to your article, everyone who needs some kind of help can get it by reading your article. Thanks you

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name and email for the next time I comment.

Written by Jessica Rech an undergraduate student at IUPUI and coauthored by Brandi Gilbert, director of LHSI. I am an undergraduate student…

As more learning occurs online and at home with the global pandemic, keeping students engaged in learning about science is a challenge…

By Brad Parks A few years back, while driving to my favorite daily writing haunt, the local radio station spit out one…

• SpringerLink shop

Writing a journal manuscript

Publishing your results is a vital step in the research lifecycle and in your career as a scientist. Publishing papers is necessary to get your work seen by the scientific community, to exchange your ideas globally and to ensure you receive the recognition for your results. The following information is designed to help you write the best paper possible by providing you with points to consider, from your background reading and study design to structuring your manuscript and figure preparation.

By the end of the tutorial you should know on how to:

• prepare prior to starting your research
• structure your manuscript and what to include in each section
• get the most out of your tables and figures so that they clearly represent your most important results.

You will also have the opportunity to test your learning by completing a quiz at the end.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 28 February 2018
• Correction 16 March 2018

How to write a first-class paper

• Virginia Gewin 0

Virginia Gewin is a freelance writer in Portland, Oregon.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Manuscripts may have a rigidly defined structure, but there’s still room to tell a compelling story — one that clearly communicates the science and is a pleasure to read. Scientist-authors and editors debate the importance and meaning of creativity and offer tips on how to write a top paper.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 555 , 129-130 (2018)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02404-4

Interviews have been edited for clarity and length.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 16 March 2018 : This article should have made clear that Altmetric is part of Digital Science, a company owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, which is also the majority shareholder in Nature’s publisher, Springer Nature. Nature Research Editing Services is also owned by Springer Nature.

Related Articles

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

Husbandry Technician I

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Lead Researcher – Department of Bone Marrow Transplantation & Cellular Therapy

Researcher in the center for in vivo imaging and therapy, scientist or lead researcher (protein engineering, hematology, shengdar q. tsai lab), lead or senior researcher - flow cytometry.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Guide to writing and publishing a scientific manuscript: Part 1—The structure

• Open access
• Published: 21 December 2021
• Volume 24 , pages 117–119, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Ian G. Stiell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2583-6408 1 , 2

For the Canadian EM Writing Group

31k Accesses

77 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Writing a scientific manuscript for a peer-reviewed medical journal can be a frustrating but ultimately very satisfying process. Benefits for the authors include the ability to share the results of their project with a large audience and the opportunity to change practice, the satisfaction of completing a challenging scholarly endeavor, and the recognition of your institution in terms of advancement and/or compensation. Those who have not yet written a scientific manuscript may not appreciate how long and intensive the journey can be. The goal of this guide is to offer tried and true, step by step, recommendations on how to simplify the writing process and increase the chances of successful publication. Variations on these tips have been presented nationally and internationally and have been the basis for authoring or co-authoring hundreds of papers as well as for mentoring many learners in the Canadian emergency medicine community. Part 1 will address the structure or anatomy of a manuscript and Part 2 will look at the process of writing and dealing with journals.

Specific sections

Example manuscript.

See online appendix.

Tables and figures

Generally, these should be finalized before writing the Results and Discussion sections.

These should be presented sequentially as cited in the text, first the Tables then Figures, at the end of the manuscript or in a separate document. See online appendix

The typesetter will determine their actual position in the published paper.

Titles should be short but self-explanatory, such that the Tables and Figures stand alone without the reader having to go back to the text.

For clinical journals, we suggest making the Tables and Figures easy to read :

round to one decimal where possible.

give only percentages without counts when there are multiple columns .

keep headings brief and use footnotes to explain terms and abbreviations.

Avoid use of p-values except for the primary outcomes; focus on differences and CIs.

When reporting on socio-demographic characteristics, use terms that are inclusive, describe diversity, and considerate of marginalized populations.

Most journals limit the number of Tables and Figures such that some may have to be moved to the online appendix.

Figures or graphs should be specifically prepared with simple lines for publication; do not use 3-D or PowerPoint slides.

Title should only give design if strong, e.g., randomized trial, systematic review, meta-analysis; avoid “retrospective” or “chart review” as these terms may devalue your paper.

A few journals may insist on giving the design in the title

Author Information , names, affiliations.

Disclaimers, e.g., findings represent the work of the authors and not their institution.

Sources of Support , grants, other funding.

Word count , text only excluding abstract and tables.

Keywords , 3–5 commonly used terms.

Other sections may be placed elsewhere in the manuscript:

Disclosures of conflicts and relationships, usually given on the ICJME form.

Acknowledgements of non-authors: research staff, clinicians.

Author contributions .

Adhere to the structured format and word count required by the specific journal.

Common subheadings are: Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusion.

Use only standard abbreviations in the abstract and main text; non-standard abbreviations can be confusing to readers and reviewers.

Standard abbreviations should be introduced at the first use.

Examples of standard abbreviations are ED, CPR, CT, ECG.

Examples of non-standard abbreviations to be avoided include: LOS, SRS, IND, CCLS, RCSA.

ICMJE recommends placing clinical trial registration number at the end of the abstract.

Should be brief and no more than 3 paragraphs .

Paragraph 1: definition, epidemiology, and importance of the health-care problem .

Paragraph 2: key studies and knowledge gap to be addressed.

Paragraph 3: Goal and specific objectives of the paper and how the gap will be addressed.

For educational articles , the approach should be grounded in or framed within educational theory or principles

Authors should be aware of and generally follow accepted reporting guidelines , based upon the study type whether clinical trial, systematic review, observational study, etc.

These are well presented on the EQUATOR website [ 1 ].

A few journals require completion and submission of the relevant checklist.

Use standard subheadings : Study Design, Study Setting, Participants, Interventions (if any), Outcome Measures, Data Collection, Data Analysis and Sample Size.

Use “Research Questions” in Qualitative research .

“Health records review” is preferable to “retrospective chart review.”

Indicate Research Ethics Board approval or waiver, usually at end of Study Participants.

Educational research often involves one of many different quantitative, qualitative, or synthesis research approaches.

Generally, one paragraph for each Table and Figure.

Aim for brevity by reporting only important or interesting findings; do not repeat everything from the Tables.

In the text, give percentages and the number from which the percentage was calculated.

e.g., “12.1% of 410 participants…”

Avoid starting a sentence with a number.

e.g., use “Of all subjects, 3.1% were…”; not “3.1% of subjects were….”

We suggest using words for spelling out numerals 1–10 (e.g., “three”) and numerals above that.

This is the section that many authors struggle with ; we strongly recommend using the paragraphs described below.

We also encourage use of subheadings which will aid reviewers and readers, even though most journals do not require them.

All subheadings are usually one paragraph maximum except Previous Studies.

1. Interpretation. Highlight the main findings without repeating numbers and present the take home messages.

2. Previous Studies. Discuss how your findings compare to prior studies, trying to emphasize what is unique.

3. Strengths and Limitations. Discuss methodological strengths and weaknesses, trying to mitigate limitations.

4. Clinical Implications. Be explicit in how your findings can impact and improve care, either at the patient or the system level.

5. Research Implications. Suggest future directions of enquiry and knowledge gaps.

6. Conclusion. Highlight your unique findings in this important section; state explicitly how your study can improve care; align with Abstract conclusion.

Conclusions must not reach beyond the study findings.

Never, ever conclude by saying “future research required” as that immediately tells reviewers and readers that your findings are not meaningful.

Educational papers typically link interpretation and the existing literature together (rather than as separate paragraphs).

Always use reference software such as EndNote, Mendeley, or others.

Most medical journals use the Vancouver style , citing references with Arabic numbers in the text and providing a list at the end [ 2 ].

Equator Network Reporting Guidelines United Kingdom: UK EQUATOR Centre. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/ . Accessed 1 Nov 2021.

Vancouver Style Reference Guide Toronto: The Michner Institute of Education at UHN. https://michener.ca/students/library/referencing-writing-help/ . Accessed 1 Nov 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Angela Marcantonio, Jennifer Brinkhurst, and Catherine Clement for assistance with preparation of the manuscript. For the Canadian EM Writing Group: Paul Atkinson, Peter Cameron, Alix Carter, Warren Cheung, Ryan Chuang, Kerstin de Wit, Quynh Doan, Ian Drennan, Debra Eagles, Andrew Hall, Ariel Hendin, Grant Innes, Eddy Lang, Patrick McLane, Andrew McRae, Catherine Patocka, Jeffrey J. Perry, Naveen Poonai, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy, Daniel Ting, Christian Vaillancourt, Robert Woods, Krishan Yadav, Peter Zed.

There was no funding for this project. Dr. Stiell is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine and the contents of this manuscript reflect the opinions of the authors and not those of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Ian G. Stiell

Clinical Epidemiology Unit, F657, The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Paul Atkinson
• , Peter Cameron
• , Alix Carter
• , Warren Cheung
• , Ryan Chuang
• , Kerstin Wit
• , Quynh Doan
• , Ian Drennan
• , Debra Eagles
• , Andrew Hall
• , Ariel Hendin
• , Grant Innes
• , Eddy Lang
• , Patrick McLane
• , Andrew McRae
• , Catherine Patocka
• , Jeffrey J. Perry
• , Naveen Poonai
• , Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy
• , Daniel Ting
• , Christian Vaillancourt
• , Robert Woods
• , Krishan Yadav
•  & Peter Zed

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian G. Stiell .

Additional information

The members of the Canadian EM Writing Group are listed in acknowledgements.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 130 KB)

Supplementary file2 (docx 67 kb), rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Stiell, I.G., For the Canadian EM Writing Group. Guide to writing and publishing a scientific manuscript: Part 1—The structure. Can J Emerg Med 24 , 117–119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-021-00241-5

Download citation

Received : 17 November 2021

Accepted : 19 November 2021

Published : 21 December 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-021-00241-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

A Guide on How to Write a Manuscript for a Research Paper

This article teaches how to write a manuscript for a research paper and recommended practices to produce a well-written manuscript.

For scientists, publishing a research paper is a huge accomplishment; they typically spend a large amount of time researching the appropriate subject, the right material, and, most importantly, the right place to publish their hard work. To be successful in publishing a research paper, it must be well-written and meet all of the high standards.

Although there is no quick and easy method to get published, there are certain manuscript writing strategies that can help earn the awareness and visibility you need to get it published.

In this Mind The Graph step-by-step tutorial, we give practical directions on how to write a manuscript for a research paper, to increase your research as well as your chances of publishing.

What is the manuscript of a research paper?

A manuscript is a written, typed, or word-processed document submitted to a publisher by the researcher. Researchers meticulously create manuscripts to communicate their unique ideas and fresh findings to both the scientific community and the general public. 

Overall, the manuscript must be outstanding and deeply represent your professional attitude towards work; it must be complete, rationally structured, and accurate. To convey the results to the scientific community while complying with ethical rules, scientific articles must use a specified language and structure.

Furthermore, the standards for title page information, abstract structure, reference style, font size, line spacing, margins, layout, and paragraph style must also be observed for effective publishing. This is a time-consuming and challenging technique, but it is worthwhile in the end.

How to structure a manuscript?

The first step in knowing how to write a manuscript for a research paper is understanding how the structure works. 

Title or heading

A poorly chosen title may deter a potential reader from reading deeper into your manuscript. When an audience comes across your manuscript, the first thing they notice is the title, keep in mind that the title you choose might impact the success of your work.

Abstracts are brief summaries of your paper. The fundamental concept of your research and the issues you intend to answer should be contained within the framework of the abstract. The abstract is a concise summary of the research that should be considered a condensed version of the entire article.

Introduction

The purpose of the research is disclosed in the body of the introduction. Background information is provided to explain why the study was conducted and the research’s development.

Methods and materials

The technical parts of the research have to be thoroughly detailed in this section. Transparency is required in this part of the research. Colleagues will learn about the methodology and materials you used to analyze your research, recreate it, and expand concepts further. 

This is the most important portion of the paper. You should provide your findings and data once the results have been thoroughly discussed. Use an unbiased point of view here; but leave the evaluation for your final piece, the conclusion.

Finally, explain why your findings are meaningful. This section allows you to evaluate your results and reflect on your process. Remember that conclusions are expressed in a succinct way using words rather than figures. The content presented in this section should solely be based on the research conducted.

The reference list contains information that readers may use to find the sources you mentioned in your research. Your reference page is at the end of your piece. Keep in mind that each publication has different submission criteria. For effective reference authentication, journal requirements should be followed.

Steps on how to write a manuscript for a research paper

It is not only about the format while writing a successful manuscript, but also about the correct strategy to stand out above other researchers trying to be published. Consider the following steps to a well-written manuscript:

1. Read the author’s guide

Many journals offer a Guide for Authors kind of document, which is normally printed yearly and is available online. In this Guide for Authors, you will discover thorough information on the journal’s interests and scope, as well as information regarding manuscript types and more in-depth instructions on how to do the right formatting to submit your research.

2. Pay special attention to the methods and materials section

The section on methods and materials is the most important part of the research. It should explain precisely what you observed in the research. This section should normally be less than 1,000 words long. The methods and materials used should be detailed enough that a colleague could reproduce the study.

3. Identify and describe your findings

The second most crucial aspect of your manuscript is the findings. After you’ve stated what you observed (methods and materials), you should go through what you discovered. Make a note to organize your findings such that they make sense without further explanation.

4. The research’s face and body

In this part you need to produce the face and body of your manuscript, so do it carefully and thoroughly. 

Ensure that the title page has all of the information required by the journal. The title page is the public face of your research and must be correctly structured to meet publication requirements. 

Write an introduction that explains why you carried out the research and why anybody should be interested in the results (ask yourself “so what?”). 

Concentrate on creating a clear and accurate reference page. As stated in step 1, you should read the author’s guide for the journal you intend to submit to thoroughly to ensure that your research reference page is correctly structured.

The abstract should be written just after the manuscript is finished. Follow the author’s guide and be sure to keep it under the word limit.

5. Rapid Rejection Criteria double-check

Now that you’ve completed the key aspects of your research, it’s time to double-check everything according to the Rapid Rejection Criteria. The “Rapid Rejection Criteria” are errors that lead to an instantaneous rejection. The criteria are:

• The answered question was not interesting enough
• The question has been satisfactorily answered before
• Wrong hypothesis
• The method cannot address the hypothesis
• Research is underpowered
• Contradictory manuscript
• The conclusion doesn’t support the data

Rewrite your manuscript now that you’ve finished it. Make yourself your fiercest critic. Consider reading the document loudly to yourself, keeping an ear out for any abrupt breaks in the logical flow or incorrect claims.

Your Creations, Ready within Minutes!

Aside from a step-by-step guide to writing a decent manuscript for your research, Mind The Graph includes a specialized tool for creating and providing templates for infographics that may maximize the potential and worth of your research. Check the website for more information. 

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

• Search Search
• CN (Chinese)
• DE (German)
• ES (Spanish)
• FR (Français)
• JP (Japanese)
• Open Research
• Booksellers
• Peer Reviewers
• Springer Nature Group ↗
• Publish an article
• Roles and responsibilities
• Signing your contract
• Writing your manuscript
• Submitting your manuscript
• Producing your book
• Promoting your book
• Submit your book idea
• Manuscript guidelines

Book author services

• Publish a book
• Publish conference proceedings

Our common goal is the publication of your book. Before your book is published, there are numerous internal steps in the publishing process.

To ensure timely publication, these steps should be planned and scheduled in good time, so don't be surprised if your editor contacts you during the writing process! Don’t worry, your editor just wants to make sure that the company can plan its internal resources for your book.

Below you can explore these steps, along with some helpful tools and tips to aid you in writing your manuscript.

How to prepare your manuscript

With these clear manuscript guidelines and easy-to-follow checklists, submitting your finished work couldn’t be easier.

Once you've submitted your final manuscript, our team of experts will work on the formatting and typesetting. They will transform your work into a print book, an eBook, or our own digital format, MyCopy.  Learn more about MyCopy .

Writing your manuscript in your native language

You want to publish with Springer Nature in English or German, but you have written your manuscript in another language? Or you prefer writing your current manuscript in your mother tongue?

Your English or German language skills are fine but you lack the time or funding for a translation?

Springer Nature offers a free  auto-translation service . 

• Accessibility

At Springer Nature, we’re committed to Accessibility and we want to help you make your research accessible too. Many factors regarding accessibility are handled by Springer Nature, but we request you to take some actions as well to help make your research accessible.

Alternative Text When preparing your manuscript, it is recommended that you write alternative texts (also known as alt texts) for all figures, illustrations and for tables, which you include in an image format.

• Alternative text is a brief and objective description of the content of an image and/or of the purpose it serves in a digital format. Alt text is crucial for individuals using screen reader technology, as well as for those trying to comprehend the content of an image in case it doesn't load..
• Alt text is not the same as a caption, which typically provides information that is not already in the visual element itself.
• For more tips on how to write good alt text, please visit the Poet Tool .

Requirements for Figures When differentiating elements in charts and graphs, do not just change the color, also change shapes and patterns, or provide other visual differentiation like direct segment labels.

How to Include Alternative Texts in the Manuscript Alternative texts should not be included in the body text to avoid any possibility of confusion with the captions or with the main text. Please include a separate table per chapter in which you make the assignment of figures and the alternative texts clearly. 

Multimedia enhancements

Springer Nature offers a number of multimedia tools that you can add to your book:

Video & audio: Integrate video and audio files into your book to convey specific content in its most suitable form. Both media types can either be streamed online from our electronic book versions or accessed by your readers via the SN More Media app for mobile devices. Learn more about video and audio .

Digital flashcards:  Create digital flashcards for your readers, which can be accessed by your readers via a web and mobile micro-learning app. This way your readers can learn and test their comprehension and better perform on exams.  Learn more about digital flashcards .  

Programming code: Programming code can easily be accessed from your book product page if you use one of our GitHub repositories.

Supplemental files:  It is possible to attach supplemental electronic files (like PDFs, Excel sheets, etc.) to individual chapters of your book. 

Lecturer material:  If you want to provide additional material only available to lecturers (like PowerPoint presentations or solution manuals), you can use our restricted lecturer material service.

ORCID - your personal identifier

Make sure to use your unique, personal, persistent identifier (an iD) that distinguishes you from every other researcher. ORCID also enables organizations to link to your affiliations and works – including your publications - to your iD, ensuring you receive proper credit for your work.  Learn more about ORCID .

Which templates/macros should I use?

To help you in structuring your manuscript you will have access to Word and LaTeX templates for books, as well as for contributed books. See our manuscript guidelines .  

Once it is well structured, the production teams will work on your manuscript to be in proper Springer Nature style.

How to improve search engine optimisation (SEO)

Interesting fact: Over two thirds of our website visitors come from search engines. This shows how critical search engine optimization (SEO) is!

To make sure your book's homepage and content appears at the top of the results list of an appropriate keyword search, Springer Nature constantly lay emphasis on the further optimisation of our product pages.

Check out some  SEO tips for book authors      

How to revise your thesis into a book

Springer Nature will consider submissions containing material that has previously formed part of a PhD or other academic thesis. 

This includes those that have been made publicly available according to the requirements of the institution awarding the qualification. Theses should be nominated for publication by heads of department at internationally leading institutions.

Prospective authors should bear in mind that every PhD thesis will need to undergo rigorous revision in order to be published as a monograph with our press. To help with this revision, our editors have put together the following advice:

How do you go about planning the revisions, and when should you start?

Be aware that transforming your dissertation into a publishable book is a complex process that will take time and require some careful planning. Most authors take at least a year to complete a PhD-based book; however, this timeline may be extended if the book requires fresh data and new research. 

You should only start working on your book proposal after you’ve submitted your thesis, defended it successfully, and completed your PhD program. This will allow you to look at the thesis with a fresh eye and to take into account any helpful feedback from your examiners as you develop your proposal.

Consider all the available formats. Depending on the subject and breadth of the topic, some proposals may develop into a full-length authored book (approximately 90,000 words), whilst for others a shorter format like Palgrave Pivot (25,000 to 50,000 words) may be suitable – for example a single-case or single-country study once they have been extracted out of any redundant or unnecessary content.

What’s the difference between the PhD Thesis and an Authored Book?

• Audience:   While a PhD thesis is meant to be read and scrutinized by your supervisors and examiners, the readership of your book will extend to the broader academic community, scholars and practitioners, who may not be specialized in or even familiar with your research topic.
• Rationale: The motivation behind writing your book will need to be rethought to reflect the expectations of your new audience and should be clearly explained in the introduction. The objective is not to convince your examiners that you have what it takes to complete a PhD, but to make sure the book is coherent and your conclusions are persuasive. 
• Structure:  Your introductory chapter should also offer readers a concise ‘preview’ of the various chapters. The conclusion should summarize your key findings and identify avenues for further research. Look over the table of contents in books which you would consider as related literature or competitors. How does their structure differ from the structure of your thesis? You should simplify and optimize your table of contents to present the material in a logical and accessible fashion.
• Length:  Monographs are typically much shorter than PhD theses. Separate chapters about the review of literature and research methodologies may be essential in a thesis, but will not be necessary in a book, as readers and experts in your field will be familiar already with both. References to the relevant literature can be moved to the endnotes of individual chapters, and what is not pertinent to advancing your own arguments can be removed. The methodology chapter should be reduced and merged with the introduction or omitted altogether.

Learn more about publishing German theses .

Tips for writing your textbook

• Prerequisite knowledge: What topics or concepts should readers already be familiar with? Do you need to review these or provide further explanation?
• Self-contained: Students typically want a one-stop resource so you should try to ensure that as much of the information that student needs is presented in your textbook.
• Modular chapters: Students will likely dip in and out of the textbook rather than read it linearly from start to finish so try to make chapters self-contained where possible, so they can be understood out of context of the rest of the textbook.
• Succinct and to the point: Keep focused on the course that the textbook is supporting and the topics that need to be covered. Avoid including less relevant topics, very advanced topics, explanations of concepts that students should already understand, and any other content that may not actually be useful to the student.
• Didactic elements: Elements such as exercises, case studies, definitions and so on help break up the main chapter text and make it more engaging. Consider what didactic elements you want to include before you start writing so you can ensure that the main chapter text provides the right information to support the didactic element e.g. that a concept is adequately explained in order to answer an exercise question, or that theory is suitably described before a corresponding case study is given
• Writing style: Textbooks can have a lighter, more conversational writing style than monographs and references works. Try to use active rather than passive sentences e.g. “It is believed by some physicians that…” becomes “Some physicians believe that…”
• Online resources: If you have exercises, consider writing a solutions manual for instructors so they don’t have to work out all the solutions themselves. Are there data sets, spreadsheets, programs, etc., that would be useful for students to access so they can test concepts themselves? The same copyright issues apply for online resources as for the print book – see Obtaining Permissions for further information
• Write a helpful Introduction: Explain who the textbook is for and how it should be used. Confirm the level of the students (e.g. 3rd year undergraduates). Confirm the course that the textbook supports. List any prerequisites or assumptions you have made about the student’s background knowledge. Explain how the textbook could be used. If applicable, identify core must-read chapters and chapters that are more advanced or optional; provide short summaries of the chapters (just a sentence or two)
• Test your material as you write: Use your draft chapters as part of your lecture course and see how students respond to it. Do they understand the concepts you are explaining? Are they able to complete any exercises?

Open access

Customer support, translation services.

• Tools & Services
• Account Development
• Sales and account contacts
• Professional
• Press office
• Locations & Contact

We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Visit our main website for more information.

• © 2023 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Manuscript

Affiliation.

• 1 Respiratory Care Services, Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, Arkansas. [email protected].
• PMID: 37643870
• PMCID: PMC10676260 (available on 2024-12-01 )
• DOI: 10.4187/respcare.11437

The methods section of a manuscript is one of the most important parts of a research paper because it provides information on the validity of the study and credibility of the results. Inadequate description of the methods has been reported as one of the main reasons for manuscript rejection. The methods section must include sufficient detail so that others could repeat the study and reproduce the results. The structure of the methods section should flow logically and chronologically. There are multiple components of methods sections, including study design, materials used, study procedures, and data analysis. Each element must be adequately described and thoroughly detailed to provide an understanding of how the results were obtained and how to interpret the findings. Studies that involved humans or animals must include an ethics statement of approval from the appropriate governing body. The methods section should explain how subjects were identified and should state inclusion and exclusion criteria. All materials used to complete the study should be described in detail, including equipment, drugs, gases, chemicals, treatments, interventions, or other items. Study procedures should outline all steps taken to obtain the results and clearly state the outcome measures. Subheadings might be helpful for organizing the methods section into subsections when there is a considerable amount of information to report. A well-written methods section will guide the reader through the research process and provide adequate information to evaluate study validity and reproduce the work. The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance for writing the methods section of a manuscript.

Keywords: manuscript; methods; publication; research; research paper; science writing; study protocol.

Copyright © 2023 by Daedalus Enterprises.

• Research Design*

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Paediatr Child Health
• v.11(6); 2006 Jul

Preparing a manuscript for publication: A user-friendly guide

Noni e macdonald.

1 Division of Infectious Diseases, IWK Health Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Lee Ford-Jones

2 Division of Infectious Diseases, The Hospital for Sick Children, and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Jeremy N Friedman

3 Division of Paediatric Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Judith Hall

4 BC’s Children’s Hospital and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia

“Whatever you dream, begin it, for boldness has power, magic and genius in it.” — Goethe

All of us are connected to medical journals, whether it is through reading, writing, reviewing or suggesting topics to be addressed. The purpose of the present commentary is to encourage potential new writers by suggesting ways to smooth the sometimes bumpy path between having an idea for a paper and reaching the finish line of publication.

While there are many reasons for writing a paper – such as to share clinical and research observations; to submit one’s observations, ideas and conclusions to critical evaluation by peers; to provide guidance to improve the health care of children and youth; to advocate for policy change; and to support personal academic advancement – writing also provides an excellent learning experience, promotes critical thinking and enhances the ability to be more concise in written communications. These all help to make one a better physician.

STEP 1: FINDING THE TIME TO THINK

To write, one needs something to say, which requires thinking time. There are many times in the day that are ideal for thinking, such as while doing rote tasks that do not require one’s full attention (eg, riding the bus or walking to work, shovelling snow, gardening or taking a shower). Develop the habit of using some of these times to think about writing.

What to think about?

In preparing to write, think about the answers to the following questions:

• What do you want to say about this topic – what is your key message?
• Why do you care about this?
• Who is the intended audience, and therefore, what format and type of journal should this piece be submitted to?
• Why would this audience be interested?
• Who might want to work on this paper with you?

Capture these ideas in a notebook, a file folder or your personal digital assistant, or by sending e-mails to yourself. Review and refine the answers. Regularly review this ‘ideas file’. Once your ideas are focused, you are ready to write.

STEP 2: FINDING THE TIME TO WRITE

‘Five minutes here and five minutes there’ does not work for writing. You need ‘real’ time set aside to write. The solution: schedule time for writing by making an appointment in your weekly planner – a one- or two-hour block once or twice a week.

When and where to write?

Writing is a complex task that requires you to be at your best. Are you a morning person or one who works best at night? Do you need a warm-up period (ie, a preliminary task, perhaps dictating your case notes) to set you up to write or are you a quick study? What type of environment do you find most conducive to a complex task – a quiet room, background music, a cup of tea, etc? To minimize distractions and interruptions while writing, where is the best place for you to write – your workplace office, your home office or the library? A ‘do not disturb’ sign may help.

Getting started

You have been using your thinking time and your ideas folder. You have writing time scheduled. The next step is to find a ‘personal editor’ and a ‘writing buddy’. The former is a friend or colleague who already is a successful writer and who is willing to work with you on your writing. This person does not need to be physically located near you because much can be done by e-mail. Your ‘writing buddy’ is someone like yourself who also wants to write, and needs support and encouragement to do this.

Now select your best idea and set yourself a deadline to get your first draft done. Focus on your key message. Write a brief overview to organize your thoughts and arguments. This can form the basis of the later abstract and will help to guide your writing. Remember the AIMRAD format: abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion. Write your first draft. Ensure that you focus on your key message(s). Select your journal for first submission (see below).

Discuss your first draft with your writing buddy. Make revisions. Show your second draft to your personal editor. Rewrite and refine. Be as succinct and clear as possible. Tables offer a means to present a large volume of data in a concise and readable form. Thoughtful and critical review of the manuscript by all authors, and writing and rewriting several times before submission are critical. Many authors find it useful to set the paper aside for a week and then come back to it – flaws may then be more glaring. Remember, no piece of writing will ever be perfect, but work hard to make it of high quality. When you, your writing buddy and your personal editor determine that your paper is ready to go, send it to your coauthors for a final review. Do not procrastinate too long. One can overpolish!

Still not started? See Table 1 for tips for overcoming common stumbling blocks and excuses for not writing.

Tips for overcoming obstacles to writing

Caution 1: The last check before submission

Remember to do a last spell, grammar and reference check, as well as ensuring that the paper is in the format requested by the journal selected for submission. Also ensure that all of your coauthors have signed off on the final draft.

Remember that ghost writers, generally pharmaceutically funded, must be disclosed as such, and that this may be a potentially fatal flaw, precluding publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

STEP 3: PREPARING A CASE REPORT

This is an excellent starting point for busy trainees and clinicians. For a detailed list of tips on how, why and which cases to write up, see the accompanying article by Jeremy Friedman in this issue of the journal (pages 343–344).

Caution 2: New realities – Consents and ethics

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans ( 1 ) is the ethics guide for human research in Canada. Patients need to be aware that their cases are being published. Discussion with the parent or child, followed by their review of the manuscript, noting the same in their chart is ideal, if possible. Some journals require documentation that this has been done. Your hospital’s research ethics board may have additional recommendations and requirements. As of July 2005, all clinical trials in Canada must be registered with Health Canada ( 2 ).

STEP 4: SELECTING A JOURNAL FOR SUBMISSION

Your manuscript needs to be a ‘best fit’ with the target audience and mission of the selected journal. Advice on journal selection is provided in Table 2 .

Selecting a journal

Another consideration in journal selection is the ‘impact factor’ ( 3 ). This reflects the number of times an article from that journal is cited in other papers (the citation index). Recent examples of impact factors are as follows: New England Journal of Medicine – 38.570, Journal of the American Medical Association – 24.831, Pediatrics –3.781, Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry –3.779, Journal of Pediatrics – 2.913, Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal – 2.262 and Pediatric Annals – 0.318 ( 4 ). The impact factor may be important in the promotions process in some faculties, but in terms of the impact on the health of children and youth (ie, practice or policy change), there is much less correlation. Notable examples include publication of the seminal reports of congenital rubella syndrome and methodology for polymerase chain reaction in ‘low-impact’ journals.

Opportunities for contribution to Paediatrics & Child Health are many ( 5 ). Your work will reach and be read by a wide audience of Canadian paediatricians, family physicians and others with a strong interest in the health of children and youth because Paediatrics & Child Health is one of the most highly read Canadian specialty journals.

Caution 3: Prepublication use of data

If information in the paper has been presented at an earlier scientific meeting, this must be noted in a footnote on the title page.

Some journals offer ‘fast-tracking’, with the electronic version of the paper appearing in real-time (ie, when accepted) and the print version moved forward on the wait list of ‘to be printed’ papers. Timing of publication can be important because the material in the article cannot be discussed with the media while it is ‘in press’ (ie, not yet submitted, under review or accepted but not published) in a peer-reviewed journal.

Caution 4: Authorship

Qualifications for authorship have been the subject of much discussion, and criteria have been developed ( 6 ). Remember that contributors who are now geographically remote or have moved away should be included. A spirit of generosity may ultimately be more helpful to improving the health care of children and youth than a highly restricted approach to authorship.

STEP 5: SUBMITTING YOUR PAPER

The journal’s editor first notes whether the topic of the paper is a fit for the journal. If not, a rejection letter is sent. If it is a fit, the editor selects peer reviewers with recognized subject area expertise. An instructional guide for peer review of biomedical manuscripts can be found at < http://www3.us.elsevier-health.com/extractor/graphics/em-acep/index.html > ( 7 ).

The review is divided into two specific sections, one ‘for the editor only’ and another for the author(s) (also seen by the editor). Reviewers identify problems with the methods, the results (including whether the numbers add up), the interpretation and the conclusions (are they justified? are the limitations fairly stated?). Tables and figures are examined for clarity and accuracy, and references are checked, including verifying that the most current ones are included. The abstract is reviewed to determine whether the major results and conclusions are well stated. The decision on acceptance is made by the editor, based on the advice received from the reviewers and other factors, such as how well the paper fits with the journal’s mission, the timeliness of the topic, whether the paper is of a substantial nature rather than the ‘least publishable unit’ and the availability of journal space.

The generosity of reviewers for Paediatrics & Child Health merits special comment. Many are willing to review a manuscript several times and suggest in great detail how a manuscript can be improved so that it may then merit publication. This can be especially helpful for new writers, and is rarely or never done by most journals.

The most common problems noted by editors with all types of submitted papers are summarized in Table 3 . The reasons for rejecting research papers are similar ( 8 ). In particular, lengthy rambling papers hold less appeal for both editors and readers. Also, beware of hyperbole. While passionate advocacy pieces about child and youth health issues are critical for mobilization of societal action, hyperbole without evidence will not be accepted.

Common problems with manuscripts

There are some absolutes in manuscript submission – eg, duplicate submissions are not acceptable, and another journal can only be approached after the review (and rejection) from the previous journal has been received. To avoid charges of plagiarism, every reference must be cited. When a review paper has led you to new references, cite both the original and the review paper. The manuscript must also have been read and approved in its final form by all authors, by all sources of cited personal communication, as well as by those acknowledged. This also holds true for resubmissions.

STEP 6: DEALING WITH REVIEWS

Whether your paper is accepted or rejected, carefully look at all reviewers’ comments. Do not take these personally because revisions are required for virtually every manuscript in every peer-reviewed journal. Use these comments as guides to improve your manuscript. If the paper is conditionally accepted or invited for resubmission pending revisions, ensure that all of the reviewers’ concerns have been addressed before sending the revised paper back to the editor.

An accompanying letter outlining these changes, as well as explaining why any reviewers’ comments have not been addressed, is helpful to the editor.

STEP 7: DEALING WITH A REJECTED MANUSCRIPT

First, recognize that acceptance rates across journals are low, often less than 20% ( 9 ). Do not be discouraged. Take heart, all writers have had many rejected papers. Second, unemotionally consider the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. Third, take time to think about how the paper may be revised and improved. A discussion with your personal editor may be helpful as you try to address each comment. Consider submission to another journal in which the topic may be of greater interest. Sometimes, condensing your paper into a brief ‘Letter to the Editor’ may be a more appropriate way of conveying the information.

You may also wish to develop new collaborations with more experienced writers or take some specialized training to improve the quality of your work. Journal clubs and critical appraisal groups all provide excellent sources of learning experiences for improving your knowledge about good writing. If further methodology and research training is desirable, all academic centres can provide direction to helpful courses and programs. For those with more limited timelines or finances, provincial and territorial medical associations and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada have some resources for furthering training.

The strength of paediatrics in Canada is expressed in many ways, including in our publications. For those who do make contributions through writing, efficiency may be improved by careful selection of the first-choice journal in advance of manuscript preparation, boldly and swiftly initiating the writing process, being as clear and succinct as possible, anticipating the peer-review findings, and then writing and rewriting the manuscript with collaborators.

Paediatrics & Child Health welcomes the opportunity to provide leadership in advocacy, education and translation of research findings for clinical practitioners. We also welcome and encourage first-time writers through our supportive manuscript review process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The assistance of Elizabeth Uleryk in describing the impact factor is greatly appreciated.

Presented in part as a workshop at the CPS Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, June 24, 2005

NOTE: Access to the Thomson ISI Journal Citation Reports is subscription controlled. The print version of the data is published annually as the Science Citation Index Journal Citation Reports . The database version – ISI Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports – is available directly from the publisher or some commercial vendors such as Dialog. Most university library systems and some hospital libraries subscribe to the print and electronic versions of this database. Inquire in your library if you need to search the database or consult the print edition. Please note that while it appears that Google Scholar and Scopus contain cited reference information and journal impact factors, neither search the full Thomson ISI Journal Citation Reports database. Searches in either of these sources do not provide the most complete information.

• Weill Cornell Medicine

Wayfinder menu

• National CTSA

Register for CTSC Manuscript Writing Workshop - May 7, 2024

• Share to Twitter
• Share to Facebook
• Share to LinkedIn
• Print --> Print

Click below to register:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/writing-and-publishing-high-impact-research...

Clinical & Translational Science Center 1300 York Ave., Box 149 New York, NY 10065