is research paper a manuscript

• Master Your Homework
• Do My Homework

The Difference Between a Research Paper and Manuscript

The research paper and manuscript are two distinct forms of academic writing that have many similarities, but also some key differences. This article will explore the main points of distinction between a research paper and a manuscript by examining their purpose, format, content organization, structure and length. Additionally, this article will provide an overview of the major components that compose both papers in order to further clarify any potential confusion for readers regarding these two genres. Finally, implications for writers when choosing one type over another will be discussed in detail with specific reference to areas such as audience appeal and marketability.

I. Introduction

Ii. definition of a research paper, iii. definition of a manuscript, iv. comparison between research papers and manuscripts, v. types of manuscripts, vi. variations in publication requirements for different genres of research papers and manuscripts, vii. conclusion.

When embarking on a scholarly writing journey, it is important to understand the distinction between two types of publications: research paper and manuscript.

• Research Paper : A research paper typically follows an academic format for presenting evidence in support of an argument. It may include data from primary sources such as surveys or interviews conducted by the author themselves, or secondary sources such as books or articles which analyze existing findings. Research papers generally draw upon more than one source when constructing their arguments.

A manuscript , however, can be thought of as more creative than its counterpart. While still containing factual information based on rigorous research methods and thorough analysis, manuscripts often contain narrative elements that help bring stories to life through vivid descriptions and engaging characters. Manuscripts also tend to focus much less heavily on citing other works; rather they are used primarily for conveying ideas in a compelling manner while providing background detail necessary for readers’ understanding.

A Research Paper Research papers are extended scholarly works that explore a specific topic in depth. They generally require an extensive research process, which may involve interviews and surveys as well as traditional library sources such as books or journal articles. These papers typically include the following:

The goal is to present evidence-based conclusions on the selected issue or topic; this will help inform and educate readers about it.

Manuscript vs Research Paper . Manuscripts can be quite similar to research papers, but they focus more narrowly on presenting work created by the author (as opposed to what has already been published). They often emphasize creativity rather than scientific inquiry, though manuscripts can certainly include both components depending on their intended audience and purpose. Manuscripts also usually have less stringent formatting requirements compared to formal research papers – while there may still be elements such as titles pages, these are not always necessary if submitting them in creative writing forums or contests where different rules apply.

Understanding a Manuscript A manuscript is an unpublished work, typically by one or more authors and can be in any medium such as handwritten, typed on a computer or created digitally. It differs from the traditional research paper because it does not need to include source citations; however it should still contain original thought and analysis. While manuscripts may follow established conventions for their form (ie poetry has specific styles), they are also highly creative works meant to draw out emotion.

Distinguishing Characteristics of Manuscripts – A unique product of creativity – Usually involves some level of personal reflection & insight – May have special formatting requirements depending on genre/type – Can take many forms including: book chapters, essays, stories, plays & poems – Not peer reviewed like research papers

In the world of academia, research papers and manuscripts occupy vastly different roles. Though both are written pieces that display an author’s findings or ideas, there is a great disparity in their individual characteristics.

• Scope : Research papers typically cover large amounts of information on a given subject matter; they often take much longer to write than manuscripts. Manuscripts may be shorter but should still present relevant data needed to support any conclusions made by the author.
• Audience : Research papers usually target specialists within a certain field who have advanced knowledge about what constitutes quality work in their specific discipline. On the other hand, manuscripts focus more heavily on general readership and aim to make complex topics easier for non-experts to understand.

There are several distinct types of manuscripts that authors may submit to journals for publication. These include research papers, review articles, and short reports.

• Research Papers : The most common type of manuscript submitted is the research paper . This typically includes an introduction section that outlines the purpose or hypothesis of the experiment followed by a discussion on related work from other authors in this field. Research methods used to carry out experiments should be detailed including how data was collected and analyzed. Finally, results should be presented in graphs and tables with associated interpretations before moving onto a conclusion section.
• Review Articles : A review article , also known as survey paper or literature review provides readers with a comprehensive summary of all significant studies pertaining to particular areas within a given topic while discussing recent developments such as trends, patterns, controversies etc., Such papers aim at helping scientists keep up-to-date with advances in their field.

Research papers and manuscripts are two different types of written works used to convey information. They both require a high level of accuracy, but they differ in their structure and publication requirements.

• A research paper is an academic piece that focuses on the analysis or interpretation of data collected from relevant sources.
• It should include an abstract summarizing your study’s main points; introduction to the topic, thesis statement, body paragraphs with evidence-based claims supported by research; discussion section for drawing conclusions; endnotes or footnotes providing additional information about cited resources.

In summary, this paper has presented a comprehensive comparison between the two major forms of academic writing: research papers and manuscripts. It is clear that both formats have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to effectively conveying scholarly work, yet they are very distinct from one another in terms of purpose and structure. While research papers focus on presenting findings or conclusions through an empirical approach, manuscripts provide authors with opportunities to explore theoretical questions and ideas through more creative means.

It is important for aspiring scholars to understand the differences between these two mediums before deciding which format best fits their project objectives. Each form requires different levels of time investment as well as unique challenges during composition. For those wishing to present new knowledge in an innovative way without being bound by strict guidelines may find greater success with manuscript submissions; however if providing quantitative data-driven evidence is desired then a research paper might be better suited.

• Research Paper : Focuses primarily on empirical investigation & reporting results
• Manuscript : Explores theoretical concepts & presents alternative views

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

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…

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2020
• Volume 36 , pages 909–913, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Clara Busse   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-1000 1 &
• Ella August   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1036 1 , 2  

266k Accesses

15 Citations

705 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

Sascha Kraus, Matthias Breier, … João J. Ferreira

Plagiarism in research

Gert Helgesson & Stefan Eriksson

Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science

Dietmar Wolfram, Peiling Wang, … Hyoungjoo Park

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

Data Availability

Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5

Article   Google Scholar  

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020

Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195

Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clara Busse & Ella August

Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

Ella August

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ella August .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 362 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

Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

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

• Manuscripts
• Scientific writing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• How it works

Published by Nicolas at January 18th, 2024 , Revised On January 23, 2024

What Is A Manuscript And How Do You Craft One?

Crafting a manuscript is a journey of creativity, dedication, and storytelling prowess. In literature , a manuscript is more than just a collection of words on paper; it is a carefully sculpted piece of art that brings ideas, emotions, and narratives to life. It is a widely studied literature course in universities in Canada . This blog will guide you to what is a manuscript, its importance, and how to write one. Let’s explore further. 

Table of Contents

What Is A Manuscript

A manuscript is an author’s original text before it undergoes the process of publication. It is the raw, unfiltered expression of an author’s thoughts, ideas, and creativity, often taking the form of a novel, short story, essay, or any other written work. Unlike the final printed or published version, a manuscript provides a glimpse into the author’s initial vision and the evolution of their work.

However, a manuscript is more than just words on paper. It is a testament to the author’s commitment to their story, characters, and the art of writing itself. From the carefully chosen words to the deep plot structures, a manuscript is a canvas upon which literary dreams are painted.

Importance Of Crafting A Manuscript

Crafting a manuscript is a crucial step in the journey of a writer. It involves meticulous planning, thoughtful execution, and a deep understanding of the craft of storytelling. Creating a manuscript allows writers to explore their creativity, develop unique voices, and share their perspectives.

Moreover, the importance of crafting a manuscript extends to the impact it can have on readers. A well-crafted manuscript can transport readers to different worlds, evoke emotions, and provoke thoughts. It serves as a medium through which authors can connect with their audience on a profound level, leaving a lasting impression and fostering a love for literature.

Components Of A Manuscript

A manuscript is the original draft of a writer’s work before it undergoes the editing and publishing process. It is the author’s unfiltered expression, captured in words and laid out on pages, embodying the essence of their literary vision.

The components of a manuscript go beyond mere words. They include the structure, organization, and thematic elements that give life to the story. From the opening lines that captivate readers to the meticulously crafted characters and the development of a compelling plot, each component contributes to the overall tapestry of the manuscript.

Sections such as dialogue, narration, and description play pivotal roles in shaping the reader’s experience. Furthermore, formatting considerations, such as font, spacing, and page layout, are essential elements that contribute to the overall aesthetic and readability of the manuscript. Understanding these components is crucial for writers seeking to convey their ideas effectively and engage their audience from start to finish.

Different Types Of Manuscripts

Manuscripts come in various forms, each tailored to different genres, purposes, and styles of writing. Understanding these types is instrumental in crafting a manuscript that aligns with the author’s creative vision and the expectations of the intended audience.

Fiction Manuscripts

These are narratives born from the author’s imagination, ranging from novels and novellas to short stories. Fiction manuscripts allow writers to explore diverse worlds, create intriguing characters, and weave compelling plots that captivate readers.

Non-Fiction Manuscripts

Rooted in reality, non-fiction manuscripts encompass a broad spectrum of genres, including memoirs, biographies, essays, and informational books. These manuscripts often require reading extensive research papers , a keen eye for detail, and the ability to present factual information engagingly.

Poetry Manuscripts

Poetry, with its unique rhythm and artistic expression, is often compiled into manuscript form. Poetry manuscripts showcase the poet’s ability to evoke emotions through carefully chosen words, imagery, and poetic devices.

Screenplays And Play Manuscripts

In visual storytelling, manuscripts take the form of screenplays for films and television or scripts for plays. These manuscripts involve a specialized format to convey dialogue, stage directions, and visual elements essential for performance.

How To Write A Manuscript

Writing a manuscript is a multi-faceted process involving careful planning, thoughtful execution, and a deep connection to one’s creative instincts. 

Pre-Writing Phase

Before the ink hits the paper or the keys are tapped, the pre-writing phase sets the stage for a successful manuscript. During this stage, writers engage in crucial activities that shape the direction, tone, and substance of their work.

Research And Planning

Research is the cornerstone of a well-crafted manuscript. Whether writing fiction or non-fiction, thorough research adds depth, authenticity, and credibility to the narrative. In this phase, writers dive into topics related to their manuscript, gathering information and gaining insights that will inform and enrich their storytelling.

This might involve researching historical periods, cultural aspects, or specific locations for fiction writers to ensure accuracy and vivid world-building. Non-fiction authors delve into data, conduct interviews, or explore various perspectives to present a well-rounded and informed narrative.

Planning, hand in hand with research, is equally vital. Outlining the structure of the manuscript, creating character profiles, and sketching the plot are essential steps. This process helps writers establish a roadmap, preventing aimless wandering during the writing phase and ensuring a cohesive and engaging final product.

Choosing A Genre Or Style

Choosing a genre or style is a defining moment in the manuscript crafting process. It shapes not only the content but also the tone, narrative techniques, and audience expectations. Writers must consider their own passions, strengths, and the type of story they wish to tell when making this decision.

Genres range from romance and mystery to science fiction and fantasy, each with its conventions and expectations. Non-fiction writers may choose a genre, such as memoir, biography, or self-help, based on the nature of their message and the audience they aim to reach.

Style encompasses the author’s unique voice, narrative approach, and the mood they wish to convey. It may involve deciding on the perspective (first-person, third-person), the tone (formal, informal), and the overall atmosphere of the manuscript.

Choosing a genre or style sets the tone for the entire writing process, guiding decisions on character development, plot structure, and even the language used. Writers who understand their chosen genre can better tailor their manuscript to resonate with their target audience.

Writing Phase

With the groundwork laid in the pre-writing phase, writers transition into the heart of the manuscript crafting process: the writing phase. This is where creativity takes center stage, and words start to flow onto the page. 

Developing A Strong Outline

An effective outline, just like a thesis statement , is the compass that guides a writer through the labyrinth of their manuscript. It serves as a roadmap, providing direction and structure to the narrative. Creating a strong outline before diving into the actual writing can prevent common pitfalls such as plot holes, inconsistent pacing, and meandering storylines.

• Introduction and Setup: Clearly define the setting, characters, and the central conflict of your story. Introduce key elements that will set the stage for the unfolding narrative.
• Plot Points and Developments: Outline the major events, twists, and character arcs. Consider the rising action, climax, and resolution to maintain a well-paced and engaging storyline.
• Character Profiles: Develop detailed character profiles for the main and supporting characters. Understand their motivations, strengths, flaws, and how they contribute to the overall narrative.
• Themes and Messages: Identify the themes or messages you want to convey through your manuscript. Integrating these elements cohesively adds depth and resonance to your storytelling.
• Chapter Breakdowns: If applicable, plan the structure of individual chapters. Consider the rhythm of your narrative, balancing moments of tension with quieter, reflective scenes.
• Transitions and Flow: Ensure smooth transitions between scenes and chapters. A well-organized outline helps maintain a logical flow, keeping readers engaged from start to finish.

Drafting Techniques And Tips

Once the outline is in place, writers embark on the exhilarating journey of drafting. This is the stage where the manuscript starts to take shape, and creativity is given free rein. Here are some drafting techniques and tips to enhance the writing process:

• Free Writing: Allow yourself to write freely without overthinking. Let ideas flow, even if they seem imperfect at first. You can always refine and edit in later drafts.
• Set Writing Goals: Establish daily or weekly writing goals to maintain momentum. Consistent progress, even in small increments, contributes to the completion of your manuscript.
• Embrace Imperfection: The first draft is not meant to be flawless. Embrace imperfections and resist the urge to edit excessively during the drafting phase. Focus on getting your ideas on paper.
• Experiment with Style: Explore different narrative styles, tones, and perspectives. Don’t be afraid to experiment with your writing voice to find what resonates best with your story.
• Revision Notes: If you encounter areas that need improvement while drafting, make revision notes rather than interrupting the flow. Address these in subsequent drafts.
• Seek Feedback Sparingly: While drafting, limit external feedback to avoid distractions. Once you have a complete draft, seek constructive feedback to refine and enhance your manuscript.

Revision Phase

The revision phase is a crucial stage in the manuscript crafting process, where the raw material of the first draft transforms into a polished work of art. In this section, we’ll delve into two essential components of the revision phase— the importance of editing and proofreading, and the valuable practice of seeking feedback from others.

• Editing: This involves a comprehensive manuscript review for structural, stylistic, and thematic improvements. Editors scrutinize the overall flow of the narrative, character development, dialogue, and adherence to the established outline. They may suggest changes to enhance clarity, tighten pacing, and elevate the overall quality of the writing.
• Proofreading: Once the editing phase is complete, proofreading eliminates grammatical errors, typos, and inconsistencies. It is the final meticulous examination that ensures the manuscript is error-free. Attention to detail is paramount during proofreading, as even minor oversights can diminish the professional polish of the work.

Seeking Feedback From Others

Writing is often a solitary endeavour, but the input of others is invaluable during the revision phase. External feedback provides fresh perspectives, identifies blind spots, and highlights areas that may require further attention. Here are key considerations when seeking feedback:

• Diverse Perspectives: Gather feedback from a variety of sources, including fellow writers, beta readers, or writing groups. Diverse perspectives can offer insights that a single viewpoint may overlook.
• Constructive Criticism: Embrace constructive criticism as a tool for improvement. While positive feedback is uplifting, constructive criticism helps identify areas for refinement, contributing to the overall growth of the manuscript.
• Specific Questions: When seeking feedback, provide specific questions or prompts to guide readers’ responses. This ensures that you receive targeted insights on areas you may be uncertain about.
• Open-Mindedness: Approach feedback with an open mind. It’s natural to feel attached to your work, but being receptive to suggestions fosters a collaborative and iterative process that leads to a stronger manuscript.
• Implementing Feedback Thoughtfully: Not all feedback requires immediate incorporation. Evaluate the suggestions received and implement changes thoughtfully, considering how they align with your artistic vision for the manuscript.

The research paper we write have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• High-level Encryption
• Authentic Sources

Genre-Specific Considerations

The manuscript crafting process varies significantly based on the genre of the work.

Creating Compelling Characters

The heart of any fiction manuscript lies in its characters. Compelling and well-developed characters breathe life into the narrative, capturing the readers’ imagination and fostering emotional connections. Consider the following when crafting characters:

• Depth and Complexity: Develop characters with depth, complexity, and relatability. Explore their backgrounds, motivations, and internal conflicts to create multidimensional personalities.
• Arcs and Growth: Characters should undergo meaningful arcs and growth throughout the story. Whether it’s overcoming challenges, changing perspectives, or evolving relationships, character development is essential for reader engagement.
• Distinctive Voices: Ensure that each character has a distinctive voice and perspective. This not only adds authenticity but also helps readers differentiate between characters, contributing to a richer reading experience.

Building A Riveting Plot

A captivating plot is the backbone of a fiction manuscript, keeping readers eagerly turning pages. Crafting a compelling narrative involves careful consideration of the story’s structure, pacing, and unexpected twists:

• Story Structure: Outline the key elements of your plot, including the introduction, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. A well-structured plot provides a framework for a seamless and engaging reading experience.
• Pacing: Balance the pacing of your narrative to maintain tension and interest. Alternate between moments of action and reflection, allowing readers to absorb the unfolding events while staying connected to the characters.
• Conflict and Resolution: Introduce conflicts that resonate with your characters and propel the story forward. The resolution should be satisfying and provide closure while leaving room for lingering questions or anticipation.
• Twists and Turns: Incorporate unexpected twists and turns to keep readers on the edge of their seats. Surprise elements add excitement and prevent the narrative from becoming predictable.

Research And Fact-Checking

Non-fiction manuscripts rely heavily on accurate information and a thorough understanding of the subject matter. Research and fact-checking are paramount to establishing credibility and delivering a compelling narrative:

• Extensive Research: Dive deep into your chosen topic, using a variety of reputable sources. Verify information through multiple channels to ensure accuracy and completeness.
• Citation and Attribution: Properly cite sources and provide attribution for data, quotes, and references. This not only upholds ethical standards but also allows readers to explore the material further.
• Interviews and Expert Insights: If applicable, conduct interviews with experts or individuals relevant to your subject. First-hand accounts and expert insights enhance the authenticity and depth of your non-fiction manuscript.

Organizing Information Effectively

Non-fiction manuscripts often deal with a wealth of information, requiring thoughtful organization to make the content accessible and engaging for readers:

• Clear Structure: Develop a clear and logical structure for your manuscript. This could include chronological order, thematic organization, or a problem-solution framework, depending on the nature of your content.
• Subheadings and Signposts: Use subheadings and signposts to guide readers through the content. This aids in navigation and allows readers to locate specific information easily.
• Visual Elements: Incorporate visual elements such as graphs, charts, or images to enhance understanding. Visual aids can break up dense text and clarify complex concepts.
• Transitions: Ensure smooth transitions between different sections or topics. Thoughtful transitions help maintain a coherent flow and prevent readers from feeling disoriented.

Tips For Manuscript Success

As the manuscript crafting process unfolds, certain tips can significantly contribute to the success of your work. From setting realistic goals to overcoming obstacles like writer’s block, these insights will guide you through the thorough journey of bringing your manuscript to fruition.

Tip 1: Setting Realistic Goals

• Clear Milestones: Break down the writing process into clear milestones. Setting achievable goals for research, drafting, and revisions ensures steady and measurable progress.
• Realistic Timelines: Be mindful of your schedule and commitments. Establish realistic timelines that align with your availability, allowing for a sustainable writing routine without overwhelming yourself.
• Flexibility: While goals provide structure, be flexible in adapting to unexpected challenges or inspirations. Allow your manuscript to evolve organically, even if it means adjusting initial plans.

Tip 2: Overcoming Writer’s Block

• Change of Environment: Move to a different writing space or take a break outdoors. A change of scenery can stimulate creativity and break the monotony that often leads to writer’s block.
• Freewriting: Set aside dedicated time for freewriting. Put pen to paper or fingers to the keyboard without any specific goal, allowing thoughts to flow freely. This can help overcome mental blocks and spark inspiration.
• Focus on a Different Section: If a particular section is causing frustration, temporarily shift your focus to another part of the manuscript. This can reignite enthusiasm and create a sense of accomplishment.

Tip 3: Staying Motivated Throughout The Process

• Celebrate Small Wins: Acknowledge and celebrate small achievements, whether it’s completing a challenging chapter or reaching a word count milestone. Recognizing progress boosts motivation.
• Connect with Fellow Writers: Join writing groups or forums to connect with other writers. Sharing experiences, tips, and encouragement fosters a sense of community and accountability.
• Visualize the End Goal: Envision the satisfaction of completing your manuscript and the potential impact it can have on readers. Keeping the end goal in mind serves as a powerful motivator during challenging moments.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a manuscript.

A manuscript is a handwritten or typed document, typically the original draft of a book, article, or document before it is published. It serves as the author’s work in progress, containing the text before final edits or printing.

What is a manuscript in research?

In research, a manuscript is a written document presenting original findings, methodologies, and conclusions of a study. It undergoes peer review before potential publication in academic journals, contributing to the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

What is a book manuscript?

A book manuscript is the complete, written text of an author’s work submitted for publication. It encompasses the entire content of a book, including chapters, sections, and any supplementary materials, serving as the basis for editorial and publishing processes.

What is a manga manuscript?

A manga manuscript is the original hand-drawn or digitally created work submitted by a mangaka (manga artist) to a publisher. It includes the detailed illustrations and dialogue that form the basis for the production of a manga series or volume.

What is a manuscript for a journal?

A manuscript for a journal is a written document containing original research findings, methodology, analysis, and conclusions. It follows the journal’s guidelines and undergoes peer review, aiming for publication to contribute to scholarly discourse within a specific academic or scientific field.

What is a manuscript page?

A manuscript page is a single sheet or leaf of a handwritten or typed document, often containing text, illustrations, or other content. In publishing, it refers to the formatted page of a manuscript submitted for review, editing, or publication.

What is a novel manuscript?

A novel manuscript is the complete written text of a novel submitted by an author for publication. It includes the entire narrative, chapters, and other elements, serving as the basis for editorial processes before the novel is prepared for printing and distribution.

You May Also Like

Common topics in Botany papers include taxonomy, plant physiology, ecology and biodiversity, plant pathology, and genetics.

The answer to the question, “Can literature review include newspaper articles?” is provided in this comprehensive guide. Read more.

Looking for interesting and manageable research topics in education? Your search ends right here because this blog post provides 50 […]

Ready to place an order?

USEFUL LINKS

Learning resources, company details.

• How It Works

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide

Published on September 24, 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on March 27, 2023.

The introduction to a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

• Present your topic and get the reader interested
• Provide background or summarize existing research
• Position your own approach
• Detail your specific research problem and problem statement
• Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The introduction looks slightly different depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or constructs an argument by engaging with a variety of sources.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

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.

The first job of the introduction is to tell the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening hook.

The hook is a striking opening sentence that clearly conveys the relevance of your topic. Think of an interesting fact or statistic, a strong statement, a question, or a brief anecdote that will get the reader wondering about your topic.

For example, the following could be an effective hook for an argumentative paper about the environmental impact of cattle farming:

A more empirical paper investigating the relationship of Instagram use with body image issues in adolescent girls might use the following hook:

Don’t feel that your hook necessarily has to be deeply impressive or creative. Clarity and relevance are still more important than catchiness. The key thing is to guide the reader into your topic and situate your ideas.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

This part of the introduction differs depending on what approach your paper is taking.

In a more argumentative paper, you’ll explore some general background here. In a more empirical paper, this is the place to review previous research and establish how yours fits in.

Argumentative paper: Background information

After you’ve caught your reader’s attention, specify a bit more, providing context and narrowing down your topic.

Provide only the most relevant background information. The introduction isn’t the place to get too in-depth; if more background is essential to your paper, it can appear in the body .

Empirical paper: Describing previous research

For a paper describing original research, you’ll instead provide an overview of the most relevant research that has already been conducted. This is a sort of miniature literature review —a sketch of the current state of research into your topic, boiled down to a few sentences.

This should be informed by genuine engagement with the literature. Your search can be less extensive than in a full literature review, but a clear sense of the relevant research is crucial to inform your own work.

Begin by establishing the kinds of research that have been done, and end with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to respond to.

The next step is to clarify how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses.

Argumentative paper: Emphasize importance

In an argumentative research paper, you can simply state the problem you intend to discuss, and what is original or important about your argument.

Empirical paper: Relate to the literature

In an empirical research paper, try to lead into the problem on the basis of your discussion of the literature. Think in terms of these questions:

• What research gap is your work intended to fill?
• What limitations in previous work does it address?
• What contribution to knowledge does it make?

You can make the connection between your problem and the existing research using phrases like the following.

Now you’ll get into the specifics of what you intend to find out or express in your research paper.

The way you frame your research objectives varies. An argumentative paper presents a thesis statement, while an empirical paper generally poses a research question (sometimes with a hypothesis as to the answer).

Argumentative paper: Thesis statement

The thesis statement expresses the position that the rest of the paper will present evidence and arguments for. It can be presented in one or two sentences, and should state your position clearly and directly, without providing specific arguments for it at this point.

Empirical paper: Research question and hypothesis

The research question is the question you want to answer in an empirical research paper.

Present your research question clearly and directly, with a minimum of discussion at this point. The rest of the paper will be taken up with discussing and investigating this question; here you just need to express it.

A research question can be framed either directly or indirectly.

• This study set out to answer the following question: What effects does daily use of Instagram have on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls?
• We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls.

If your research involved testing hypotheses , these should be stated along with your research question. They are usually presented in the past tense, since the hypothesis will already have been tested by the time you are writing up your paper.

For example, the following hypothesis might respond to the research question above:

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The final part of the introduction is often dedicated to a brief overview of the rest of the paper.

In a paper structured using the standard scientific “introduction, methods, results, discussion” format, this isn’t always necessary. But if your paper is structured in a less predictable way, it’s important to describe the shape of it for the reader.

If included, the overview should be concise, direct, and written in the present tense.

• This paper will first discuss several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then will go on to …
• This paper first discusses several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then goes on to …

Full examples of research paper introductions are shown in the tabs below: one for an argumentative paper, the other for an empirical paper.

• Argumentative paper
• Empirical paper

Are cows responsible for climate change? A recent study (RIVM, 2019) shows that cattle farmers account for two thirds of agricultural nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands. These emissions result from nitrogen in manure, which can degrade into ammonia and enter the atmosphere. The study’s calculations show that agriculture is the main source of nitrogen pollution, accounting for 46% of the country’s total emissions. By comparison, road traffic and households are responsible for 6.1% each, the industrial sector for 1%. While efforts are being made to mitigate these emissions, policymakers are reluctant to reckon with the scale of the problem. The approach presented here is a radical one, but commensurate with the issue. This paper argues that the Dutch government must stimulate and subsidize livestock farmers, especially cattle farmers, to transition to sustainable vegetable farming. It first establishes the inadequacy of current mitigation measures, then discusses the various advantages of the results proposed, and finally addresses potential objections to the plan on economic grounds.

The rise of social media has been accompanied by a sharp increase in the prevalence of body image issues among women and girls. This correlation has received significant academic attention: Various empirical studies have been conducted into Facebook usage among adolescent girls (Tiggermann & Slater, 2013; Meier & Gray, 2014). These studies have consistently found that the visual and interactive aspects of the platform have the greatest influence on body image issues. Despite this, highly visual social media (HVSM) such as Instagram have yet to be robustly researched. This paper sets out to address this research gap. We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls. It was hypothesized that daily Instagram use would be associated with an increase in body image concerns and a decrease in self-esteem ratings.

The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:

• A hook to catch the reader’s interest
• Relevant background on the topic
• Details of your research problem

and your problem statement

• A thesis statement or research question
• Sometimes an overview of the paper

Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.

This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, March 27). Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved April 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/research-paper-introduction/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, writing a research paper conclusion | step-by-step guide, research paper format | apa, mla, & chicago templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

Research Manuscript Structure: Understanding Different Parts of a Manuscript

Writing a research manuscript and publishing it in reputed academic journals is an integral part of the research process. Yet, with rejection rates of top-tier journals ranging as high as 80%-95%, this is easier said than done. 1 Research manuscripts need to meet several key submission requirements to even be considered, this includes getting the structure of scientific papers right. However, most researchers find themselves feeling overwhelmed when it comes to writing a manuscript. The lack of formal training on writing a research manuscript, especially how to structure a manuscript effectively makes this a daunting task, especially for early-career researchers.

While there are no quick and easy shortcuts to writing a manuscript for publication, this article explains how researchers can sort their research under different sections and present their findings effectively in a well-structured research manuscript.

Structuring a research paper logically

Presenting research findings in a clear and structured way helps readers quickly understand your work’s significance and potential impact. Writing a manuscript that is worded well in simple English is imperative as you write for a global audience, many of which may not have English as the first language. Experts suggest following the standard and globally accepted IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure for research manuscripts. The ideal length for a research manuscript can range from 25-40 pages depending on your journal, with specific lengths for each section. 2

Understanding the key parts of a manuscript 2,3

Breaking down your work into these clear parts of a manuscript allows you to organize your findings more coherently and ensure a logical flow, which makes your research manuscript more engaging for readers.

Introduction – Covers what are you studying and why (1.5-2 pages)

This is an important part of the research manuscript as itstates the purpose of your research and what you want to achieve, existing knowledge on the topic and its limitations, and the significance and usefulness of the work. The introduction should mention the research question, the rationale for the research study, and describe the theoretical framework used. It should also offer a background of the problem and what is known so far and explain how your research contributes to the subject by adding citations to support this view. Avoid adding too many or irrelevant citations here or you may risk losing the plot, which is a red flag for editors and reviewers.

Remember, the introduction must be a concise summary of the work being presented in the research manuscript; do not to go into extensive details at this point. Take care not to mix methods, results, discussion, or conclusion in the introduction section – it’s important to keep these parts of a manuscript separate to ensure a coherent and logical flow between sections.

Methodology – Covers how you conducted the study in about 2-3 pages

One of the most critical parts of the manuscript, the methods section is meant to highlight how the problem was studied and communicates the methods, procedures, and research tools used. Be sure to describe the methodology you followed to conduct the research simply, precisely, and completely. If you’re using a new method, include all the details required for others to reproduce it, but if you’re working with established methods, it is enough to summarize these with key references. Poor methodology, small sample size, incomplete statistical analysis are all reasons why reviewers recommend rejection of a research manuscript, so check and recheck this to ensure it is flawless.

Include accurate statistics and control experiments to ensure experiments are reproducible and use standard academic conventions for nomenclature, measurement units, and numbers. Avoid adding any comments, research results, or discussion points in this part of the manuscript. It’s a good idea to write the methods section in the same flow and order in which you did the research. Supplement the text with visuals like tables, figures, photographs, or infographics that convey complex data, but don’t duplicate the information in the text.

Results – Covers the main findings of your studying in about 6-8 pages

The results section is a key part of the manuscript and isdedicated to presenting the primary and secondary findings of your research study. While writing a manuscript, ensure you spend extra time and attention while drafting the results; after all, this is the most important part of your research manuscript and your entire research effort.

Share your main results as text and use tables and figures to present findings effectively (don’t explain the data again in text). Avoid generalizations and use actual data to explain the results in your research manuscript – for example, instead of saying temperature rose as we applied more pressure, say temperature rose by 10 degrees with a 20% increase in pressure. Be sure to highlight any unexpected findings but avoid using too many technical terms or jargon so it is easy for readers from other research disciplines and non-scientific backgrounds to understand. Most importantly, this part of the manuscript is reserved for your research findings so do not include references to previously published work here.

Discussion – Covers what your research findings mean in about 4-6 pages

This is a crucial part of a manuscript where you interpret the results of your research and showcase its significance. The discussion in your research manuscript is a chance to showcase (not reiterate or repeat) your research results and how they address the original question. Do not suddenly include new information, instead talk about the limitations, whether the data supports the hypothesis or is consistent with previous studies, or if the findings were unexpected.

You may choose to mention alternate ways to interpret the results but avoid interpretations that are not supported by your research findings. Finally, compare your work with previously published studies, highlight what is new and what further research will be required to answer questions raised by the results. A well-written discussion section is essential to help differentiate your work from existing studies, which is what makes it critical to get right.  

Conclusion – Covers learnings from the research study in one short para

Check your journal guidelines before writing the conclusion. For some journals, this is a separate section whereas in others it is the concluding part of the discussion part of the manuscript. This section of the research manuscript should explain the outcomes of the research in relation to the original objective, presenting it from global and specific perspectives. Avoid simply listing the results or repeating the abstract or introduction sections, provide a justification of your work and suggest further experiments and if any of these are in progress.  

Title & Abstract – Covers highlights of the research done

The title and abstract are what readers use to evaluate whether the information provided in the research manuscript is relevant enough for them to read and cite. This is true for editors and reviewers of your research manuscript as well. Spend some time thinking of an interesting title, one that is informative, concise, and unambiguous. Write a well-structured abstract that highlights the objective and purpose of the research, addresses the key results precisely, and briefly describes the conclusion of the study (usually in under 250 words). This is the first and possibly only chance to draw in your readers so keep it simple and specific, avoid using jargon or being repetitive as you’re writing for a wide, varied audience.

In addition to the sections mentioned above, there are other key parts of a manuscript that require deep thought and time to put together. Showcase your findings through tables and figures (one per page) and format the references correctly (2-4 pages) in your research manuscript. Finally, when writing your research manuscript, be sure to follow the guidelines provided by the journal or institute you will be submitting to. Keep to the recommended paper length and journal formats when writing a manuscript for it to be considered and taken forward for publication.

References:

• Khadilkar SS. Rejection Blues: Why Do Research Papers Get Rejected? The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India, August 2018. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6046667/
• Borja A. 11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously. Elsevier Connect, June 2014. Available at https://www.elsevier.com/connect/11-steps-to-structuring-a-science-paper-editors-will-take-seriously
• Vadrevu A. Manuscript structure: How to convey your most important ideas through your paper. Editage Insights, November 2013. Available at https://www.editage.com/insights/manuscript-structure-how-to-convey-your-most-important-ideas-through-your-paper

Related Reads:

• How to Write a Research Paper Outline: Simple Steps for Researchers
• Manuscript Withdrawal: Reasons, Consequences, and How to Withdraw Submitted Manuscripts
• Good Writing Habits: 7 Ways to Improve Your Academic Writing
• Supplementary Materials in Research: 5 Tips for Authors

Top 5 Ethical Considerations in Research

Continually vs. continuously: the fine line between the two words, you may also like, ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., should you use ai tools like chatgpt for..., publish research papers: 9 steps for successful publications , how to make translating academic papers less challenging, self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how..., 6 tips for post-doc researchers to take their..., presenting research data effectively through tables and figures, 8 most effective ways to increase motivation for....

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

Prediction Models and Clinical Outcomes—A Call for Papers

• 1 Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
• 2 Deputy Editor, JAMA Network Open
• 3 Epidemiology, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
• 4 Statistical Editor, JAMA Network Open
• 5 Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
• 6 Editor, JAMA Network Open

The need to classify disease and predict outcomes is as old as medicine itself. Nearly 50 years ago, the advantage of applying multivariable statistics to these problems became evident. 1 Since then, the increasing availability of databases containing often-complex clinical information from tens or even hundreds of millions of patients, combined with powerful statistical techniques and computing environments, has spawned exponential growth in efforts to create more useful, focused, and accurate prediction models. JAMA Network Open receives dozens of manuscripts weekly that present new or purportedly improved instruments intended to predict a vast array of clinical outcomes. Although we are able to accept only a small fraction of those submitted, we have, nonetheless, published nearly 2000 articles dealing with predictive models over the past 6 years.

The profusion of predictive models has been accompanied by the growing recognition of the necessity for standards to help ensure accuracy of these models. An important milestone was the publication of the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis ( TRIPOD ) guidelines nearly a decade ago. 2 TRIPOD is a reporting guideline intended to enable readers to better understand the methods used in published studies but does not prescribe what actual methods should be applied. Since then, while the field has continued to advance and technology improve, many predictive models in widespread use, when critically evaluated, have been found to neither adhere to reporting standards nor perform as well as expected. 3 , 4

There are numerous reasons why performance of models falls short, even when efforts are made to adhere to methodologic standards. Despite the vast amounts of data that are often brought to bear, they may not be appropriate to the task, or they may have been collected and analyzed in ways that are biased. Additionally, that some models fall short may simply reflect the inherent difficulty of predicting relatively uncommon events that occur as a result of complex biological processes occurring within complex clinical environments. Moreover, clinical settings are highly variable, and predictive models typically perform worse outside of the environments in which they were developed. A comprehensive discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this article, but as physicist Neils Bohr once remarked, “it is very difficult to predict—especially the future.” 5

Although problems with accuracy are well documented, hundreds of predictive models are in regular use in clinical practice and are frequently the basis for critically important decisions. Many such models have been widely adopted without subsequent efforts to confirm that they actually continue to perform as expected. That is not to say that such models are without utility, because even a suboptimal model may perform better than an unaided clinician. Nevertheless, we believe that a fresh examination of selected, well-established predictive models is warranted if not previously done. JAMA Network Open has published articles addressing prediction of relatively common clinical complications, such as recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding. 6 We think there remains considerable opportunity for research in this vein. In particular, we seek studies that examine current performance of commonly applied clinical prediction rules. We are particularly interested in studies using data from a variety of settings and databases as well as studies that simultaneously assess multiple models addressing the same or similar outcomes.

We also remain interested in the derivation of new models that address a clear clinical need. They should utilize data that are commonly collected as part of routine care, or in principle can be readily extracted from electronic health records. We generally require that prediction models be validated with at least 1 other dataset distinct from the development dataset. In practice, this means data from different health systems or different publicly available or commercial datasets. We note that internal validation techniques, such as split samples, hold-out, k -fold, and others, are not designed to overcome the intrinsic differences between data sources and, therefore, are not suited to quantifying performance externally. While the population to which the models apply should be described explicitly, ideally any such models should be applicable to patients from the wide range of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds commonly encountered in clinic practice. Most importantly, we are interested in examples of models that have been evaluated in clinical settings, assessing their feasibility and potential clinical benefit. This includes studies with negative as well as positive outcomes.

Please see the journal’s Instructions for Authors for information on manuscript preparation and submission. 7 This is not a time-limited call for studies on this topic.

Published: April 12, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.9640

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2024 Fihn SD et al. JAMA Network Open .

Corresponding Author: Stephan D. Fihn, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Box 359780, Seattle, WA 98104 ( [email protected] ).

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Berlin reported receiving consulting fees from Kenvue related to acetaminophen outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

See More About

Fihn SD , Berlin JA , Haneuse SJPA , Rivara FP. Prediction Models and Clinical Outcomes—A Call for Papers. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(4):e249640. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.9640

Manage citations:

© 2024

Select Your Interests

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Prestigious cancer research institute has retracted 7 studies amid controversy over errors

Seven studies from researchers at the prestigious Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have been retracted over the last two months after a scientist blogger alleged that images used in them had been manipulated or duplicated.

The retractions are the latest development in a monthslong controversy around research at the Boston-based institute, which is a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. 

The issue came to light after Sholto David, a microbiologist and volunteer science sleuth based in Wales, published a scathing post on his blog in January, alleging errors and manipulations of images across dozens of papers produced primarily by Dana-Farber researchers . The institute acknowledged errors and subsequently announced that it had requested six studies to be retracted and asked for corrections in 31 more papers. Dana-Farber also said, however, that a review process for errors had been underway before David’s post. 

Now, at least one more study has been retracted than Dana-Farber initially indicated, and David said he has discovered an additional 30 studies from authors affiliated with the institute that he believes contain errors or image manipulations and therefore deserve scrutiny.

The episode has imperiled the reputation of a major cancer research institute and raised questions about one high-profile researcher there, Kenneth Anderson, who is a senior author on six of the seven retracted studies. 

Anderson is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the director of the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana-Farber. He did not respond to multiple emails or voicemails requesting comment. 

The retractions and new allegations add to a larger, ongoing debate in science about how to protect scientific integrity and reduce the incentives that could lead to misconduct or unintentional mistakes in research. 

The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has moved relatively swiftly to seek retractions and corrections. 

“Dana-Farber is deeply committed to a culture of accountability and integrity, and as an academic research and clinical care organization we also prioritize transparency,” Dr. Barrett Rollins, the institute’s integrity research officer, said in a statement. “However, we are bound by federal regulations that apply to all academic medical centers funded by the National Institutes of Health among other federal agencies. Therefore, we cannot share details of internal review processes and will not comment on personnel issues.”

The retracted studies were originally published in two journals: One in the Journal of Immunology and six in Cancer Research. Six of the seven focused on multiple myeloma, a form of cancer that develops in plasma cells. Retraction notices indicate that Anderson agreed to the retractions of the papers he authored.

Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and longtime image sleuth, reviewed several of the papers’ retraction statements and scientific images for NBC News and said the errors were serious. 

“The ones I’m looking at all have duplicated elements in the photos, where the photo itself has been manipulated,” she said, adding that these elements were “signs of misconduct.” 

Dr.  John Chute, who directs the division of hematology and cellular therapy at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and has contributed to studies about multiple myeloma, said the papers were produced by pioneers in the field, including Anderson. 

“These are people I admire and respect,” he said. “Those were all high-impact papers, meaning they’re highly read and highly cited. By definition, they have had a broad impact on the field.” 

Chute said he did not know the authors personally but had followed their work for a long time.

“Those investigators are some of the leading people in the field of myeloma research and they have paved the way in terms of understanding our biology of the disease,” he said. “The papers they publish lead to all kinds of additional work in that direction. People follow those leads and industry pays attention to that stuff and drug development follows.”

The retractions offer additional evidence for what some science sleuths have been saying for years: The more you look for errors or image manipulation, the more you might find, even at the top levels of science. 

Scientific images in papers are typically used to present evidence of an experiment’s results. Commonly, they show cells or mice; other types of images show key findings like western blots — a laboratory method that identifies proteins — or bands of separated DNA molecules in gels. 

Science sleuths sometimes examine these images for irregular patterns that could indicate errors, duplications or manipulations. Some artificial intelligence companies are training computers to spot these kinds of problems, as well. 

Duplicated images could be a sign of sloppy lab work or data practices. Manipulated images — in which a researcher has modified an image heavily with photo editing tools — could indicate that images have been exaggerated, enhanced or altered in an unethical way that could change how other scientists interpret a study’s findings or scientific meaning. 

Top scientists at big research institutions often run sprawling laboratories with lots of junior scientists. Critics of science research and publishing systems allege that a lack of opportunities for young scientists, limited oversight and pressure to publish splashy papers that can advance careers could incentivize misconduct. 

These critics, along with many science sleuths, allege that errors or sloppiness are too common , that research organizations and authors often ignore concerns when they’re identified, and that the path from complaint to correction is sluggish. 

“When you look at the amount of retractions and poor peer review in research today, the question is, what has happened to the quality standards we used to think existed in research?” said Nick Steneck, an emeritus professor at the University of Michigan and an expert on science integrity.

David told NBC News that he had shared some, but not all, of his concerns about additional image issues with Dana-Farber. He added that he had not identified any problems in four of the seven studies that have been retracted. 

“It’s good they’ve picked up stuff that wasn’t in the list,” he said. 

NBC News requested an updated tally of retractions and corrections, but Ellen Berlin, a spokeswoman for Dana-Farber, declined to provide a new list. She said that the numbers could shift and that the institute did not have control over the form, format or timing of corrections. 

“Any tally we give you today might be different tomorrow and will likely be different a week from now or a month from now,” Berlin said. “The point of sharing numbers with the public weeks ago was to make clear to the public that Dana-Farber had taken swift and decisive action with regard to the articles for which a Dana-Farber faculty member was primary author.” 

She added that Dana-Farber was encouraging journals to correct the scientific record as promptly as possible. 

Bik said it was unusual to see a highly regarded U.S. institution have multiple papers retracted. 

“I don’t think I’ve seen many of those,” she said. “In this case, there was a lot of public attention to it and it seems like they’re responding very quickly. It’s unusual, but how it should be.”

Evan Bush is a science reporter for NBC News. He can be reached at [email protected].

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
• Indian J Orthop
• v.52(4); Jul-Aug 2018

Standard Format for Writing a Manuscript: A Guide to Authors

Ish kumar dhammi.

Department of Orthopaedics, UCMS and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, India

Rehan Ul Haq

The editorial team at the Indian Journal of Orthopaedics is committed to improving the quality of the journal and also to make it more useful for our readers. We are also making efforts to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Some of the previous editorials on this theme have been very well received by the readers. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 The current editorial is intended to help authors understand how they must structure a manuscript according to standard guidelines.

Depending on the type of manuscript, a number of standard guidelines such as CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT); Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE); CAse REport guidelines (CARE), and STAndards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) have been recommended for conducting and reporting them. 6 Each journal also has its own unique set of guidelines mentioned in the “Instructions to authors”. Besides these study design or journal-specific guidelines, there is another standard format; Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD) which can be followed while writing an original research article for a scientific journal. In this editorial, we would like to discuss the composition and content of the different sections of the IMRaD format in detail. The intent is to help authors prepare better quality manuscripts.

Introduction: Any researcher who wants his or her work to pass the preliminary scrutiny by the editorial team must write an effective introduction. As the introduction appears immediately after the abstract section, a poorly written introduction may turn off the editors or reviewers and may result in rejection of the manuscript inspite of it having good scientific content. It must usually consists of 3–4 well-structured paragraphs. A funnel approach where one moves from generalities to specifics is a good way to write an introduction. 7 The first paragraph should provide a general statement about the area of research followed by a summary of literature about what is already known about the topic. The next paragraph must elaborate on the lacunae in current knowledge or understanding of the subject. The importance of the knowledge gap and how your research would help to fill it up should also be elaborated. In the last paragraph of the introduction, the author must explicitly state his “aim and objectives.” One must understand that the “aim” is the broad statement about what one intends to do, while “objectives” are the set of specific steps by which one intends to achieve the aim. The objectives must be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Result-oriented and Time bound (SMART).

Materials and methods: This section of the manuscript is very important and needs to be written with great care. Any fault in the methodology or the way it is written may be a reason for rejection of the manuscript. In the term “Materials and Methods” materials refers to all the items such as human/animal subjects, equipment's, reagents, proforma, questionnaire, etc., that are going to be used during the study, while methods refer to how, when and where they would be used. 8 This section needs to be written in great detail so that if other researcher wants to do a similar study, he can replicate the steps.

When writing this section of an observational or interventional study, the following things need to be elaborated; study design, study setting, participants information including inclusion and exclusion criteria, intervention, primary and secondary outcome measures/criteria, sample size estimation, and statistics. Similarly based upon the study design other important information as elaborated in the different guidelines must be provided. In case, the intervention is a new or modified surgery, then its steps need to be elaborated, else reference to a standard text is sufficient. Similarly, if the outcome is a known score such as Harris hip score, Tegner activity scale, etc., then reference to the original text needs to be provided. A line about ethical clearance must also be provided.

Results: In the result section of the manuscript one presents his observations, made by synthesizing the data obtained during the research. The following data must be provided in the result section. 9

• Participant data, which includes participant flow and baseline data.
• Outcome data, which includes data about the primary and secondary outcome measures.
• Ancillary data, which include significant finding other than the primary and secondary outcome measures.
• Any other findings including complications.

One must understand that of all the data sets the outcome data is the most important and must usually constitute the major portion of the result section. Summary data about all the primary and secondary outcomes outlined in the methods sections must be provided. If there are more than one group, besides the summary data the contrast between the two groups known as the effect size must be provided. When test of significance are used the results must be represented as the exact “ P ” value.

This section should usually be a mix of narration, tables, graphs, and figures. However, the tendency of the same data being presented in more than one form should be avoided. Another common mistake that should be avoided is that one must not start interpreting or discussing the results in the result section. Finally over, under, or misreported of results must not be done.

Discussion: This section provides a space for the author for dialog with the reader and a platform for logical argumentation and critical analysis of one's work. 10 The discussion section of the manuscript usually has four important sections; summary of the study and results, strengths and limitations of the study, comparison of results with existing literature and importance of findings for practice, policy, and future research. In the summary of the study and results, authors must initially give a brief statement about the study followed by the study's key findings concisely without quoting data. One must discuss if the results support the research hypothesis and provide an answer to the research questions raised in the introduction section. After this, the technical and factual strengths and limitations of the study should be highlighted. While discussing the strengths, one must not go overboard. One must not state or assume that ones method are best and flawless and should also not attack methods adopted by other researchers. Similarly while discussing the limitations, one must not be very apologetic. The limitations and the reason for it must be enumerated and the steps taken to mitigate their effect must be discussed. One must not give unwarranted justifications for the limitations. Following this, the results must be compared with the existing literature. While doing it, one must ensure that one discusses studies on both sides of the issue, i.e., one must not only discuss studies that support ones results but also the ones which have different results. While discussing the differences or common point, the reasons for the same must also be discussed. Finally, authors must provide directions for future research and implications for clinical practice and policy. While doing this authors must ensure that the importance of the findings are not inflated or exaggerated. Finally, a brief conclusion based on the study results must be provided.

Besides these four sections, the abstract of the manuscript needs to be written with great care. 11 Most editors and reviewers make a preliminary decision about accepting or rejecting a manuscript based on the abstract. Moreover, if a manuscript does get accepted, the abstract is its most read part because of it being readily accessible while doing an electronic search. There are two types of abstract formats; the traditional or unstructured abstract and the structured abstract. The traditional unstructured abstract is written in the form of a paragraph without any subheadings. Although very readable sometimes vital information is missed inadvertently in an unstructured abstract. Therefore, nowadays most journals including the Indian Journal of Orthopaedics want authors to submit a structured abstract for their original articles. A structured abstract has relevant subsections such as the background, material and methods, results and conclusion. Evaluation studies have shown that structured abstracts contain more information, are of higher quality and facilitate better peer review. Each section of the abstract must be written clearly and comprehensively so that the gist of the paper is understood by the readers by reading it alone.

Keywords, MeSH terms, tables, figures, graphs, references, and acknowledgment are the other usual contents of a manuscript. Detailed instructions about these are provided in the “instruction to author” section of all journals and authors must familiarize themselves with them before preparing and submitting their manuscripts. If authors have some confusion, they must go through previously published articles in the same journal to understand the journal style and write accordingly.

Medical writing is an art which needs to be groomed. The more one writes the better one becomes at it. At Indian Journal of Orthopaedics we make all efforts not to reject a manuscript based only on its language or structure, especially if the topic is good. But definitely, well written and structured manuscripts have better chances of being accepted. We hope this editorial would help authors understand how they must write a manuscript so that not only has it a good chance of being accepted but also of being well received and appreciated by the readers if it is published.

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: researchagent: iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models.

Abstract: Scientific Research, vital for improving human life, is hindered by its inherent complexity, slow pace, and the need for specialized experts. To enhance its productivity, we propose a ResearchAgent, a large language model-powered research idea writing agent, which automatically generates problems, methods, and experiment designs while iteratively refining them based on scientific literature. Specifically, starting with a core paper as the primary focus to generate ideas, our ResearchAgent is augmented not only with relevant publications through connecting information over an academic graph but also entities retrieved from an entity-centric knowledge store based on their underlying concepts, mined and shared across numerous papers. In addition, mirroring the human approach to iteratively improving ideas with peer discussions, we leverage multiple ReviewingAgents that provide reviews and feedback iteratively. Further, they are instantiated with human preference-aligned large language models whose criteria for evaluation are derived from actual human judgments. We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines, showcasing its effectiveness in generating novel, clear, and valid research ideas based on human and model-based evaluation results.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

About 1 in 4 u.s. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year.

Twenty-five years after the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado , a majority of public K-12 teachers (59%) say they are at least somewhat worried about the possibility of a shooting ever happening at their school. This includes 18% who say they’re extremely or very worried, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand public K-12 teachers’ views on school shootings, how prepared they feel for a potential active shooter, and how they feel about policies that could help prevent future shootings.

To do this, we surveyed 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers from Oct. 17 to Nov. 14, 2023. The teachers are members of RAND’s American Teacher Panel, a nationally representative panel of public school K-12 teachers recruited through MDR Education. Survey data is weighted to state and national teacher characteristics to account for differences in sampling and response to ensure they are representative of the target population.

We also used data from our 2022 survey of U.S. parents. For that project, we surveyed 3,757 U.S. parents with at least one child younger than 18 from Sept. 20 to Oct. 2, 2022. Find more details about the survey of parents here .

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Another 31% of teachers say they are not too worried about a shooting occurring at their school. Only 7% of teachers say they are not at all worried.

This survey comes at a time when school shootings are at a record high (82 in 2023) and gun safety continues to be a topic in 2024 election campaigns .

Teachers’ experiences with lockdowns

About a quarter of teachers (23%) say they experienced a lockdown in the 2022-23 school year because of a gun or suspicion of a gun at their school. Some 15% say this happened once during the year, and 8% say this happened more than once.

High school teachers are most likely to report experiencing these lockdowns: 34% say their school went on at least one gun-related lockdown in the last school year. This compares with 22% of middle school teachers and 16% of elementary school teachers.

Teachers in urban schools are also more likely to say that their school had a gun-related lockdown. About a third of these teachers (31%) say this, compared with 19% of teachers in suburban schools and 20% in rural schools.

Do teachers feel their school has prepared them for an active shooter?

About four-in-ten teachers (39%) say their school has done a fair or poor job providing them with the training and resources they need to deal with a potential active shooter.

A smaller share (30%) give their school an excellent or very good rating, and another 30% say their school has done a good job preparing them.

Teachers in urban schools are the least likely to say their school has done an excellent or very good job preparing them for a potential active shooter. About one-in-five (21%) say this, compared with 32% of teachers in suburban schools and 35% in rural schools.

Teachers who have police officers or armed security stationed in their school are more likely than those who don’t to say their school has done an excellent or very good job preparing them for a potential active shooter (36% vs. 22%).

Overall, 56% of teachers say they have police officers or armed security stationed at their school. Majorities in rural schools (64%) and suburban schools (56%) say this, compared with 48% in urban schools.

Only 3% of teachers say teachers and administrators at their school are allowed to carry guns in school. This is slightly more common in school districts where a majority of voters cast ballots for Donald Trump in 2020 than in school districts where a majority of voters cast ballots for Joe Biden (5% vs. 1%).

What strategies do teachers think could help prevent school shootings?

The survey also asked teachers how effective some measures would be at preventing school shootings.

Most teachers (69%) say improving mental health screening and treatment for children and adults would be extremely or very effective.

About half (49%) say having police officers or armed security in schools would be highly effective, while 33% say the same about metal detectors in schools.

Just 13% say allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in schools would be extremely or very effective at preventing school shootings. Seven-in-ten teachers say this would be not too or not at all effective.

How teachers’ views differ by party

Republican and Republican-leaning teachers are more likely than Democratic and Democratic-leaning teachers to say each of the following would be highly effective:

• Having police officers or armed security in schools (69% vs. 37%)
• Having metal detectors in schools (43% vs. 27%)
• Allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in schools (28% vs. 3%)

And while majorities in both parties say improving mental health screening and treatment would be highly effective at preventing school shootings, Democratic teachers are more likely than Republican teachers to say this (73% vs. 66%).

Parents’ views on school shootings and prevention strategies

In fall 2022, we asked parents a similar set of questions about school shootings.

Roughly a third of parents with K-12 students (32%) said they were extremely or very worried about a shooting ever happening at their child’s school. An additional 37% said they were somewhat worried.

As is the case among teachers, improving mental health screening and treatment was the only strategy most parents (63%) said would be extremely or very effective at preventing school shootings. And allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in schools was seen as the least effective – in fact, half of parents said this would be not too or not at all effective. This question was asked of all parents with a child younger than 18, regardless of whether they have a child in K-12 schools.

Like teachers, parents’ views on strategies for preventing school shootings differed by party. 

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

‘Back to school’ means anytime from late July to after Labor Day, depending on where in the U.S. you live

Among many u.s. children, reading for fun has become less common, federal data shows, most european students learn english in school, for u.s. teens today, summer means more schooling and less leisure time than in the past, about one-in-six u.s. teachers work second jobs – and not just in the summer, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

New policy paper on access to publicly funded research

Published research outputs often end up locked behind paywalls, unavailable to many researchers and the broader public, impeding scientific – and human – progress. Despite progress in the area of open science, research funded by the European public is no exception to this. In many cases, European taxpayers are essentially asked to pay up twice, once for funding the research and again for access to the final publication. One reason for this is the transfer of copyright ownership. To comply with contractual demands, researchers routinely outright transfer their economic exploitation rights to publishers, or fail to retain sufficient rights that would allow them or their funders to republish or reuse their work. This contradicts the primary goal of research, which is to maximise its impact by sharing it as widely as possible in a timely manner.

Today, COMMUNIA is releasing Policy Paper #17 on access to publicly funded research (also available as a PDF file ), in which we propose a targeted intervention in European copyright law to improve access to publicly funded research:

We recommend a three-tiered approach to open publicly funded research outputs to the public, immediately upon publication, where a secondary publication obligation co-exists with a secondary publication right. We consider that an obligation by the funding recipients to republish is a more consequential approach to protect the public interest, as it makes Open Access (OA) mandatory, ultimately ensuring that publicly funded research outputs are republished in OA repositories. A right is, however, necessary to ensure that the authors, and subsequently the funding recipients, retain the rights necessary to comply with the obligation. A  right also provides a legal framework for the dissemination in OA repositories of publicly funded research outputs published before the entry into force of a secondary publication obligation.

In addition, we recommend the introduction of a copyright exception for the benefit of knowledge institutions, such as libraries and archives, to further support the task of making available research outputs published before the entry into force of secondary publication rights and obligations.

Resolving these issues would ideally be part of a more comprehensive regulation, a  Digital Knowledge Act , which addresses the needs of research organisations and other knowledge institutions in the digital environment more broadly.

• #copyright reform
• #publicly funded research
• #secondary publication exception
• #secondary publication obligation
• #secondary publication right